There's an old story circulated among network engineers about a Canadian technician who used to do that to microwave telecom links he was sent out to service. After an unpleasant time crawling around on tall towers or dusty barely-heated equipment buildings, the story goes, he would lay down in front of the dish to get warm and rest. Sometimes falling asleep. Until one Christmas day he went to sleep there. Apparently on Christmas the dish power was turned up to maximum to allow for a clearer signal and higher useable bandwidth to accomodate the annual peak in phone traffic, and he died of hyperthermia.
It's just a story I heard. Probably never happened.
My workplace. It's a school. All-metal structure, metal plating everywhere there isn't a window. Not a full faraday cage, but enough that it's near-impossible to get a mobile phone connection anywhere inside. Annoys the students constantly, which makes me very happy.
More accurately, Freenet is based on the premise that *most* cells are incorruptible without detection. It's designed on the assumption that a potential attacker would be able to control a number of nodes, but that controlling the number required to allow detection would be both cost-prohibitive and noticeable. Tracing an upload on freenet would require the resources of an intelligence organisation. Common pirates simply aren't worth that kind of trouble.
Remember, you don't have to be untraceable. You just have to be more expensive to trace than your capture would be worth.
OSX does have one big advantage. It's written for a very limited range of hardware, which allows for far more extensive testing and optimisation. It's also high-volume enough to get the full support of the hardware manufacturers. If PCs only came in fifteen different models, you can be sure linux would run just as perfectly on them all.
People measure left and right relative to their own views. There is no ideal objective measure. You can write surveys for it, but all they do is embody the writers ideas of what left and right should be. Political alignment is all relative. As many have pointed out before me, a party that American standards would classify as on the left would be considered as on the right by European standards.
There's an implicit view in your post that the center, neutral ground, is where media should be. This is debateable. Efforts to avoid bias could be themselves seen as a form of bias, if facts observed support the positions of one wing more than another. For a media establishment to then appear neutral can only be achieved by counter-biasing their reporting, to make two arguments appear evenly matched when they are rightfully not.
If current conditions stagnate technologically and socially for an evolutionary significent amount of time, we'd see the 'idiocracy' scenario. The stupid people breed a lot more, so the average intelligence of the population would plumet. Not likely to happen in reality though, as the time scale for evolutionary chance is many orders of magnitude greater than that for more immediate forms of change.
Not a problem. Firstly, if you put the peltiers right under the finger contact points then you need dissipate a minimal amount of heat. You can do that by including heatsink in the center-lower section, where no fingers ever touch during play.
Most policing is focused not on preventing crime, but catching the criminals after the act. The high risk of capture than acts as a deterrent to commiting crime. In this case, you can be confident that the full force of the police is going to be thrown into this investigation - they've probably got people searching ebay for items matching those stolen, people collecting all the footage from CCTV cameras in the area and forensics studying the place in their white suits looking for evidence. All the intensive, expensive stuff that an ordinary burglery wouldn't merit.
You'd just end up with the browser codec fight over again. Microsoft would refuse to build any open standard into Windows if they could possibly help it, and no-one else (Maybe Apple) would be willing to license Microsoft's own technology.
Most policing is focused not on actively preventing crime, but on catching the criminal after the act - and making sure that any potential criminal knows that their eventual capture is probable, thus removing the incentive towards crime.
Maybe in the US. Here in the UK, teachers aren't allowed to touch students at all because the student could then just claim the touching was inappropriatly sexual, which would result in the immediate formation of a parental and media lynch mob followed by the rapid fireing of the accused.
I have not RTFA, but the only way I can envision that would be through the use of peltiers. Those will give both hot and cold with ease. The only downside is they suck up quite a lot of current - the battery life would render this impractical for wireless controllers.
Consider this project an experiment, then. If it works, we learn how. If it backfires terribly, we still learn how, and thus more about how to do it better.
Of all the approaches available to them, which would make Microsoft the most money? Including both direct profits, and any future benefits which might be had by increasing Microsoft's effective influence to further profit in related areas.
That is what the executives at Microsoft are asking. They don't care about openness, or user freedom, or anything else like that - except in so far as it affects the success of the company. So work out the answer to that question, and you can predict Microsoft's future actions.
The answer looks clear to me. A manditory app store would not only make Microsoft a fortune, but save them from the problem of needing to run an eternal upgrade cycle to keep users constantly buying new software. The power it gave them would also open up untold opportunity in other areas - they could use it to mandate support or lack of support for specific technologies (eg, no OpenGL-compatible games permitted), or prohibit software that could compete with Microsoft's own.
Wow, it's just like the teacher taking attendance! Except that it uses technology to automate the task, saving valuable lesson time. Clearly this is another example of government oppression.
Or does it work like patent law, where adding 'on a computer' to a well-established procedure turns it into something completly different?
How, in a democracy, does one go about passing a highly unpopular law? Easy: One simply does it in secret, making no announcements and not revealing the purpose or text to any but a select few. The public cannot oppose what they do not know about.
I suspect that the legal definitions of encode and encrypt might differ from those used in technology. Even ignoring that in technology encode can have many meanings, of which encrypt is just one.
Cable TV, for example, generally uses crappy video encoding technique and works around this by simply using a really high bitrate. For practical reasons - it's easier to just accept the higher bandwidth need than deal with the very complex business of non-realtime encoding, which involves coordinated extensively with the channel owners.
Quantity matters. Humans ned sugar and salt. They do not near anywhere near the quantity supplied by the western diet. It is human nature to eat everything available, because human instincts evolved in a time when little was available to eat.
Slashdot Mirror
There's an old story circulated among network engineers about a Canadian technician who used to do that to microwave telecom links he was sent out to service. After an unpleasant time crawling around on tall towers or dusty barely-heated equipment buildings, the story goes, he would lay down in front of the dish to get warm and rest. Sometimes falling asleep. Until one Christmas day he went to sleep there. Apparently on Christmas the dish power was turned up to maximum to allow for a clearer signal and higher useable bandwidth to accomodate the annual peak in phone traffic, and he died of hyperthermia.
It's just a story I heard. Probably never happened.
My workplace. It's a school. All-metal structure, metal plating everywhere there isn't a window. Not a full faraday cage, but enough that it's near-impossible to get a mobile phone connection anywhere inside. Annoys the students constantly, which makes me very happy.
eBooks do. Paper books are VAT-exempt. The VAT laws pre-date ebooks, so their book exception only covers physical.
More accurately, Freenet is based on the premise that *most* cells are incorruptible without detection. It's designed on the assumption that a potential attacker would be able to control a number of nodes, but that controlling the number required to allow detection would be both cost-prohibitive and noticeable. Tracing an upload on freenet would require the resources of an intelligence organisation. Common pirates simply aren't worth that kind of trouble.
Remember, you don't have to be untraceable. You just have to be more expensive to trace than your capture would be worth.
There's Freenet, for the paranoid on a budget. Performance kind of sucks though, compared to torrents.
You're missing the obvious. Umbilicus. Power and data in one cable, wrapped up in kevlar.
OSX does have one big advantage. It's written for a very limited range of hardware, which allows for far more extensive testing and optimisation. It's also high-volume enough to get the full support of the hardware manufacturers. If PCs only came in fifteen different models, you can be sure linux would run just as perfectly on them all.
Can you find a better animal beginning with Q? It was that, or quail.
Quetzals do look rather cool though. Like someone put a beak on a christmas decoration.
People measure left and right relative to their own views. There is no ideal objective measure. You can write surveys for it, but all they do is embody the writers ideas of what left and right should be. Political alignment is all relative. As many have pointed out before me, a party that American standards would classify as on the left would be considered as on the right by European standards.
There's an implicit view in your post that the center, neutral ground, is where media should be. This is debateable. Efforts to avoid bias could be themselves seen as a form of bias, if facts observed support the positions of one wing more than another. For a media establishment to then appear neutral can only be achieved by counter-biasing their reporting, to make two arguments appear evenly matched when they are rightfully not.
If current conditions stagnate technologically and socially for an evolutionary significent amount of time, we'd see the 'idiocracy' scenario. The stupid people breed a lot more, so the average intelligence of the population would plumet. Not likely to happen in reality though, as the time scale for evolutionary chance is many orders of magnitude greater than that for more immediate forms of change.
Not a problem. Firstly, if you put the peltiers right under the finger contact points then you need dissipate a minimal amount of heat. You can do that by including heatsink in the center-lower section, where no fingers ever touch during play.
Most policing is focused not on preventing crime, but catching the criminals after the act. The high risk of capture than acts as a deterrent to commiting crime. In this case, you can be confident that the full force of the police is going to be thrown into this investigation - they've probably got people searching ebay for items matching those stolen, people collecting all the footage from CCTV cameras in the area and forensics studying the place in their white suits looking for evidence. All the intensive, expensive stuff that an ordinary burglery wouldn't merit.
You'd just end up with the browser codec fight over again. Microsoft would refuse to build any open standard into Windows if they could possibly help it, and no-one else (Maybe Apple) would be willing to license Microsoft's own technology.
Most policing is focused not on actively preventing crime, but on catching the criminal after the act - and making sure that any potential criminal knows that their eventual capture is probable, thus removing the incentive towards crime.
Maybe in the US. Here in the UK, teachers aren't allowed to touch students at all because the student could then just claim the touching was inappropriatly sexual, which would result in the immediate formation of a parental and media lynch mob followed by the rapid fireing of the accused.
I have not RTFA, but the only way I can envision that would be through the use of peltiers. Those will give both hot and cold with ease. The only downside is they suck up quite a lot of current - the battery life would render this impractical for wireless controllers.
Serious, serious overhead issues. i2p would fall apart under the load mass-torrenting would place upon it.
"Which normally means more research."
Consider this project an experiment, then. If it works, we learn how. If it backfires terribly, we still learn how, and thus more about how to do it better.
Of all the approaches available to them, which would make Microsoft the most money? Including both direct profits, and any future benefits which might be had by increasing Microsoft's effective influence to further profit in related areas.
That is what the executives at Microsoft are asking. They don't care about openness, or user freedom, or anything else like that - except in so far as it affects the success of the company. So work out the answer to that question, and you can predict Microsoft's future actions.
The answer looks clear to me. A manditory app store would not only make Microsoft a fortune, but save them from the problem of needing to run an eternal upgrade cycle to keep users constantly buying new software. The power it gave them would also open up untold opportunity in other areas - they could use it to mandate support or lack of support for specific technologies (eg, no OpenGL-compatible games permitted), or prohibit software that could compete with Microsoft's own.
Wow, it's just like the teacher taking attendance! Except that it uses technology to automate the task, saving valuable lesson time. Clearly this is another example of government oppression.
Or does it work like patent law, where adding 'on a computer' to a well-established procedure turns it into something completly different?
How, in a democracy, does one go about passing a highly unpopular law? Easy: One simply does it in secret, making no announcements and not revealing the purpose or text to any but a select few. The public cannot oppose what they do not know about.
Dish, direct, antenna... you forgot torrent.
I suspect that the legal definitions of encode and encrypt might differ from those used in technology. Even ignoring that in technology encode can have many meanings, of which encrypt is just one.
Cable TV, for example, generally uses crappy video encoding technique and works around this by simply using a really high bitrate. For practical reasons - it's easier to just accept the higher bandwidth need than deal with the very complex business of non-realtime encoding, which involves coordinated extensively with the channel owners.
60GHZ would barely get through a wet tissue. You could track the location of the technicians by watching the server-down warnings move around.
Quantity matters. Humans ned sugar and salt. They do not near anywhere near the quantity supplied by the western diet. It is human nature to eat everything available, because human instincts evolved in a time when little was available to eat.