I'm surprised. I would have thought typesetting for an item which can get displayed on essentially an arbitrary size/shape "page" would be more work than for a fixed target. But I would find it very hard to attribute the 30 cent difference entirely to cover design. Thanks for the pointer.
I'm reaching the point where even if I'm pretty sure I'll watch it again I don't buy it til the second viewing, because sometimes I'm wrong. I have discs bought years ago that are still wrapped because I loved the movie in the theater but haven't pulled it back out. (At least one of those, however, I have watched since... on netflix streaming.)
Plus if I don't buy them I have something to put on birthday/xmas lists so my wife/mother can't say I'm impossible to shop for:)
This. Submitter asserts that you still can't be tortured, but how long would that last when the court is allowed to insist that you answer and can choose to disbelieve a denial of guilt? (And which amendment is "no torture for confessions" if not the self-incrimination clause of the fifth? If it's under court supervision, 'due process' is assumed...)
I'm afraid I don't see how FLT would be a consequence. Beal's says that A, B, and C have to have a common factor for there to be x, y, and z > 2 that work; FLT says that if x == y == z even a common factor won't make it work. Can you describe (roughly:) how FLT would derive from Beal's?
Well, based on River Song, regeneration seems to be closely linked to exposure to temporal energy. Given some of the weird temporal energy related stuff we've already seen (Rose, Jack, and the Weeping Angels come to mind) I don't think they'd have a hard time engineering a situation to replenish his pool. The hard part would be making it epic enough:)
probably. His "entire timeline", after all... I could see her missing (or not noticing) a very brief window, since she's not there every single second, and if Hurt's duration was mostly during the time war, it could have been hidden from her in the time bubble that the war went into.
journalist error. Someone else pointed out in a different thread that the original Nature article is claiming a 1000x sensitivity boost over older graphene detectors; no CMOS mentioned.
I think it was intended more as a 'whoosh'. You're replying to VortexCortex, who was recasting the MaxoTexas's assertion as a car analogy; I think AC thinks you think VC agrees with MT (though nothing in VC's comment indicates that, to me anyway) and are taking him literally rather than appreciating the car analogy joke. Then again, nothing in your comment really indicates you think that, so AC himself seems to be taking you (possibly) too literally. (My personal take... well, I think odds are pretty good that if/when my wife and I get a car that isn't a daily driver for one of us, it will be a Bug, preferably a 71 Super Beetle with a type-3 engine:) We'll need to be living somewhere we can do maintenance on it first, though.)
I think I'm not understanding your point of view. You said that it was possible that a secure path could be added later; I've asserted that while a path can be added, it's not possible to keep it secure. Given that, would you expect any content provider to bother creating a CDM for such an environment? I wouldn't, which brings us back to the "I gain nothing, in fact I lose because Flash won't play stuff" state.
actually, it's more than that: they can show that the drives are his _and_ that the drives contain illegal material. In other words, he's already been incriminated, and ordering him to give up the keys isn't considered to be "incriminating himself" anymore.
I think that a safe is the more common close analogy. If the FBI can prove to a judge's satisfaction that the safe is yours and contains illegal substances, you can be ordered to open it, and failure to comply is contempt of court. The only difference is that if you refuse with a safe, the FBI has (more destructive) ways to open it themselves.
oh, I think I understand. I think you thought I was saying "once I've got the software and license, I'm compliant" when what I meant to be saying is "if the distributor has the license in the same place as the tarball, he's compliant".
but you said it wasn't legal to download the copy without downloading the license. I'm confused. Are you saying it's legal because nobody can tell I didn't bother to download it, or were you previously assuming that the distributor was not actually making the license available?
on the one hand, that's easily defeated. On the other hand, adding a widget to a phone to allow recording while the main phone is approximately horizontal wouldn't be difficult or terribly obtrusive, so that's also easily defeated, but takes more investment... sounds like overall it could be almost as useful as the horizontal phone indication, but harder to tell if it's been defeated. *shrug*
Slashdot Mirror
I'm surprised. I would have thought typesetting for an item which can get displayed on essentially an arbitrary size/shape "page" would be more work than for a fixed target. But I would find it very hard to attribute the 30 cent difference entirely to cover design. Thanks for the pointer.
because the only reason to take a loss like that is to kill off competitors.
I'm reaching the point where even if I'm pretty sure I'll watch it again I don't buy it til the second viewing, because sometimes I'm wrong. I have discs bought years ago that are still wrapped because I loved the movie in the theater but haven't pulled it back out. (At least one of those, however, I have watched since... on netflix streaming.) :)
Plus if I don't buy them I have something to put on birthday/xmas lists so my wife/mother can't say I'm impossible to shop for
This. Submitter asserts that you still can't be tortured, but how long would that last when the court is allowed to insist that you answer and can choose to disbelieve a denial of guilt? (And which amendment is "no torture for confessions" if not the self-incrimination clause of the fifth? If it's under court supervision, 'due process' is assumed...)
maybe he's a closet cryptographer and if this is proven his new cipher scheme will be proven unbreakable and he can sell software for zillions.
I'm afraid I don't see how FLT would be a consequence. Beal's says that A, B, and C have to have a common factor for there to be x, y, and z > 2 that work; FLT says that if x == y == z even a common factor won't make it work. Can you describe (roughly :) how FLT would derive from Beal's?
Well, based on River Song, regeneration seems to be closely linked to exposure to temporal energy. Given some of the weird temporal energy related stuff we've already seen (Rose, Jack, and the Weeping Angels come to mind) I don't think they'd have a hard time engineering a situation to replenish his pool. The hard part would be making it epic enough :)
probably. His "entire timeline", after all... I could see her missing (or not noticing) a very brief window, since she's not there every single second, and if Hurt's duration was mostly during the time war, it could have been hidden from her in the time bubble that the war went into.
It seemed to me that almost nobody knows about the Time War (except the viewers), which I figured was a result of the "resolution" of the Time War.
the actual Nature article also isn't comparing to CMOS... it's saying the new graphene sensor is 1000x better than older graphene sensors.
journalist error. Someone else pointed out in a different thread that the original Nature article is claiming a 1000x sensitivity boost over older graphene detectors; no CMOS mentioned.
I think it was intended more as a 'whoosh'. You're replying to VortexCortex, who was recasting the MaxoTexas's assertion as a car analogy; I think AC thinks you think VC agrees with MT (though nothing in VC's comment indicates that, to me anyway) and are taking him literally rather than appreciating the car analogy joke. Then again, nothing in your comment really indicates you think that, so AC himself seems to be taking you (possibly) too literally. (My personal take... well, I think odds are pretty good that if/when my wife and I get a car that isn't a daily driver for one of us, it will be a Bug, preferably a 71 Super Beetle with a type-3 engine :) We'll need to be living somewhere we can do maintenance on it first, though.)
There's been something mentioned recently about the grain itself being fine, but the Roundup that sticks to it being bad for intestinal flora.
It's not native.
I think I'm not understanding your point of view. You said that it was possible that a secure path could be added later; I've asserted that while a path can be added, it's not possible to keep it secure. Given that, would you expect any content provider to bother creating a CDM for such an environment? I wouldn't, which brings us back to the "I gain nothing, in fact I lose because Flash won't play stuff" state.
if I control the rest of the kernel, the CDM cannot tell whether the protected path module is really protected.
if folks didn't think it was reasonable, nobody would be pushing such a bill.
absolutely. But they want to see everything else so they can charge him with as much as possible, and find as many other people as possible to charge.
actually, it's more than that: they can show that the drives are his _and_ that the drives contain illegal material. In other words, he's already been incriminated, and ordering him to give up the keys isn't considered to be "incriminating himself" anymore.
I think that a safe is the more common close analogy. If the FBI can prove to a judge's satisfaction that the safe is yours and contains illegal substances, you can be ordered to open it, and failure to comply is contempt of court. The only difference is that if you refuse with a safe, the FBI has (more destructive) ways to open it themselves.
I'll grant you "isn't supported in law", but "isn't reasonable" seems questionable, since that's the entire point of the bill described by TFA.
oh, I think I understand. I think you thought I was saying "once I've got the software and license, I'm compliant" when what I meant to be saying is "if the distributor has the license in the same place as the tarball, he's compliant".
but you said it wasn't legal to download the copy without downloading the license. I'm confused. Are you saying it's legal because nobody can tell I didn't bother to download it, or were you previously assuming that the distributor was not actually making the license available?
having the license in the same directory is, afaik, compliant, even if I don't download it. Not so?
on the one hand, that's easily defeated. On the other hand, adding a widget to a phone to allow recording while the main phone is approximately horizontal wouldn't be difficult or terribly obtrusive, so that's also easily defeated, but takes more investment... sounds like overall it could be almost as useful as the horizontal phone indication, but harder to tell if it's been defeated. *shrug*