But like a fault-current limiter, but with a separate control conductor to generate the field. Couldn't switch a high load with it though, for obvious reasons.
Leave the drives where they are. Have the robot move the reader around. Just a little circuit board with a power supply and an interface between SATA and something (ATA over ethernet?) able to drive a long enough cable. You'd need to align it quite precisely as SATA+POWER isn't self-centering, but there'd be no need to deal with grippers.
Flash works quite well. Not ideal, but good enough. Faster than spinning discs, no significant seek time, durable enough to last the expected life of a laptop now.
Unless you mean the other flash. In which case, death is too good for it.
Use them just like tape media. You can even have a robot to pull them out of storage, or plug a small SATA controller and power device into the one you need to access.
I've seen some Christians who refuse to accept the label, because they believe the term has lost all meaning due to the vast number of people who call themselves Christians but pay minimal heed to the religion.
They instead insist on being called 'Christ-followers' to distinguish themselves from all the casual Christians-by-tradition who won't really follow the religion at all.
There's also a rich history of various Christian denominations declaring another denomination aren't really Christian at all because they disagree on some aspect of the religion.
In this case, it's a non-religion deliberately 'faking' being a religion in order to benefit from legal protections or benefits granted to religious organisations and practices.
A lot like the 'church' of Scientology, to give a familiar example.
Or medi-share, a 'religious organisation' which, in exchange for a monthly contribution, promises to try to help with unexpected medical costs. A lot like a health insurance company - but by being legally a church, they can also be tax exempt.
Religious organisations get so many legal advantages, it's no great surprise some organisations would adopt religious appearance in order to take advantage.
The fire alarm isn't my area. I assume it has battery backup.
The doors, however, do not. And yes, there is a cable linking the fire alarm control boxes in each utility room to the door control boxes that will unlock the doors in the event of fire.
Similar trick on ours. The doors also have those flip-up-and-down levers on the inside edges that allow for one side to be locked shut. We've no actual use for them, they are just part of the 'stanard' door that the builders purchased and installed. The children soon worked out that if you flip the lever down, the bolt comes out the top of the door and stops it closing. Which means the magnet can't make contact with the locking plate. So now there is a crew that always flips the bolts when they come through in the allowed direction, so that when they later come the the other way they can get through.
We use low-security locks at my employer. Electronic. The fastening is electromagnetic.
Why? Because there are children around, which means that in the event of a fire we need to be able to evacuate very quickly. A fire that could potentially burn through power cables before setting off the alarms. The electromagnet locks are failsafe - if the power fails, the locks unlock. There's also a physical power cut button (The 'break glass' type) on one side of most of the doors.
Or they just considered that if retroactive phone taps start appearing in drug trials, someone is eventually going to notice and start asking where this evidence is coming from.
But you're also wrong, because the definitions of words in common use change - just look at all the fuss 'hacker' has given over the years. First embraced as an identifier as skill, then media coverage turned it into a word of stigma associated with destruction and criminal activity, and now being reclaimed for the original meaning.
Even if someone is attracted to children, they aren't going to tell anyone - they'd end up with a brick thrown through their window.
I'm surprised Piers Anthony can still get published. He's one of those 'ethical pedophiles,' but uses his writing to express it. It can get quite creepy at times.
The original idea was that banning the pictures would greatly reduce demand for them, thus eliminating the economic inventive towards the child abuse required for their production.
That's the excuse, anyway. It doesn't explain why many countries then expanded the definition to include photoshopped images where no abuse actually took place ('pesudo-photographs' is the term in UK law), artistic depictions, artistic depictions of non-human characters that have some characteristics of human children (Yes, the UK even thought of that one!) and even completly fictional stories.
The real reason is much simpler. A collective desire: 'This stuff makes me feel icky and I hate the people who like it, so it should be illegal.'
To clarify: 'Doctor' is indeed his name. Time lords, by their custom, may adopt a new title of their choosing to serve as their name, and from that point on no longer use their old name - though the exact circumstances in which this happens are unclear, it seems to apply predominantly to those who have left Gallifrey or who hold a high rank. The Doctor, the Master, the Rani, the Valeyard, the Corsair.
But he also has a doctorate that would be recognised on earth - honorary, but sufficient to get the title. Thus he may be addressed as 'Dr Doctor.'
He may also be assumed to have graduated from the Academy on Gallifrey with something equal to or greater than a doctorate, as this is a requirement to be a licensed (Since revoked) TARDIS traveler. The time lords don't let just any meddler screw around with time - there's a training course.
Until the religious fanatics realise that it is far easier to pass a law imposing mandatory filtering on a government network than it would be to impose the same filter on a private network. I imagine "No tax money for porn!" would be a good rallying cry.
For example, there is a propaganda piece called 180 made in 2011 which has, as a central premise, the idea that people today are already forgetting who Hitler was. Soon after it opens there is a montage of interviews, as person after person is asked and claims no knowledge of the name or the events of world war 2.
Misleading, of course - because what the producer actually did was interview many, many, many people and only show those interviews which agree with his point. For every person he could find who had never heard of Hitler, there may have been a hundred who had - and he just didn't show them. At no point did he misquote anyone, yet he was still able to give a false impression about historical knowledge in the casual US population.
There's almost more general competition. He controls a media empire: Television production, broadcast networks, newspapers. Maintaining an empire like that depends to some extent on barrier to entry and economy of scale considerations - no new startup channel is going to appear to compete with his own because they would be unable to afford to set up studios or license content, and even if they could they don't own huge cable networks or geostationary broadcast satellites, and even renting some capacity on his own networks costs a lot of money - there's a reason all those religious channels, shopping channels and very niche-interests live up in the 900s on the episode guide.
The internet changes that. Anyone with a little skill and some very affordable equipment can set up like That Guy With The Glasses or SF Debris did - all the time people spend watching videos off of such websites is time they might otherwise be spending watching television.
Other way around. He was implying the holocaust was justified using a threat narrative. Even the Nazis couldn't just declare time for a bit of genocide. They had to first build up some level of public support by spreading stories about the Jewish 'threat' - they told stories of how Jews sabotaged the first world war leading to Germany's humiliating defeat, accused Jewish bankers of deliberately crippling the economy with hyperinflation for their own profit, and warned that with the high birth rate in the Jewish population their inferior race of lower intelligence would take over all of Germany and hold the country back culturally, intellectually and economically. Thus they invented this threat narrative - one powerful enough that once the government began forcing Jews into ghettos and shipping them off to 'relocation' centers, public objection and protest was limited enough to contain with standard police-state measures.
If you want an American example, there is the Japanese American Internment, in which the US government placed more than a hundred thousand American citizens of Japanese ancestry into camps out of a fear that their ethnicity may cause them to remain loyal to the 'country of their people' and lead them to sabotage the war effort. The conditions in some camps were little better than the German concentration camps.
The incident is regarded as something of a awkward moment in history now - the standard narrative of the mighty US defeating the evil of the Nazis and their Japanese allies is lessened by the idea that the US at the time not only had active eugenics programs but a policy of rounding up citizens of undesireable ethnicity and locking them into poorly-built concentration camps. People really don't like to face a history that isn't made of good-vs-evil.
Jews are very good at finding loopholes. They came up with the idea of the eruv: If your religious law prohibits carrying objects across property boundries on shabbat, then just have everyone agree to a collective ownership agreement every week and thus eliminate the boundries.
There's a company in Israel that makes a gas cooker with a 24-hour ignition timer. Jewish law prohibits lighting a fire on shabbat, but doesn't say anything about buying a machine that will light it if you start the timer on the previous day.
First, the lack of any compelling advantage. Windows 7 *works*. Hell, Windows XP still works for a lot of people. What is the killer feature of Windows 8, the one everyone wants? There simply isn't one. People don't like the hastle of changing OS, so they aren't going to do it without a good reason.
Secondly, some business decisions MS made about the direction the company wants to go. From a business perspective, great moves - they are copying the plans already pioneered by Apple an Google. Rather than simply making an operating system, MS is now focusing on the entire ecosystem. A family of OSs to cover everything from your mobile phone to a server, all in a unified framework. Easy porting of software between them. An app store. Windows becomes more than just a utility, it becomes a way to promote a wide variety of products. From the perspective of the end users though, these are just more annoyances - a change of interface for no apparent reason (Until you realise MS are aiming for a unified interface across all devices), Apple-style restrictions on software installation start appearing (The typical end-user has no idea that 'Windows RT' is anything other than windows for tablets), and the prospect of Secure Boot ready to screw up imaging procedures and that ever-worrying threat that one day the ability to boot a non-Windows OS may be taken away entirely.
MS must have known about the backlash that would come from introducing metro and from causing confusion with a not-really-windows ARM version under the same name. I think this is their strategic approach: They are making an OS that they know everyone is going to loathe, because even by failing it'll secure an advantagious position for Microsoft in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
But like a fault-current limiter, but with a separate control conductor to generate the field. Couldn't switch a high load with it though, for obvious reasons.
Maybe you're doing it backwards.
Leave the drives where they are. Have the robot move the reader around. Just a little circuit board with a power supply and an interface between SATA and something (ATA over ethernet?) able to drive a long enough cable. You'd need to align it quite precisely as SATA+POWER isn't self-centering, but there'd be no need to deal with grippers.
Flash works quite well. Not ideal, but good enough. Faster than spinning discs, no significant seek time, durable enough to last the expected life of a laptop now.
Unless you mean the other flash. In which case, death is too good for it.
Spun-down discs. Disconnected.
Use them just like tape media. You can even have a robot to pull them out of storage, or plug a small SATA controller and power device into the one you need to access.
I just spent ten minutes describing exactly how JBIG works here before noticing someone already realised what is happening and put it up on the page.
Don't forget copyright infringement.
I'm sure someone in the Russian government would consider that amusingly appropriate.
I've seen some Christians who refuse to accept the label, because they believe the term has lost all meaning due to the vast number of people who call themselves Christians but pay minimal heed to the religion.
They instead insist on being called 'Christ-followers' to distinguish themselves from all the casual Christians-by-tradition who won't really follow the religion at all.
There's also a rich history of various Christian denominations declaring another denomination aren't really Christian at all because they disagree on some aspect of the religion.
In this case, it's a non-religion deliberately 'faking' being a religion in order to benefit from legal protections or benefits granted to religious organisations and practices.
A lot like the 'church' of Scientology, to give a familiar example.
Or medi-share, a 'religious organisation' which, in exchange for a monthly contribution, promises to try to help with unexpected medical costs. A lot like a health insurance company - but by being legally a church, they can also be tax exempt.
Religious organisations get so many legal advantages, it's no great surprise some organisations would adopt religious appearance in order to take advantage.
Either.
The fire alarm isn't my area. I assume it has battery backup.
The doors, however, do not. And yes, there is a cable linking the fire alarm control boxes in each utility room to the door control boxes that will unlock the doors in the event of fire.
Similar trick on ours. The doors also have those flip-up-and-down levers on the inside edges that allow for one side to be locked shut. We've no actual use for them, they are just part of the 'stanard' door that the builders purchased and installed. The children soon worked out that if you flip the lever down, the bolt comes out the top of the door and stops it closing. Which means the magnet can't make contact with the locking plate. So now there is a crew that always flips the bolts when they come through in the allowed direction, so that when they later come the the other way they can get through.
We use low-security locks at my employer. Electronic. The fastening is electromagnetic.
Why? Because there are children around, which means that in the event of a fire we need to be able to evacuate very quickly. A fire that could potentially burn through power cables before setting off the alarms. The electromagnet locks are failsafe - if the power fails, the locks unlock. There's also a physical power cut button (The 'break glass' type) on one side of most of the doors.
Or they just considered that if retroactive phone taps start appearing in drug trials, someone is eventually going to notice and start asking where this evidence is coming from.
You're quite right.
But you're also wrong, because the definitions of words in common use change - just look at all the fuss 'hacker' has given over the years. First embraced as an identifier as skill, then media coverage turned it into a word of stigma associated with destruction and criminal activity, and now being reclaimed for the original meaning.
Even if someone is attracted to children, they aren't going to tell anyone - they'd end up with a brick thrown through their window.
I'm surprised Piers Anthony can still get published. He's one of those 'ethical pedophiles,' but uses his writing to express it. It can get quite creepy at times.
The original idea was that banning the pictures would greatly reduce demand for them, thus eliminating the economic inventive towards the child abuse required for their production.
That's the excuse, anyway. It doesn't explain why many countries then expanded the definition to include photoshopped images where no abuse actually took place ('pesudo-photographs' is the term in UK law), artistic depictions, artistic depictions of non-human characters that have some characteristics of human children (Yes, the UK even thought of that one!) and even completly fictional stories.
The real reason is much simpler. A collective desire: 'This stuff makes me feel icky and I hate the people who like it, so it should be illegal.'
Rassilon wouldn't count - he is from very early in Time Lord history, so customs may have been different then.
His name just ended up *becoming* a title.
Romana was an Academy graduate of very high achievement, so it's probably not an educational thing.
To clarify: 'Doctor' is indeed his name. Time lords, by their custom, may adopt a new title of their choosing to serve as their name, and from that point on no longer use their old name - though the exact circumstances in which this happens are unclear, it seems to apply predominantly to those who have left Gallifrey or who hold a high rank. The Doctor, the Master, the Rani, the Valeyard, the Corsair.
But he also has a doctorate that would be recognised on earth - honorary, but sufficient to get the title. Thus he may be addressed as 'Dr Doctor.'
He may also be assumed to have graduated from the Academy on Gallifrey with something equal to or greater than a doctorate, as this is a requirement to be a licensed (Since revoked) TARDIS traveler. The time lords don't let just any meddler screw around with time - there's a training course.
Until the religious fanatics realise that it is far easier to pass a law imposing mandatory filtering on a government network than it would be to impose the same filter on a private network. I imagine "No tax money for porn!" would be a good rallying cry.
Quoting customers can be misleading.
For example, there is a propaganda piece called 180 made in 2011 which has, as a central premise, the idea that people today are already forgetting who Hitler was. Soon after it opens there is a montage of interviews, as person after person is asked and claims no knowledge of the name or the events of world war 2.
Misleading, of course - because what the producer actually did was interview many, many, many people and only show those interviews which agree with his point. For every person he could find who had never heard of Hitler, there may have been a hundred who had - and he just didn't show them. At no point did he misquote anyone, yet he was still able to give a false impression about historical knowledge in the casual US population.
There's almost more general competition. He controls a media empire: Television production, broadcast networks, newspapers. Maintaining an empire like that depends to some extent on barrier to entry and economy of scale considerations - no new startup channel is going to appear to compete with his own because they would be unable to afford to set up studios or license content, and even if they could they don't own huge cable networks or geostationary broadcast satellites, and even renting some capacity on his own networks costs a lot of money - there's a reason all those religious channels, shopping channels and very niche-interests live up in the 900s on the episode guide.
The internet changes that. Anyone with a little skill and some very affordable equipment can set up like That Guy With The Glasses or SF Debris did - all the time people spend watching videos off of such websites is time they might otherwise be spending watching television.
Other way around. He was implying the holocaust was justified using a threat narrative. Even the Nazis couldn't just declare time for a bit of genocide. They had to first build up some level of public support by spreading stories about the Jewish 'threat' - they told stories of how Jews sabotaged the first world war leading to Germany's humiliating defeat, accused Jewish bankers of deliberately crippling the economy with hyperinflation for their own profit, and warned that with the high birth rate in the Jewish population their inferior race of lower intelligence would take over all of Germany and hold the country back culturally, intellectually and economically. Thus they invented this threat narrative - one powerful enough that once the government began forcing Jews into ghettos and shipping them off to 'relocation' centers, public objection and protest was limited enough to contain with standard police-state measures.
If you want an American example, there is the Japanese American Internment, in which the US government placed more than a hundred thousand American citizens of Japanese ancestry into camps out of a fear that their ethnicity may cause them to remain loyal to the 'country of their people' and lead them to sabotage the war effort. The conditions in some camps were little better than the German concentration camps.
The incident is regarded as something of a awkward moment in history now - the standard narrative of the mighty US defeating the evil of the Nazis and their Japanese allies is lessened by the idea that the US at the time not only had active eugenics programs but a policy of rounding up citizens of undesireable ethnicity and locking them into poorly-built concentration camps. People really don't like to face a history that isn't made of good-vs-evil.
Jews are very good at finding loopholes. They came up with the idea of the eruv: If your religious law prohibits carrying objects across property boundries on shabbat, then just have everyone agree to a collective ownership agreement every week and thus eliminate the boundries.
There's a company in Israel that makes a gas cooker with a 24-hour ignition timer. Jewish law prohibits lighting a fire on shabbat, but doesn't say anything about buying a machine that will light it if you start the timer on the previous day.
Very important actually. The ratio of atoms in the molecule is also the ratio by volume of gases at equal pressure you need to make it.
There are two real problems to Windows 8.
First, the lack of any compelling advantage. Windows 7 *works*. Hell, Windows XP still works for a lot of people. What is the killer feature of Windows 8, the one everyone wants? There simply isn't one. People don't like the hastle of changing OS, so they aren't going to do it without a good reason.
Secondly, some business decisions MS made about the direction the company wants to go. From a business perspective, great moves - they are copying the plans already pioneered by Apple an Google. Rather than simply making an operating system, MS is now focusing on the entire ecosystem. A family of OSs to cover everything from your mobile phone to a server, all in a unified framework. Easy porting of software between them. An app store. Windows becomes more than just a utility, it becomes a way to promote a wide variety of products. From the perspective of the end users though, these are just more annoyances - a change of interface for no apparent reason (Until you realise MS are aiming for a unified interface across all devices), Apple-style restrictions on software installation start appearing (The typical end-user has no idea that 'Windows RT' is anything other than windows for tablets), and the prospect of Secure Boot ready to screw up imaging procedures and that ever-worrying threat that one day the ability to boot a non-Windows OS may be taken away entirely.
MS must have known about the backlash that would come from introducing metro and from causing confusion with a not-really-windows ARM version under the same name. I think this is their strategic approach: They are making an OS that they know everyone is going to loathe, because even by failing it'll secure an advantagious position for Microsoft in the future.