You may have to buy your own HD antenna. The good news is that most antennas are HD antennas, and people who are reasonably close to towers will probably be fine with the antennas that they already have.
People used to dealing with fuzzy analog may be out of luck, or they may need to add a directional UHF antenna (in my area, the company that owns NBC and ABC is going to start simulcasting ABC on the NBC transmitter, so I will likely gain a channel).
The 2003 failure is, as I said, an example of too big. It is also an example of how mild the consequences were (it cost a shit ton of money, but that was about it, which in the scheme of things, is o.k., as long as it isn't frequent).
As far as security, robustification is fine, but it should be done where it is economic, and resources should then be devoted to (preemptory) investigation, rather than target enumeration (i.e., the what should we protect this week game).
Are you sure it isn't using the built in mass storage driver?
Etc.?
0.1 amps is fine for overnight charging of small devices, but it really isn't all that nuts for people to expect their phone to charge completely in a couple of hours. That you don't care isn't necessarily relevant.
I think you underestimate how nasty day-to-day bugs are. We just happen to be very well equipped to deal with them.
I would guess that they are careful to contain any engineered bugs, partly to keep them from acting on the environment, but also to keep the environment from acting on them.
For something as big as an electrical grid, the cost savings from having it fail once in a while could very well outweigh the costs of it failing once in a while. The 2003 blackout was clearly too big, but I'm glad that there is resistance to making a perfect grid, because it makes more sense for people with critical uptime requirements to take care of that locally than it does to have everybody pay for reliability.
40 years later, the grid was still highly interconnected, and failed again.
(HVDC can be used to mitigate the issues that stem from having huge geographic areas be in phase, and the tech has existed at least since the 70's; I'm not sure if the DC interconnects end up being as efficient as the AC interconnects)
If you knew where smaller power plants were, it probably would have made a great deal of sense (I was in Ann Arbor, the UofM campus had power, but the rest of the city was down, as it turns out, the university operates a small power plant (because the economics make a lot of sense when you can steam heat thousands and thousands of square feet)).
Start a not for profit drug company. Charge sane prices.
If profit margins and advertising are truly the things driving up the costs of all drugs, you should be able to put the entrenched players out of business in a decade or so.
If you look into the alarms raised about marketing costs, you will see that the claims are based on selling, general, and administrative expenses, which do include the extensive sums that are spent on advertising and marketing, but also include silly things like salaries, pensions and building maintenance.
A gated community tries to put up a wall and make everything safe for those who get through the gate. A club checks id's at the door (so, a server does not a community make).
Pretty much. Wikipedia will persist until somebody comes up with a better way of making a Wikipedia-like thing.
It won't be real shocking if that thing ends up replacing Wikipedia in place. One reasonable thing would be to allow people to create different cabal-bureaucracy-networks inside of the same ecosystem (by letting users mark other users as ignored or trusted). A better Wikipedia could then grow underneath whatever Wikipedia happened to be on top at the moment.
Much of the criticism of Wikipedia amounts to "It isn't X", and of course, there isn't really anybody trying to make it "X", so the criticism degenerates into a complaint that "X" doesn't exist for free, which usually isn't very interesting.
Compiling to a VM makes sense in more situations when cpu time and ram are ridiculously cheap (and then porting the VM ports a great deal of other code). I'm not an expert, but I think JIT/interpreted is pretty orthogonal (Psyco is a JIT that plugs into the Python interpreter, increasing speed by creating native code branches for execution paths; the branching can make code end up running slower, or hundreds of times faster...).
On the desktop, the cost transition happened some years ago (along with many server apps that are io bound).
So really, it seems unlikely that.net is a reaction to such a narrow range of events (and more likely, the easiest first step towards managed code).
We have no idea how long it usually takes life to arise. Speculation is generally that it would take a long time, but it isn't really something that can be proved.
Looking on Earth is a bit of a pickle, as new life has to deal with things like old life and free oxygen, which are both things that old life has been dealing with for billions of years.
There is some irony in that your argument is contrived to assert that fire is alive (or perhaps that life is ambiguous, I know that I know it when I see it).
Basically, even infertile mules have the equipment and processes for reproduction, they just have a problem where they don't do it successfully very often, whereas fire simply spreads to adjacent combustible materials.
Slashdot Mirror
You may have to buy your own HD antenna. The good news is that most antennas are HD antennas, and people who are reasonably close to towers will probably be fine with the antennas that they already have.
People used to dealing with fuzzy analog may be out of luck, or they may need to add a directional UHF antenna (in my area, the company that owns NBC and ABC is going to start simulcasting ABC on the NBC transmitter, so I will likely gain a channel).
The 2003 failure is, as I said, an example of too big. It is also an example of how mild the consequences were (it cost a shit ton of money, but that was about it, which in the scheme of things, is o.k., as long as it isn't frequent).
As far as security, robustification is fine, but it should be done where it is economic, and resources should then be devoted to (preemptory) investigation, rather than target enumeration (i.e., the what should we protect this week game).
Is it drawing 0.5 amps?
Are you sure it isn't using the built in mass storage driver?
Etc.?
0.1 amps is fine for overnight charging of small devices, but it really isn't all that nuts for people to expect their phone to charge completely in a couple of hours. That you don't care isn't necessarily relevant.
Perhaps South America is Atlantis, and it merely disappeared into the depths of history.
I think you underestimate how nasty day-to-day bugs are. We just happen to be very well equipped to deal with them.
I would guess that they are careful to contain any engineered bugs, partly to keep them from acting on the environment, but also to keep the environment from acting on them.
For something as big as an electrical grid, the cost savings from having it fail once in a while could very well outweigh the costs of it failing once in a while. The 2003 blackout was clearly too big, but I'm glad that there is resistance to making a perfect grid, because it makes more sense for people with critical uptime requirements to take care of that locally than it does to have everybody pay for reliability.
40 years later, the grid was still highly interconnected, and failed again.
(HVDC can be used to mitigate the issues that stem from having huge geographic areas be in phase, and the tech has existed at least since the 70's; I'm not sure if the DC interconnects end up being as efficient as the AC interconnects)
I can't make myself believe that bluetooth keyboard is worth owning.
meta -- meta -- meta -- meta sadness.
Echo? Echo? Echo?
If you knew where smaller power plants were, it probably would have made a great deal of sense (I was in Ann Arbor, the UofM campus had power, but the rest of the city was down, as it turns out, the university operates a small power plant (because the economics make a lot of sense when you can steam heat thousands and thousands of square feet)).
The number will be very small.
I mean, imagine if it were possible for someone who used drugs 20 years ago to become president, what kind of world would it be?
As is the mockery of simple spelling errors.
You spent years pissing in their pool and insinuating that they were childish.
Is it really so surprising that they fail to give you special consideration?
Start a not for profit drug company. Charge sane prices.
If profit margins and advertising are truly the things driving up the costs of all drugs, you should be able to put the entrenched players out of business in a decade or so.
If you look into the alarms raised about marketing costs, you will see that the claims are based on selling, general, and administrative expenses, which do include the extensive sums that are spent on advertising and marketing, but also include silly things like salaries, pensions and building maintenance.
You are mistaken.
Mocking the French has nothing to do with Iraq, it is it's own reward.
To clarify, impact on the ability to choose. Clearly, it will impact the choice itself.
HTTPS is more akin to a private club.
A gated community tries to put up a wall and make everything safe for those who get through the gate. A club checks id's at the door (so, a server does not a community make).
Pretty much. Wikipedia will persist until somebody comes up with a better way of making a Wikipedia-like thing.
It won't be real shocking if that thing ends up replacing Wikipedia in place. One reasonable thing would be to allow people to create different cabal-bureaucracy-networks inside of the same ecosystem (by letting users mark other users as ignored or trusted). A better Wikipedia could then grow underneath whatever Wikipedia happened to be on top at the moment.
Much of the criticism of Wikipedia amounts to "It isn't X", and of course, there isn't really anybody trying to make it "X", so the criticism degenerates into a complaint that "X" doesn't exist for free, which usually isn't very interesting.
A fetus behaves, in many ways, like a parasite.
There are processes in a pregnant woman's body that protect her from the fetus (a sufficiently malnourished woman won't even be fertile...).
Nutrition is also hilariously important (and something that fit parents are likely to do a superior job of providing).
Compiling to a VM makes sense in more situations when cpu time and ram are ridiculously cheap (and then porting the VM ports a great deal of other code). I'm not an expert, but I think JIT/interpreted is pretty orthogonal (Psyco is a JIT that plugs into the Python
interpreter, increasing speed by creating native code branches for execution paths; the branching can make code end up running slower, or hundreds of times faster...).
On the desktop, the cost transition happened some years ago (along with many server apps that are io bound).
So really, it seems unlikely that .net is a reaction to such a narrow range of events (and more likely, the easiest first step towards managed code).
It would seem more apt to describe them as reluctant.
Is there any meaningful interpretation of the various brainwaves? Is one demonstrably better/higher/etc. than another, or is it simply different?
Much of zen strikes me as an Ouroboros, If you do zen, you will be zen. Well, gee.
We have no idea how long it usually takes life to arise. Speculation is generally that it would take a long time, but it isn't really something that can be proved.
Looking on Earth is a bit of a pickle, as new life has to deal with things like old life and free oxygen, which are both things that old life has been dealing with for billions of years.
Your assertion is ridiculous.
There is some irony in that your argument is contrived to assert that fire is alive (or perhaps that life is ambiguous, I know that I know it when I see it).
Basically, even infertile mules have the equipment and processes for reproduction, they just have a problem where they don't do it successfully very often, whereas fire simply spreads to adjacent combustible materials.