No offense intended, but you can't blame this on Apple in any way. It's your fault for not knowing you need a Crossover Cable to go from a Cable/DSL modem to a router. If you're going from a Cable/DSL modem to a hub you can use a Patch cable, but IIRC any time you're going to a device that has its own IP (router, a single computer, etc) you need a crossover. RTFM for the modem--I bet it said you needed one...mine did.
First of all, only select few Cable/DSL modems require a crossover cable to connect to anything. Most just require a patch cable like a normal ethernet device. It has nothing to do with whether or not the device has its own IP, but rather how the physical port is wired.
Second, I didn't have the manual, I was at my friends house, so I couldn't RTFM.
Third, it wasn't the requirement of a crossover that confused me, it was the fact that the DSL modem was working perfectly with a regular patch cable hooked to the computer that threw me. Since I hadn't known about this Auto-MDI-X stuff that Apple is doing, I thought that there is no way it could require a crossover, since it obviously required a patch.
Actually, I found it to be quite annoying, especially if you don't know about it. I was trying to set up a consumer gateway router for a friend with DSL who had one of the models that supports that. He had his DSL modem connected to his computer with a pass-through cable, but when I tried to connect the same cable from the DSL modem to the WAN port of the router, the WAN link light wouldn't light up. After several frustrating calls to Verizon support (they supplied the modem), I, out of desperation, used a crossover cable to connect the DSL modem and router even though it shouldn't do anything. But lo and behold, it works. Having the Mac be able to use either type of cable led me to jump to incorrect conclusions, and wasted several hours of my time.
You sell quarters for $40? Damn! Where do you live? Around here (western washington) you can only get an eighth for $40, quarters are $80.
Re:No hires quicktime?
on
Equilibrium
·
· Score: 2
You're an idiot. It is in fact quite easy to make a hard to copy (nothing's impossible) Quicktime movie. All you do is put a link in the movie file to the real movie stream. Nearly all of the trailers on Apple's site are that way. Of course it makes you require Quicktime 5 or higher, but that really shouldn't be a problem.
Not only that, but IMO one of the best things about The Giver is that it is written by Lois Lowry, and therefore far more accessible to younger kids than Fahrenheit 451 or Brave New World are. I remember reading The Giver in either 5th or 6th grade and just being blown away. I consider The Giver to be a perfect introduction for kids into the genre of socially commentative sci-fi.
Did I not say non-inertial, non-gravitational reference frame?
Did you not read the part of my post where I explained to you that there is no such thing?
you created a fictitious velocity and claimed that the object to which you ascribed this "velocity" was moving faster than the speed of light; I showed that it wasn't and that no information from it was either.
It neither was ficticious nor did you show anything about its velocity being sub-luminal. You still have not provided a single argument against my sole point, namely that if you consider a frame of reference that is in rotation compared to a Galilean frame, then an object far enough away from the center of the rotation, and is stationary in the Galilean frame, will be superluminal in the rotating frame.
But a non-inertial, non-gravitational reference frame. SR and GR don't say anything about that. So your original point was irrelevant.
GR doesn't talk about non-inertial reference frames? That is *all* GR talks about. There is no such thing as a "non-inertial, non-gravitational reference frame". All non-inertial reference frames *are* gravitational reference frames. Thats the whole point of the General Principle of Relativity. Acceleration is the same as gravitation.
Just ignore the letter. More than likely it is an empty threat. If it isn't, it should be very easily defeated in court simply through prior art. HTTP (I assume that is what you are using to "deliver" the video content) was invented in 1990, two full years before Acacia's first patent.
Now while from your rotating viewpoint on the Earth, Alpha Centauri appears to be moving at roughly 1 ly/sec, information about the star (i.e. the neutrinos and photons it emits) do not travel any faster than c. Therefore cause and effect is preserved.
I never said cause and effect were not preserved. The fact remains that in the rotating frame of reference, you can observe Alpha Centauri moving at faster than c.
You're "other statement of the paradox" is nothing of the sort. That is pure SR, and deals with changing reference frames. My example does not deal with changing reference frames, as only one reference frame is considered.
Thats not true, it is in fact quite easy to observe something going faster than c in GR. Consider a frame of reference that is rotating compared to an inertial frame of reference. An object that is far away from the center of rotation will be going quite fast.
What amazes me as an electronics engineer, is that no one anywhere seems to be thinking about the implications of the energy content of the meaning of a message.
Shannons law explains how much energy is needed to encode a certain message. But it never seems to be extended into thinking about the realm of meaning.
How much, if any, energy does it take to encode the meaning of a message - When I read a message and it means something, is that a different situation from reading a message which does not mean anything. Its too long ago since I did my maths and quantum mechanics for me to figure out if this is a silly question, I'd love to know the answer though.
Meaning is solely in the mind of the recipient of the message. Consider two messages: one, a meaningful message, and two a message full of gibberish, but with the same amount of entropy as the first one. Both of the messages will require the same amount of energy to encode.
Half of the population isn't the majority, unless I misunderstood you or the cold Canuck air has frozen my wee mind.:)) Hmm. You might have meant the majority of 50% which would mean 25.00..1% through 50.00% but now I'm getting anal.
She obviously meant the majority of the *male* half of the population.
Marijuana is mentally addictive, ask any regular (at least one bowl a day) pot smoker. The only reason it isn't considered physically addictive is that the withdrawal symptoms set on very gradually over approximately two weeks due to THC being fat-soluble.
Bacteria do not contain much in the way of "cell structure". Organelles - such as the nucleus - are unique to eukaryotes. Mitochondria are actually symbiotic bacteria that live inside our cells. Mycoplasma do not have them. Mycoplasma do not have cell walls (most bacteria do,) either.
There are eukaryotic bacteria. AFAIK, the term bacteria refers to the kingdoms Monera and Protisa collectively.
This cell has the least number of genes of any organism known, so it is easier to reduce this to a basic minimal set than something more complex.
I'm surprised they didn't try to do it with a virus. IIRC the HIV virus has a number of genes in the single digits. You can't get much simpler than that.
I'd say Seattle drivers are certainly more courteous than the norm, but the midwest certainly takes the cake. Any place where they actually treat the third lane as a passing lane only is just nuts.
I moved to Seattle a few months ago, and its traffic seems to have to the same root cause as any other place: too many damned people driving too many damned cars by themselves. People here seem to want to try what they're already doing in Denver: making the highway a little wider and pray. But it just ain't gonna work. Commuters' attitudes need to evolve, not the highway.
The real cause of the horrendous traffic in the Seattle area is the population density spread. You can't just consider the traffic within Seattle, you also have to consider the traffic from Lynnwood to Seattle and Tacoma, from Tacoma to Bellevue, and Seattle to everywhere else. The biggest problem is the fact that a large portion of the commuters going to and passing through the Seattle area *are not from Seattle*. The population density of the outlying areas like Lynnwood is such that it can wreak havoc with the traffic in Seattle but its not economically feasible to do anything about it.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, only select few Cable/DSL modems require a crossover cable to connect to anything. Most just require a patch cable like a normal ethernet device. It has nothing to do with whether or not the device has its own IP, but rather how the physical port is wired.
Second, I didn't have the manual, I was at my friends house, so I couldn't RTFM.
Third, it wasn't the requirement of a crossover that confused me, it was the fact that the DSL modem was working perfectly with a regular patch cable hooked to the computer that threw me. Since I hadn't known about this Auto-MDI-X stuff that Apple is doing, I thought that there is no way it could require a crossover, since it obviously required a patch.
Simple, just setup routing between your FireWire interface and your Ethernet interface. Then connect that computer to the hub or switch.
I think what he's talking about is iPod to iPod syncing. But yeah, there's no need for IP-over-Firewire to do that either.
Actually, I found it to be quite annoying, especially if you don't know about it. I was trying to set up a consumer gateway router for a friend with DSL who had one of the models that supports that. He had his DSL modem connected to his computer with a pass-through cable, but when I tried to connect the same cable from the DSL modem to the WAN port of the router, the WAN link light wouldn't light up. After several frustrating calls to Verizon support (they supplied the modem), I, out of desperation, used a crossover cable to connect the DSL modem and router even though it shouldn't do anything. But lo and behold, it works. Having the Mac be able to use either type of cable led me to jump to incorrect conclusions, and wasted several hours of my time.
You sell quarters for $40? Damn! Where do you live? Around here (western washington) you can only get an eighth for $40, quarters are $80.
You're an idiot. It is in fact quite easy to make a hard to copy (nothing's impossible) Quicktime movie. All you do is put a link in the movie file to the real movie stream. Nearly all of the trailers on Apple's site are that way. Of course it makes you require Quicktime 5 or higher, but that really shouldn't be a problem.
Not only that, but IMO one of the best things about The Giver is that it is written by Lois Lowry, and therefore far more accessible to younger kids than Fahrenheit 451 or Brave New World are. I remember reading The Giver in either 5th or 6th grade and just being blown away. I consider The Giver to be a perfect introduction for kids into the genre of socially commentative sci-fi.
Did you not read the part of my post where I explained to you that there is no such thing?
you created a fictitious velocity and claimed that the object to which you ascribed this "velocity" was moving faster than the speed of light; I showed that it wasn't and that no information from it was either.
It neither was ficticious nor did you show anything about its velocity being sub-luminal. You still have not provided a single argument against my sole point, namely that if you consider a frame of reference that is in rotation compared to a Galilean frame, then an object far enough away from the center of the rotation, and is stationary in the Galilean frame, will be superluminal in the rotating frame.
GR doesn't talk about non-inertial reference frames? That is *all* GR talks about. There is no such thing as a "non-inertial, non-gravitational reference frame". All non-inertial reference frames *are* gravitational reference frames. Thats the whole point of the General Principle of Relativity. Acceleration is the same as gravitation.
Just ignore the letter. More than likely it is an empty threat. If it isn't, it should be very easily defeated in court simply through prior art. HTTP (I assume that is what you are using to "deliver" the video content) was invented in 1990, two full years before Acacia's first patent.
I never said cause and effect were not preserved. The fact remains that in the rotating frame of reference, you can observe Alpha Centauri moving at faster than c.
You're "other statement of the paradox" is nothing of the sort. That is pure SR, and deals with changing reference frames. My example does not deal with changing reference frames, as only one reference frame is considered.
Thats not true, it is in fact quite easy to observe something going faster than c in GR. Consider a frame of reference that is rotating compared to an inertial frame of reference. An object that is far away from the center of rotation will be going quite fast.
Shannons law explains how much energy is needed to encode a certain message. But it never seems to be extended into thinking about the realm of meaning.
How much, if any, energy does it take to encode the meaning of a message - When I read a message and it means something, is that a different situation from reading a message which does not mean anything. Its too long ago since I did my maths and quantum mechanics for me to figure out if this is a silly question, I'd love to know the answer though.
Meaning is solely in the mind of the recipient of the message. Consider two messages: one, a meaningful message, and two a message full of gibberish, but with the same amount of entropy as the first one. Both of the messages will require the same amount of energy to encode.
She obviously meant the majority of the *male* half of the population.
Wow man, I think you need to stop sucking on that crack pipe. Just how could the cable company tell when I change the channel on my TV?
Then maybe you should use something better than Kazaa. Kazaa sucks. Use Hotline or IRC.
Marijuana is mentally addictive, ask any regular (at least one bowl a day) pot smoker. The only reason it isn't considered physically addictive is that the withdrawal symptoms set on very gradually over approximately two weeks due to THC being fat-soluble.
I don't know where the hell you download MP3s from, but I usually only see 192 or better (sometimes 160).
Unfortunately, it won't work. Silicon simply can't make chains long enough.
There are eukaryotic bacteria. AFAIK, the term bacteria refers to the kingdoms Monera and Protisa collectively.
I'm surprised they didn't try to do it with a virus. IIRC the HIV virus has a number of genes in the single digits. You can't get much simpler than that.
Just how can it be an exact copy when a third of its genes are missing?
Public transit is non-profit you idiot, just like public utilities and public sewer systems.
I'd say Seattle drivers are certainly more courteous than the norm, but the midwest certainly takes the cake. Any place where they actually treat the third lane as a passing lane only is just nuts.
The real cause of the horrendous traffic in the Seattle area is the population density spread. You can't just consider the traffic within Seattle, you also have to consider the traffic from Lynnwood to Seattle and Tacoma, from Tacoma to Bellevue, and Seattle to everywhere else. The biggest problem is the fact that a large portion of the commuters going to and passing through the Seattle area *are not from Seattle*. The population density of the outlying areas like Lynnwood is such that it can wreak havoc with the traffic in Seattle but its not economically feasible to do anything about it.