If a program requires more memory than you have, and you turn off the swap, that program (and maybe your whole computer) will crash. However, that is unlikely to happen, but with smaller RAM sizes (
Well, the PC DRM is only "from hell" if you buy games with that DRM on it. I don't touch Ubisoft for that very reason, and it was a strong reason against buying games like SC2 (and quite likely Diablo 3 as well). Buy indie titles and you really don't have that problem.
No, I don't, because I opt out through the use of Ghostery (I do use GMail, though, but all those parts are exactly identical to any other third-party email host). As far as the Android thing goes: I'm pretty sure someone would have noticed if they did that. You know, given that they make the source available and you can get root access on many of the phones and all that.
Actually, given it's called "SoundWave", more likely a Transformer (a Decepticon, to be specific). Terminators cannot replicate advanced machine functions such as a computer display, while a Transformer can.
Hardly. Conspiracy and planning to commit a crime is a crime, for good reason. Do we wait for a murderer to shoot someone before we can arrest and charge him? No, and for good reason.
Thought-crime is quite different from actively communicating willingness to be part of an "active terror unit" (as TFA says).
Seems almost trivially easy to solve: pad the encoding (prior to encryption, so that the receiver can determine what is padding and what is actual speech) randomly. Tada, no more packet-size to speech correspondence (it will increase the data overhead, of course, but you can reduce that by padding "dead-space" when people aren't talking more than when they are).
Someone who opposes same sex marriage, legalization of drugs, racial integration/equality, and abortion (even in the case of rape or incest) is NOT a real libertarian.
Well then it's a good thing Rand Paul doesn't "oppose" any of those things. Unless by "oppose" you mean he things the individual states should make laws legalizing or illegalizing them, and doesn't think the federal government should involve itself in them, which, last I checked, is exactly the definition of a libertarian.
P.S.: He does or may "oppose" them in the sense he thinks they are wrong (and perhaps believes the states should ban them), but not in the sense that he thinks the federal government should outlaw them.
Of course, the US still manages to spend three times as much money on Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, and Income Security programs as it does on the military. Source.
Not really give a shit because it wouldn't do anything against planes and bombs, which form the backbone of US power projection anyways (courtesy of lots of aircraft carriers.)
I both somewhat agree. I'm worried, though, that what made TES games fun will be missing when another studio develops it (I'm most worried it will simply be yet another WoW clone). And I personally like the unbalanced nature of TES games: you are a hero, you aren't supposed to be "balanced", you are supposed to be an extremely powerful mage/fighter/assassin/whatever. TES games have usually allowed that. Obviously, that doesn't work in multiplayer, which is another worrisome component (or would be, if I really cared: I have very little concern for MMOs anymore, since 99% of them are WoW with a different skin.)
It is being made by Zenimax Online Studios (owned by Zenimax, which also owns Bethesda).
(Quote mine, emphasis also mine, I left off the "Media" but it was strongly implied).
Point is they are different development studios, which means different people doing the development, which almost inevitably means different styles and quality of game. Skyrim and other TES games were all developed by Bethesda Games Studios, not Zenimax Online. And Zenimax Media has owned Bethesda for a while now (13 years or so). We certainly can and probably will see another stand-alone Elder Scrolls game.
For those who are wondering, the difference is that between Fallout 3 (Bethesda) and Fallout: New Vegas (Obsidian, and an extremely buggy, sometimes even unplayably so, mess). Different studios naturally produce different end results.
Read TFA: despite the/. headline, Bethesda isn't developing this game: Zenimax Online Studios (a different subsidiary of Zenimax from Bethesda) is. Bethesda may be publishing it (I think), but not developing it (or at least not the primary devs).
No, Slashdot, Bethesda didn't announce this. It is being made by Zenimax Online Studios (owned by Zenimax, which also owns Bethesda). I don't know if anyone from Bethesda is working on it or not: it certainly doesn't sound like it, since they say it's been in development for a few years and Bethesda has been working on Skyrim during that period.
It sounds like Bethesda Softworks (the publisher) is involved, though, just not the actual development studio that made the other TES games.
It would be relevant if Oracle vs. Google was in the EU. Sadly, it is occurring in the US. Hopefully, the results will be similar, although IIRC it is a low-level court and won't matter much in the long run anyways (i.e. it won't set a precedent until it, inevitably, goes to appeal.)
As it is, the timing is more or less pure coincidence. The judgment might be influenced by this decision, but it isn't too likely.
Just to clarify I wasn't saying in any way that capitalism requires stability. I was arguing it can function in a stable (i.e. non-expanding) system.
If the system is too stable, you don't have transfer of money (in the extreme case, no one needs or wants anything beyond what they have), and without transfer of money (which implies an unbalance of some kind, inherently), capitalism cannot function. Admittedly, that is an extreme case unlikely to occur in the near future. It would more or less require Star Trek-style replicators or similar technology.
First of all, the shape of the Earth was never a controversy: the Greeks not only knew it was round, they calculated the radius to within a few hundred km or so, and that knowledge stayed with humanity through the time of Columbus (who knew it was round, but miscalculated the exact circumference by a fair bit). Pretty much the only people who may have thought it was flat were the peasants.
Second, capitalism works perfectly fine with a non-growing system. Plenty of companies maintain stable levels of profit and production over years or decades, producing steady profits for their investors. A huge number of investors prefer start-ups and expansion, because those yield massive profits (or complete loss) much much faster, but capitalism doesn't require that. All it requires is that the stable system be large enough to create local instabilities. There will be sufficient fluctuation between the companies within the stable system to allow for new corporations in any case, and of course the progress of science means we will (for the forseeable future) be able to utilize more resources and do so more efficiently: oil is not the only source of energy in the world. It isn't even the cheapest or most efficient, just the easiest to utilize.
There really isn't very much impressive about it, it wasn't even a repeatable strategy, as before the day was out. The ONLY reason it worked in the first place was because passengers were expecting a normal "hostage situation" hijacking, where it made sense to stay in their seats and wait for the situation to be resolved. By the end of the day the whole plan was useless to try again.
So, what you are saying is that it isn't a repeatable strategy because people remember what happened last time? Interesting.
Yes, I get your point about the security theater, and agree. Personally, I think the terrorists succeeded beyond their wildest dreams because of that, but that still doesn't mean we shouldn't remember the attack.
That is why. Also, I don't know what history books you read, but the US history books I studied included the achievements too. They just aren't brought up as often (and usually are associated with tragedies, since those are the times when achievements become the most significant).
Well, to be fair, if you're drunk and/or high enough, those two are pretty much equal in value, which completely explains the entertainment industry's position.
I've not heard of "ultrasonic vortex beams" before (props to whoever came up with that name). What would the maximum weight of the levitated object be before the ultrasonic effects started to become destructive, or is that not even a problem? Could we levitate a car (for example), or is this limited to very cool but not very useful lab experiments like superconductor levitation is right now?
Then the legal process around enforcing the patent itself should be reformed, not the patenting process. In the example you just gave, the inventor could (or should be able to) sue the maker of FooBarBaz and be awarded not only the money from the sales of the device, but also block all further sales. That means the evil company loses all the money from making and selling the device, plus being unable to sell it anymore. That is the point of the patent process. If the inventor can't do that under the current legal climate, then it is the legal system, not the patent system, that is broken.
Slashdot Mirror
If a program requires more memory than you have, and you turn off the swap, that program (and maybe your whole computer) will crash. However, that is unlikely to happen, but with smaller RAM sizes (
Well, the PC DRM is only "from hell" if you buy games with that DRM on it. I don't touch Ubisoft for that very reason, and it was a strong reason against buying games like SC2 (and quite likely Diablo 3 as well). Buy indie titles and you really don't have that problem.
No, I don't, because I opt out through the use of Ghostery (I do use GMail, though, but all those parts are exactly identical to any other third-party email host). As far as the Android thing goes: I'm pretty sure someone would have noticed if they did that. You know, given that they make the source available and you can get root access on many of the phones and all that.
Actually, given it's called "SoundWave", more likely a Transformer (a Decepticon, to be specific). Terminators cannot replicate advanced machine functions such as a computer display, while a Transformer can.
Wow, thatS EXtreme.
I'm pretty sure that is the hard way, compared to Tor.
Hardly. Conspiracy and planning to commit a crime is a crime, for good reason. Do we wait for a murderer to shoot someone before we can arrest and charge him? No, and for good reason.
Thought-crime is quite different from actively communicating willingness to be part of an "active terror unit" (as TFA says).
Seems almost trivially easy to solve: pad the encoding (prior to encryption, so that the receiver can determine what is padding and what is actual speech) randomly. Tada, no more packet-size to speech correspondence (it will increase the data overhead, of course, but you can reduce that by padding "dead-space" when people aren't talking more than when they are).
Someone who opposes same sex marriage, legalization of drugs, racial integration/equality, and abortion (even in the case of rape or incest) is NOT a real libertarian.
Well then it's a good thing Rand Paul doesn't "oppose" any of those things. Unless by "oppose" you mean he things the individual states should make laws legalizing or illegalizing them, and doesn't think the federal government should involve itself in them, which, last I checked, is exactly the definition of a libertarian.
P.S.: He does or may "oppose" them in the sense he thinks they are wrong (and perhaps believes the states should ban them), but not in the sense that he thinks the federal government should outlaw them.
Of course, the US still manages to spend three times as much money on Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, and Income Security programs as it does on the military. Source.
Not really give a shit because it wouldn't do anything against planes and bombs, which form the backbone of US power projection anyways (courtesy of lots of aircraft carriers.)
I both somewhat agree. I'm worried, though, that what made TES games fun will be missing when another studio develops it (I'm most worried it will simply be yet another WoW clone). And I personally like the unbalanced nature of TES games: you are a hero, you aren't supposed to be "balanced", you are supposed to be an extremely powerful mage/fighter/assassin/whatever. TES games have usually allowed that. Obviously, that doesn't work in multiplayer, which is another worrisome component (or would be, if I really cared: I have very little concern for MMOs anymore, since 99% of them are WoW with a different skin.)
It is being made by Zenimax Online Studios (owned by Zenimax, which also owns Bethesda).
(Quote mine, emphasis also mine, I left off the "Media" but it was strongly implied).
Point is they are different development studios, which means different people doing the development, which almost inevitably means different styles and quality of game. Skyrim and other TES games were all developed by Bethesda Games Studios, not Zenimax Online. And Zenimax Media has owned Bethesda for a while now (13 years or so). We certainly can and probably will see another stand-alone Elder Scrolls game.
For those who are wondering, the difference is that between Fallout 3 (Bethesda) and Fallout: New Vegas (Obsidian, and an extremely buggy, sometimes even unplayably so, mess). Different studios naturally produce different end results.
Besides, who cares what someone's Idiot Quotient is?
Other idiots.
Read TFA: despite the /. headline, Bethesda isn't developing this game: Zenimax Online Studios (a different subsidiary of Zenimax from Bethesda) is. Bethesda may be publishing it (I think), but not developing it (or at least not the primary devs).
No, Slashdot, Bethesda didn't announce this. It is being made by Zenimax Online Studios (owned by Zenimax, which also owns Bethesda). I don't know if anyone from Bethesda is working on it or not: it certainly doesn't sound like it, since they say it's been in development for a few years and Bethesda has been working on Skyrim during that period.
It sounds like Bethesda Softworks (the publisher) is involved, though, just not the actual development studio that made the other TES games.
It would be relevant if Oracle vs. Google was in the EU. Sadly, it is occurring in the US. Hopefully, the results will be similar, although IIRC it is a low-level court and won't matter much in the long run anyways (i.e. it won't set a precedent until it, inevitably, goes to appeal.)
As it is, the timing is more or less pure coincidence. The judgment might be influenced by this decision, but it isn't too likely.
Just to clarify I wasn't saying in any way that capitalism requires stability. I was arguing it can function in a stable (i.e. non-expanding) system.
If the system is too stable, you don't have transfer of money (in the extreme case, no one needs or wants anything beyond what they have), and without transfer of money (which implies an unbalance of some kind, inherently), capitalism cannot function. Admittedly, that is an extreme case unlikely to occur in the near future. It would more or less require Star Trek-style replicators or similar technology.
First of all, the shape of the Earth was never a controversy: the Greeks not only knew it was round, they calculated the radius to within a few hundred km or so, and that knowledge stayed with humanity through the time of Columbus (who knew it was round, but miscalculated the exact circumference by a fair bit). Pretty much the only people who may have thought it was flat were the peasants.
Second, capitalism works perfectly fine with a non-growing system. Plenty of companies maintain stable levels of profit and production over years or decades, producing steady profits for their investors. A huge number of investors prefer start-ups and expansion, because those yield massive profits (or complete loss) much much faster, but capitalism doesn't require that. All it requires is that the stable system be large enough to create local instabilities. There will be sufficient fluctuation between the companies within the stable system to allow for new corporations in any case, and of course the progress of science means we will (for the forseeable future) be able to utilize more resources and do so more efficiently: oil is not the only source of energy in the world. It isn't even the cheapest or most efficient, just the easiest to utilize.
There really isn't very much impressive about it, it wasn't even a repeatable strategy, as before the day was out. The ONLY reason it worked in the first place was because passengers were expecting a normal "hostage situation" hijacking, where it made sense to stay in their seats and wait for the situation to be resolved. By the end of the day the whole plan was useless to try again.
So, what you are saying is that it isn't a repeatable strategy because people remember what happened last time? Interesting.
Yes, I get your point about the security theater, and agree. Personally, I think the terrorists succeeded beyond their wildest dreams because of that, but that still doesn't mean we shouldn't remember the attack.
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
--George Santayana
That is why. Also, I don't know what history books you read, but the US history books I studied included the achievements too. They just aren't brought up as often (and usually are associated with tragedies, since those are the times when achievements become the most significant).
Well, to be fair, if you're drunk and/or high enough, those two are pretty much equal in value, which completely explains the entertainment industry's position.
TFA says that Newzbin got around the block last year by moving domains, so I'm guessing it's a DNS block (assuming they do the same).
I've not heard of "ultrasonic vortex beams" before (props to whoever came up with that name). What would the maximum weight of the levitated object be before the ultrasonic effects started to become destructive, or is that not even a problem? Could we levitate a car (for example), or is this limited to very cool but not very useful lab experiments like superconductor levitation is right now?
Then the legal process around enforcing the patent itself should be reformed, not the patenting process. In the example you just gave, the inventor could (or should be able to) sue the maker of FooBarBaz and be awarded not only the money from the sales of the device, but also block all further sales. That means the evil company loses all the money from making and selling the device, plus being unable to sell it anymore. That is the point of the patent process. If the inventor can't do that under the current legal climate, then it is the legal system, not the patent system, that is broken.