So if the tag gets disabled, then the money is treated as invalid/counterfeit. I suppose you could spend it on things where no one would bother to authenticate, but most real merchants would authenticate all currency before clearing the transaction.
And judging by all the DNA that has no apparent functionality whatsoever, whatever the programming language of DNA really is, it apparently has Java-like garbage collection.
It might, assuming you have access to all the source code. But not all of OS X is OSS. Significant chuncks of it are closed and proprietary. Without the source for that stuff the best you could do is hope to emulate G3/4 hardware on X86, which isn't really an attractive prospect.
Why change the coins when you can just as well change the prices? Make all prices end in.00,.05,.10,.25, and include sales tax in the shelf price, and it's very easy to make change.
So when is the article going to come out about the dangers of trusting electronic news websites? Don't we need to remain firmly fixed to a concrete paper trail for news, lest history itself become so malleable as to resemble Orwell's 1984?
While the net effect of this patent application might be a good thing for the world with respect to SARS, it kindof sets a bad precedent, namely by showing that something that someone feels SHOULDN'T be patentable IS, in fact, patentable.
It'd be better if they could just register the discovery and classify it as a non-patentable discovery. Not everyone who files a patent is going to be as generous as this doctor, and now every greedy SOB out there has a precedent to file a patent that shouldn't be approved.
If so, then can you imagine everyone not needing software?
I don't think that software is dead by a longshot. It may not grow explosively like it did during the 80's and 90's, (but then again, it might) but I don't see it going away... ever.
There will always be a need to process data for as long as man exists. If we don't need to think up new and better ways to do that, I'll be very surprised.
I'm sure he'd patent the method used to get him there, wouldn't he? And the damn patent office would allow it, because the patent office is his bitch, right?
Then again, leaving Bezos in space might be just what we need...
And they deserve it, too! They've only been mooning us for decades now. Taunting us, thinking they're safe from our reach because they're so many hundreds of thousands of miles away... We'll show them!
Download speed shouldn't be hurt by going through a router, in theory, but I've seen that it does tend to drop somewhat. I would have thought that at worst my ping times to outside hosts would be down somewhat, as the router is another hop that I have to cross, but I only get about 1.9Mbps going through my router. Without the router, I get close to 3Mbps (call it 2.95).
I don't know why this is, but I have always just assumed that it had to do with the router's internal buffers not being able to keep up with more speed than that.
I don't really mind the difference in speed, though. Anything's better than the 28.8kbps I was getting before.
Cable has a higher theoretical top speed. It's typically capped higher than most DSL services, and is only slower if you're on a really busy circuit. DSL is about having a "guaranteed" fast connection, with Cable you don't get the guarantee -- it's variable because you're sharing the available bandwidth with other subscribers rather than having the line all to yourself -- but most of the time the performance is superior.
I don't disagree with your views on rape justification, but I think the analogy doesn't fit.
If you want to use a rape analogy, the original article was saying we should decriminalize rape and make everyone wear titanium chastity belts.
I'm saying that while improving undergarment technologies to help prevent rape is a good idea, I disfavor decriminalizing rape.
However, current law borders on making consentual fornication illegal (or something -- there's not really a precise sex/rape-analog to the concept of walking into an open door.)
It would make sense, but only if Netflicks was making more money off of its high-volume customers. I believe that they charge everyone who uses their service a flat fee for "unlimited" use of the service.
Obviously, it's "unlimited" until they decide to limit you by de-prioritizing your requests. Just goes to show that flat fee payment plans are bad for the customer.
This idea misunderstands things. It's widely and openly acknowledged that security can never be perfectly impenetrable. You therefore make security as best as you can, and make it illegal to breach security, and then punish breaches of security when you catch those responsible for them.
Where this all gets hazy and crazy is when people with wide-open systems can prosecute someone for "hacking" them when all they did was walk in through an open door. Open doors are good for public places; if you don't want your computer systems to be public, don't allow it. Put a lock on it. If someone breaks and enters, that's prosecutable. But that should be the line drawn.
What we need is for the law to say that an open door is good as an invitation, but that breaching a locked door with a sign on it that says Authorized Access and Use Only is a criminal offense -- the equivalent of tresspassing, breaking and entering, robbery, or destruction of property, as is appropriate to what actually takes place.
Escape velocity is only high if you are using ballistic flight. Flying under continuous power, you can go 1 mph and still make it to orbit, provided you can sustain that speed for long enough.
If you are using aerodynamic lift to reach a given altitude, the delta-V you need to reach orbit or break out of the Earth's gravity well is much less than it is to do the same from a stationary vertical liftoff from the surface.
I thought it was because no one in their right mind would consider a Windows system "essential". All the essential systems should be running on UNIX. If you can live with Windows (un)reliability, it's clearly not an "essential" system.
Slashdot Mirror
So if the tag gets disabled, then the money is treated as invalid/counterfeit. I suppose you could spend it on things where no one would bother to authenticate, but most real merchants would authenticate all currency before clearing the transaction.
Now when people say "F Microsoft" they can be sued for trademark infringement. Way to stifle dissent, MSFT!
But... it's pre-packaged internet hours! Do I have to draw you a picture?
And judging by all the DNA that has no apparent functionality whatsoever, whatever the programming language of DNA really is, it apparently has Java-like garbage collection.
It might, assuming you have access to all the source code. But not all of OS X is OSS. Significant chuncks of it are closed and proprietary. Without the source for that stuff the best you could do is hope to emulate G3/4 hardware on X86, which isn't really an attractive prospect.
Why change the coins when you can just as well change the prices? Make all prices end in .00, .05, .10, .25, and include sales tax in the shelf price, and it's very easy to make change.
So when is the article going to come out about the dangers of trusting electronic news websites? Don't we need to remain firmly fixed to a concrete paper trail for news, lest history itself become so malleable as to resemble Orwell's 1984?
Looks like these chairs were inspired by someone's trip to the dentist.
Probably because they openly acknowledge Linux to be their number one competitor.
While the net effect of this patent application might be a good thing for the world with respect to SARS, it kindof sets a bad precedent, namely by showing that something that someone feels SHOULDN'T be patentable IS, in fact, patentable.
It'd be better if they could just register the discovery and classify it as a non-patentable discovery. Not everyone who files a patent is going to be as generous as this doctor, and now every greedy SOB out there has a precedent to file a patent that shouldn't be approved.
If so, then can you imagine everyone not needing software?
I don't think that software is dead by a longshot. It may not grow explosively like it did during the 80's and 90's, (but then again, it might) but I don't see it going away... ever.
There will always be a need to process data for as long as man exists. If we don't need to think up new and better ways to do that, I'll be very surprised.
There is no spoon!
I'm sure he'd patent the method used to get him there, wouldn't he? And the damn patent office would allow it, because the patent office is his bitch, right?
Then again, leaving Bezos in space might be just what we need...
And they deserve it, too! They've only been mooning us for decades now. Taunting us, thinking they're safe from our reach because they're so many hundreds of thousands of miles away... We'll show them!
Give the people candidates who are actually worth voting for.
Download speed shouldn't be hurt by going through a router, in theory, but I've seen that it does tend to drop somewhat. I would have thought that at worst my ping times to outside hosts would be down somewhat, as the router is another hop that I have to cross, but I only get about 1.9Mbps going through my router. Without the router, I get close to 3Mbps (call it 2.95).
I don't know why this is, but I have always just assumed that it had to do with the router's internal buffers not being able to keep up with more speed than that.
I don't really mind the difference in speed, though. Anything's better than the 28.8kbps I was getting before.
That's why the article mentions AVERAGE speed.
I guess that's maybe a sign that people actually do try to read the article before posting.
Cable has a higher theoretical top speed. It's typically capped higher than most DSL services, and is only slower if you're on a really busy circuit. DSL is about having a "guaranteed" fast connection, with Cable you don't get the guarantee -- it's variable because you're sharing the available bandwidth with other subscribers rather than having the line all to yourself -- but most of the time the performance is superior.
I don't disagree with your views on rape justification, but I think the analogy doesn't fit.
If you want to use a rape analogy, the original article was saying we should decriminalize rape and make everyone wear titanium chastity belts.
I'm saying that while improving undergarment technologies to help prevent rape is a good idea, I disfavor decriminalizing rape.
However, current law borders on making consentual fornication illegal (or something -- there's not really a precise sex/rape-analog to the concept of walking into an open door.)
It would make sense, but only if Netflicks was making more money off of its high-volume customers. I believe that they charge everyone who uses their service a flat fee for "unlimited" use of the service.
Obviously, it's "unlimited" until they decide to limit you by de-prioritizing your requests. Just goes to show that flat fee payment plans are bad for the customer.
This idea misunderstands things. It's widely and openly acknowledged that security can never be perfectly impenetrable. You therefore make security as best as you can, and make it illegal to breach security, and then punish breaches of security when you catch those responsible for them.
Where this all gets hazy and crazy is when people with wide-open systems can prosecute someone for "hacking" them when all they did was walk in through an open door. Open doors are good for public places; if you don't want your computer systems to be public, don't allow it. Put a lock on it. If someone breaks and enters, that's prosecutable. But that should be the line drawn.
What we need is for the law to say that an open door is good as an invitation, but that breaching a locked door with a sign on it that says Authorized Access and Use Only is a criminal offense -- the equivalent of tresspassing, breaking and entering, robbery, or destruction of property, as is appropriate to what actually takes place.
American Greetings needs to get a grip. Parody is a legitimate form of Fair Use.
Escape velocity is only high if you are using ballistic flight. Flying under continuous power, you can go 1 mph and still make it to orbit, provided you can sustain that speed for long enough.
If you are using aerodynamic lift to reach a given altitude, the delta-V you need to reach orbit or break out of the Earth's gravity well is much less than it is to do the same from a stationary vertical liftoff from the surface.
I thought it was because no one in their right mind would consider a Windows system "essential". All the essential systems should be running on UNIX. If you can live with Windows (un)reliability, it's clearly not an "essential" system.