Looking at the actual research paper, all I see is improved durability, _not_ increased capacity. Yet the article claims you'd only need to "charge every three days instead of every day".
Am I reading the research paper wrong or is everyone else?
Contract with 3rd party photographers to take the pictures, with a suitable license agreement (perpetual use by police/courts/etc.). Let the photographer sue for unlicensed commercial use by other sites.
we have been bouncing a laser off the moon since the late 60's
And receiving back only a few photons out of billions, making any meaningful data transfer impossible, unless you consider 1 bps meaningful.
can we please for the love of god end the multimillion dollar experiments that a 12 year old does on instructables?
Can we please educate people enough so that they understand that shining a light across a room is much easier than detecting it from 250,000 mies away?
Obviously anyone giving you legal advice has failed due diligence. From their site: "Every IP listed will expire 7 days after the LAST abuse is detected, and FREE of charge."
So, find out whoever is spamming, and put a stop to it. It might be different if your ASN is listed, but I'd still be looking for spam sources on your own network.
It can't be trivially reduced, though. Remember you're travelling _through_ a point, with speed, direction, momentum and orientation dependent on the point _before_ that.
So if you have 12 points, there are 10 different 'distances' between the last two. For example, in points A through L, the distance from K to L depends on whether you arrived at K from A, B, C, etc.
The original table would have 11 entries for each point, while the current challenge would require a table of 110 entries for each point.
The complexity increases from (n-1) to (n-1)*(n-2). Not quite squared, but close enough. IMHO that's the opposite of a trivial reduction.
Sorry, but _you_ need to read more carefully and thoroughly.
FTFA: "She described it as "outrageous" that someone could "scroll down the friends list for the bar and point out someone that had brown hair and bangs" and that would be enough to enter someone into the justice system."
Note the "friends list for the bar" bit. Meaning, she must have friended the bar to be on its friends list.
You seem to have failed at either reading comprehension, or simple deductive logic.
There are many things you are not allowed to accept money for on PayPal. Most of them are illegal, but some, like guns and erotica, are not. But I do remember in PayPal's TOS that they did exclude sellers from taking payments for adult material.
So yeah, don't take PayPal and then complain because YOU didn't follow the rules.
However I will grant that the definition of what is, and isn't 'erotica', could be subject to wild swings of interpretation. However any merchant with enough volume has their own merchant account and doesn't need PayPal anyhow, so shouldn't need to worry about PP's interpretation.
"Sullivan, while making it clear he opposes Santorum's views, nonetheless suggests Google is long overdue to implement a disclaimer for the 'Santorum' search results. 'They are going to confuse some people,' he explains, 'who will assume Google's trying to advance a political agenda with its search results.'""
If Google _were_ to include a disclaimer, it would be pushing a political agenda. Unless the disclaimer was something like: "The search results below may indicate that the candidate of your choice is so hopelessly clueless about the web that they are unable to grab the top search result for their own name." Unless of course the Luddites now have a political party....
Just hack one of those talking greeting / birthday cards. Yank the electronics and put them in your own card. I know there are cards that let you record exactly what you want on them, but they're a bit more expensive than the others. You could even personalize each voice invitation to match the person being invited.
It's different enough to be geeky and novel, but not so far-left-geeky that it'll have everyone wondering if they need to show up to your wedding in cosplay garb.
Make a tablet with this kind of screen in front of an e-ink display and you'd have the best of both worlds: crisp, clear text with long battery life, or full color.
If you really want to go above and beyond, don't let anyone access the web server directly at all. Instead, they would connect to an OS session on a machine you control via VNC, or perhaps Citrix Metaframe, etc.
The 'desktop' they're accessing can only access your 'web' server. Your server can't be accessed from, nor can it access the internet at large. The 'desktop' they access can be as locked down as you want, probably only showing a single app or browser running in a 'kiosk mode'.
In one swell foop (grin), you'll have eliminated almost all attack vectors, and as long as you have good input sanitizing between your 'kiosk app' and database, you should be fairly safe, even from future 0-day attacks.
Who gets to make the tax deduction? And if it's on the dead guy's estate, why per year? I mean, how many times to they expect a person to die in Virginia, anyhow?
Forget both medical and pseudo medical. If you can shield something from a magnetic field, you can create a perpetual motion machine. Two magnets pull towards each other, generating energy, one gets shielded, move them away from each other, repeat.
The possibility of a magnetic shield seems to break some thermodynamic laws, unless I am misunderstanding something.
Each individual feature is just too big. You're looking at individual transistors 20x or more larger than what we have today on silicon. Faster and lower power, maybe, until you try and build a working CPU from them and discover you need a die 3cm x 3cm. Niche products only.
Is it even possible to roll back a bitcoin trade?
on
Bitcoin Price Crashes
·
· Score: 1
I thought each trade was part of the bitcoin history, so how can you possibly "roll back" trades? I could see sending bitcoin back to where it came from, but both parties would have to agree to everything.
But that's the point. There aren't any "pure" formulae in the article. It's all pseudocode. Show me the _pure_mathematical_function_ that is patent 120. If someone doesn't understand English, they should still be able to look at a math function and understand it. The article fails that test, and as such I can't call it a math function.
Sorry, but I'm not familiar with "if" in math. What's the symbol for "if"? Or how about "next"? I'm sorry, but I don't see a pure mathematical formula in the article. I see programming code. I was really hoping to see just how something like the 120 patent looked in just math, but alas I don't see it.
I remember an article from.. oh... 25 years ago in Popular Mechanics or similar saying similar things about plasma jet spark plugs. Igniting a larger portion of the mixture farther from the head, etc.
Now it's lasers. Ok.. if the laser is collimated before it leaves the 'plug', wouldn't it ignite the air/fuel mix right at the plug tip just like current spark plugs do? If there's a lens focusing the laser to an ignition point farther from the tip, then is the laser light concentrated enough to burn off any residues? Plus, when a piston is at TDC, there's not a lot of distance to cover to get ignition in the center of the charge, an extended tip spark plug works well in that case, so wouldn't a laser be overkill? Ok, I can see two lasers from one plug in two different directions, but dual plugs are nothing new either.
Color me skeptical about the potential improvements to be had from using lasers instead of spark plugs.
Um, did you read up and understand what this is all about? Or am I misunderstanding completely what BT is offering? Seems to me BT is simply offering to cache content on their own network to eliminate a lot of network hops, and reduce latency.
Can someone tell me how an ISP offering to cache media content, for a price, violates net neutrality or somehow manages to create a two-tier internet? Is Netflix _not_ allowed to pay BT to keep a copy of their movies available just for BT customers? Is BT _not_ allowed to cache high usage content that gets repeated hits from their users? I absolutely, positively don't see why anyone is making a big deal of this. Caching servers have been around for ages, and this seems to be just the next logical step. Are caching proxies now verboten?
Slashdot Mirror
Looking at the actual research paper, all I see is improved durability, _not_ increased capacity. Yet the article claims you'd only need to "charge every three days instead of every day".
Am I reading the research paper wrong or is everyone else?
Contract with 3rd party photographers to take the pictures, with a suitable license agreement (perpetual use by police/courts/etc.). Let the photographer sue for unlicensed commercial use by other sites.
The problem will be solved rather quickly.
we have been bouncing a laser off the moon since the late 60's
And receiving back only a few photons out of billions, making any meaningful data transfer impossible, unless you consider 1 bps meaningful.
can we please for the love of god end the multimillion dollar experiments that a 12 year old does on instructables?
Can we please educate people enough so that they understand that shining a light across a room is much easier than detecting it from 250,000 mies away?
Enterprise class simply means:
PC LOAD PLASTIC
will be displayed at random intervals.
Obviously anyone giving you legal advice has failed due diligence. From their site: "Every IP listed will expire 7 days after the LAST abuse is detected, and FREE of charge."
So, find out whoever is spamming, and put a stop to it. It might be different if your ASN is listed, but I'd still be looking for spam sources on your own network.
It can't be trivially reduced, though. Remember you're travelling _through_ a point, with speed, direction, momentum and orientation dependent on the point _before_ that.
So if you have 12 points, there are 10 different 'distances' between the last two. For example, in points A through L, the distance from K to L depends on whether you arrived at K from A, B, C, etc.
The original table would have 11 entries for each point, while the current challenge would require a table of 110 entries for each point.
The complexity increases from (n-1) to (n-1)*(n-2). Not quite squared, but close enough. IMHO that's the opposite of a trivial reduction.
One thing I'd appreciate is the ability to filter out posts that have been moderated as funny. Humor is cool, but sometimes it's just clutter to me.
Sorry, but _you_ need to read more carefully and thoroughly.
FTFA:
"She described it as "outrageous" that someone could "scroll down the friends list for the bar and point out someone that had brown hair and bangs" and that would be enough to enter someone into the justice system."
Note the "friends list for the bar" bit. Meaning, she must have friended the bar to be on its friends list.
You seem to have failed at either reading comprehension, or simple deductive logic.
There are many things you are not allowed to accept money for on PayPal. Most of them are illegal, but some, like guns and erotica, are not. But I do remember in PayPal's TOS that they did exclude sellers from taking payments for adult material.
So yeah, don't take PayPal and then complain because YOU didn't follow the rules.
However I will grant that the definition of what is, and isn't 'erotica', could be subject to wild swings of interpretation. However any merchant with enough volume has their own merchant account and doesn't need PayPal anyhow, so shouldn't need to worry about PP's interpretation.
I, for one, will welcome our new Xombie overlords in 3... 2... 1....
"Sullivan, while making it clear he opposes Santorum's views, nonetheless suggests Google is long overdue to implement a disclaimer for the 'Santorum' search results. 'They are going to confuse some people,' he explains, 'who will assume Google's trying to advance a political agenda with its search results.'""
If Google _were_ to include a disclaimer, it would be pushing a political agenda. Unless the disclaimer was something like: "The search results below may indicate that the candidate of your choice is so hopelessly clueless about the web that they are unable to grab the top search result for their own name." Unless of course the Luddites now have a political party....
Just hack one of those talking greeting / birthday cards. Yank the electronics and put them in your own card. I know there are cards that let you record exactly what you want on them, but they're a bit more expensive than the others. You could even personalize each voice invitation to match the person being invited.
It's different enough to be geeky and novel, but not so far-left-geeky that it'll have everyone wondering if they need to show up to your wedding in cosplay garb.
Make a tablet with this kind of screen in front of an e-ink display and you'd have the best of both worlds: crisp, clear text with long battery life, or full color.
If you really want to go above and beyond, don't let anyone access the web server directly at all. Instead, they would connect to an OS session on a machine you control via VNC, or perhaps Citrix Metaframe, etc.
The 'desktop' they're accessing can only access your 'web' server. Your server can't be accessed from, nor can it access the internet at large. The 'desktop' they access can be as locked down as you want, probably only showing a single app or browser running in a 'kiosk mode'.
In one swell foop (grin), you'll have eliminated almost all attack vectors, and as long as you have good input sanitizing between your 'kiosk app' and database, you should be fairly safe, even from future 0-day attacks.
Who gets to make the tax deduction? And if it's on the dead guy's estate, why per year? I mean, how many times to they expect a person to die in Virginia, anyhow?
Requests to take the survey were distributed via the following social networks and web sites: ... ...
Reddit
I don't think they make grains of salt large enough to compensate for that bias.
Forget both medical and pseudo medical. If you can shield something from a magnetic field, you can create a perpetual motion machine. Two magnets pull towards each other, generating energy, one gets shielded, move them away from each other, repeat.
The possibility of a magnetic shield seems to break some thermodynamic laws, unless I am misunderstanding something.
Each individual feature is just too big. You're looking at individual transistors 20x or more larger than what we have today on silicon. Faster and lower power, maybe, until you try and build a working CPU from them and discover you need a die 3cm x 3cm. Niche products only.
I thought each trade was part of the bitcoin history, so how can you possibly "roll back" trades? I could see sending bitcoin back to where it came from, but both parties would have to agree to everything.
Twitter is in California, and a California court ordered them to reveal information. Twitter is complying with the law.
Try making it more relevant:
Brits using American court system to sue Americans.
Still News at 11 for me.
But that's the point. There aren't any "pure" formulae in the article. It's all pseudocode. Show me the _pure_mathematical_function_ that is patent 120. If someone doesn't understand English, they should still be able to look at a math function and understand it. The article fails that test, and as such I can't call it a math function.
Sorry, but I'm not familiar with "if" in math. What's the symbol for "if"? Or how about "next"? I'm sorry, but I don't see a pure mathematical formula in the article. I see programming code. I was really hoping to see just how something like the 120 patent looked in just math, but alas I don't see it.
Or am I missing something?
I remember an article from.. oh... 25 years ago in Popular Mechanics or similar saying similar things about plasma jet spark plugs. Igniting a larger portion of the mixture farther from the head, etc.
Now it's lasers. Ok.. if the laser is collimated before it leaves the 'plug', wouldn't it ignite the air/fuel mix right at the plug tip just like current spark plugs do? If there's a lens focusing the laser to an ignition point farther from the tip, then is the laser light concentrated enough to burn off any residues? Plus, when a piston is at TDC, there's not a lot of distance to cover to get ignition in the center of the charge, an extended tip spark plug works well in that case, so wouldn't a laser be overkill? Ok, I can see two lasers from one plug in two different directions, but dual plugs are nothing new either.
Color me skeptical about the potential improvements to be had from using lasers instead of spark plugs.
The Audi 5000 had similar issues:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_5000#Reported_sudden_unintended_acceleration
Um, did you read up and understand what this is all about? Or am I misunderstanding completely what BT is offering? Seems to me BT is simply offering to cache content on their own network to eliminate a lot of network hops, and reduce latency.
Can someone tell me how an ISP offering to cache media content, for a price, violates net neutrality or somehow manages to create a two-tier internet? Is Netflix _not_ allowed to pay BT to keep a copy of their movies available just for BT customers? Is BT _not_ allowed to cache high usage content that gets repeated hits from their users? I absolutely, positively don't see why anyone is making a big deal of this. Caching servers have been around for ages, and this seems to be just the next logical step. Are caching proxies now verboten?