It's the usual process of trying to give insignificant things significance by misusing words. For example, calling something censorship when it's not, saying a device was bricked even though it can be revived by the average user, calling something theft even though nothing was removed, calling unauthorized copying plagiarism.
I learn much better and faster from books than lectures. The material in books can be refined greatly and precisely, and digested at whatever rate I can manage. Watching someone lecture always leaves me feeling that I could be getting many times the knowledge using a more efficient delivery mechanism.
I saw that part, but the opening line "get special treatment without actually violating network neutrality" still implies violation in spirit. The fact is they aren't getting special treatment, unless you consider me to be getting special treatment from my landlord becuase I pay the rent on the place I stay.
im repeating this over and over whenever similar nonsense comes up. there is no evading capitalism come to this point. from property rights, to ownership of ideas, to ownership of genes, and then to ownership of entire species. if you 'let businesses be', this happens.
If you 'let government be', this happens. Fixed that for you. Let businesses control their own real, physical, tangible property, and nothing more.
Google has found a way to get special treatment from Verizon without actually compromising net neutrality
Why does the opening sentence imply that this compromises net neutrality in spirit? It has nothing to do with net neutrality, which is about ARTIFICIALLY restricting speeds based merely on who the data is coming from. In this case, putting your equipment closer to the end-user is less costly, due to physics.
I'm just wondering, does this "ground law" also have poor latency? I mean, I can understand, being that it's been around since before modern networking technology.
Any reason they need tri-color LEDs, rather than just bi-color ones? That would still allow a smooth gradient between red and green. I guess it lacks the cool-factor of a blue LED. Everything has to have a blue LED these days.
Seriously, folks, they're just automating the updates that everyone installs already. It saves us time, which last time I checked was a valuable commodity.
Except those people who don't. Next you'll be telling me that everyone always uses the latest version of everything, since the latest versions never have bugs or problems that previous versions had, and are never slower, etc.
I know this sounds very arrogant, but I would love to see trials change so you're actually judged by your peers instead of members of the public, so for example doctors by doctors, network admin by other network admin, and such. That way you can get a bunch of people who know how far this person has stepped out of line.
You haven't thought this idea through very far. Politicians judged by fellow politicians, gang members judged by fellow gang members, need I go on?
Mr. Childs DID have a peer (or more realistically a better) on his jury. [...] Also remember that it takes only one juror for a mistrial. All jurors have to agree for a conviction.
And be sure some moron didn't install them with only half-inch screws. Whenever I move into a new place, I replace the deadbold screws with 3 inch screws.
Most criminals dont want to get caught, so they avoid places that has cameras. Dont scrimp and buy a dummy. Thieves are NOT dummies, they know the difference.
Could they tell whether you had a non-working camera? One with a network cable connected, but not even powered? Obviously you don't use a fake camera that freaking looks fake; it has to be a real shell and lense, etc., just not the electronics.
Alexander J. Yee & Shigeru Kondo claim to have calculated the number pi to 5 trillion places, on a single desktop and in record time. The main computation took 90 days on Shigeru Kondo's desktop
How big was this desk, and what was sitting on its top that was doing the actual calculation? It's odd to simply refer to a piece of furniture as doing the calculation.
If you want peace of mind, yeah, put surveillance and monitoring, or just get insurance and back your data up. If you want to deter thieves, you just need to make it an unattractive target. You could put fake cameras and blinking lights, but that might tell a thief that there's something worth stealing.
What's more surprising is that several times in the past I've had people here reply that I'm wrong, that 100 times more than 0.3 really is 30. Usually once I give examples like "Well, how many times more than 0.3 is 0.3?" they see their error.
$ bc
bc 1.06.95
Copyright 1991-1994, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2004, 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
For details type `warranty'.
0.3*99
29.7
0.3*100
30.0
0.3*99 ; "99 times"
29.7
29.7+0.3 ; "more than 0.3" <-- you left this step out
30.0
Until then, Intel enjoys a monopoly, and it's not fair to let them set arbitrary prices on their physical chips, because nobody else can make them without Intel's blessing.
No disagreement. Sure nice how our patent system results in the government exerting centralized control of production and prices.
Intel's physical property exists only because of government meddling. Until that's changed, it's just as well that the government further meddle to mitigate the damage they've already done.
It'd be better if the government stopped creating artificial scarcity in the first place, so that no company could monopolize anything in the first place. More government interference will only make things worse for us.
For example, while CPU utilization of Thunderbird 2 is usually between 0% to 10%, with an average of 0.3%, Thunderbird 3 CPU utilization is between 5% to 80% with an average of 30% -- 100 times more than Thunderbird 2.
Actually, 30% is only 99 times more than 0.3%. If you wanted to use the 100 figure, you'd need to say "100 times that of Thunderbird 2".
Any "property rights" Intel has in CPUs are a fiction created by the government patent office. Likewise, antitrust laws are a fiction created by the government. It's all the same thing, but it defines how the system currently works.
The current laws on the books do not conform to your Randian property utopia. If you don't like the rules, lobby to get them changed.
You consider it a utopia to think that a person deciding what to do with his own physical property is a utopia? I'm talking about real physical tangible objects-you-can-hold property rights here (I've heard that Rand was an IP-advocate). If Intel wants to offer its real tangible physical processors-you-can-hold-in-your-hands for differing prices based on the behavior of the buyer, then so be it; the buyer is always free to decline buying from Intel.
It's as if maths was just arithmetic or English was taught as just spelling.
More like, if maths were just learning to use a calculator. Learning to use a spreadsheet or word processor isn't even about computing. If that passes for computing, then driver's ed could replace physics, and home economics chemistry. It's like they thing that if a computer is involved, it has something to do with computer science. But computers are in almost everything these days.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't P != NP simply mean that there exist crypto algorithms that are secure, but not necessarily that a particular one is secure?
Correct. This is our chance to rebel, to have weapons the sharks cannot match, so finally be free of our masters...
The summary doesn't say any different:
It's the usual process of trying to give insignificant things significance by misusing words. For example, calling something censorship when it's not, saying a device was bricked even though it can be revived by the average user, calling something theft even though nothing was removed, calling unauthorized copying plagiarism.
I learn much better and faster from books than lectures. The material in books can be refined greatly and precisely, and digested at whatever rate I can manage. Watching someone lecture always leaves me feeling that I could be getting many times the knowledge using a more efficient delivery mechanism.
I saw that part, but the opening line "get special treatment without actually violating network neutrality" still implies violation in spirit. The fact is they aren't getting special treatment, unless you consider me to be getting special treatment from my landlord becuase I pay the rent on the place I stay.
If you 'let government be', this happens. Fixed that for you. Let businesses control their own real, physical, tangible property, and nothing more.
Why does the opening sentence imply that this compromises net neutrality in spirit? It has nothing to do with net neutrality, which is about ARTIFICIALLY restricting speeds based merely on who the data is coming from. In this case, putting your equipment closer to the end-user is less costly, due to physics.
I'm just wondering, does this "ground law" also have poor latency? I mean, I can understand, being that it's been around since before modern networking technology.
Any reason they need tri-color LEDs, rather than just bi-color ones? That would still allow a smooth gradient between red and green. I guess it lacks the cool-factor of a blue LED. Everything has to have a blue LED these days.
instructable (n.) - person who can be instructed. See uninstructable.
So if your computer ever gets stolen or seized, you lose the things in that box too. Nice.
Except those people who don't. Next you'll be telling me that everyone always uses the latest version of everything, since the latest versions never have bugs or problems that previous versions had, and are never slower, etc.
You haven't thought this idea through very far. Politicians judged by fellow politicians, gang members judged by fellow gang members, need I go on?
But was he a fully-informed juror?
And be sure some moron didn't install them with only half-inch screws. Whenever I move into a new place, I replace the deadbold screws with 3 inch screws.
Could they tell whether you had a non-working camera? One with a network cable connected, but not even powered? Obviously you don't use a fake camera that freaking looks fake; it has to be a real shell and lense, etc., just not the electronics.
How big was this desk, and what was sitting on its top that was doing the actual calculation? It's odd to simply refer to a piece of furniture as doing the calculation.
If you want peace of mind, yeah, put surveillance and monitoring, or just get insurance and back your data up. If you want to deter thieves, you just need to make it an unattractive target. You could put fake cameras and blinking lights, but that might tell a thief that there's something worth stealing.
What's more surprising is that several times in the past I've had people here reply that I'm wrong, that 100 times more than 0.3 really is 30. Usually once I give examples like "Well, how many times more than 0.3 is 0.3?" they see their error.
0.3*99 ; "99 times"
29.7
29.7+0.3 ; "more than 0.3" <-- you left this step out
30.0
No disagreement. Sure nice how our patent system results in the government exerting centralized control of production and prices.
It'd be better if the government stopped creating artificial scarcity in the first place, so that no company could monopolize anything in the first place. More government interference will only make things worse for us.
Actually, 30% is only 99 times more than 0.3%. If you wanted to use the 100 figure, you'd need to say "100 times that of Thunderbird 2".
You consider it a utopia to think that a person deciding what to do with his own physical property is a utopia? I'm talking about real physical tangible objects-you-can-hold property rights here (I've heard that Rand was an IP-advocate). If Intel wants to offer its real tangible physical processors-you-can-hold-in-your-hands for differing prices based on the behavior of the buyer, then so be it; the buyer is always free to decline buying from Intel.
More like, if maths were just learning to use a calculator. Learning to use a spreadsheet or word processor isn't even about computing. If that passes for computing, then driver's ed could replace physics, and home economics chemistry. It's like they thing that if a computer is involved, it has something to do with computer science. But computers are in almost everything these days.