Restaurant? It's a kwik-fit. Anyway, the difference is that if the establishment is doing anything to supply the music or radios, they need to get a license. Personal radios don't (usually) count, although that's what this case will determine, I guess.
Considering that the charitable half of the cost is tax-deductible, what this scheme actually does is let you take money from the government and spend it on something of your choosing. Your attitude is one I usually associate with a resentment of taxation too, so I'm not sure I follow your reasoning.
... so vote with your wallet, and don't buy one. The American Way is surely that OLPC can choose whatever the hell they like as terms; you don't have to purchase one if you don't like that. Or are you saying that you should be entitled to a cheap laptop?
It's not under zero pressure; it's inside the body. Fluids not contained in the body (on the surface of the eye, in the mouth) do begin to boil. As the article explains, you typically need to breathe out to avoid major damage to the lungs; but there's normally a small residual pressure in the lungs for a small while as the airways don't tend to stay open.
This is not completely theoretical; there have been a few exposures to near-vacuum (on the ground).
Providing the four legs are the same length and form a square on a flat surface, and the ground changes height continuously, then it's a reasonably trivial result that you'll be able to place all four legs in firm contact with the ground simply by rotating them.
Quick sketch:
Let the four feet form a square, ABCD. Suppose A, B, C are in contact with the ground, and D is above the ground. Rotate the feet so that A->the original position of B, B->C, C->D and D->A along any path you desire. Keep A, B and C in contact with the ground.
Since in the original configuration, were B, C and D in contact with the ground, A would have been "submerged", then it follows that the height of D above the ground must have varied continuously along the path it followed from a positive to a negative value.
Consequently, there exists a point somewhere along that path where all of A, B, C and D are in contact with the ground simultaneously.
"From london its what a 3-4hr drive to anywhere in the country?"
Heh, not done much driving in the UK, I take it? Urban density's much higher, road congestion is awful. There are lots of potential destinations that'll take you much longer than that... once you actually manage to get out of London:-/
Your scheme would only permit a _single_ tcp connection between any pair of hosts attached in the fashion you describe, since a TCP connection is identified by the tuple (src ip, src port, dest ip, dest port). So you'd wind up inventing a whole load of connection multiplexing to go with that NAT.
Frankly, that sounds like more engineering work than switching to IPv6.
Well, there _is_ a search function, and that's what the tier-2 sites will be running. The data describes individual experiements (that is, individual collisions) and comes off LHC at a whacking rate. There's some front-end processing to throw away a lot of it before what's left gets sent to the tier-1 sites for further distribution.
The data is suitable for high-throughput (ie, batch processing) and the idea is to keep copies of the experimental data in several places during processing. Interesting results get flagged up by the batch processing for further study.
A version of that would be java plus the proposed closure support, which permits things like being able to fashion "with-blocks" that follow a close-on-completion semantics without having to explicitly write the finally{} block.
Example of your type of bug in current java releases: sun.security.krb5 in the core java rt.jar. Look at the code in jdk_sec-1_5_0-src-scsl.zip.
You'll see that sun.security.krb5.internal.UDPClient has no close() method; and the UDPClient-using code path in sun.security.krb5.KrbKdcReq (which has a few other close-to-the-coalface errors) consequently leaks FDs (unlike the TCP path, which has a try/finally that closes the socket properly).
We're seeing a krb5 client application (the Yale CAS SSO) keel over in no time due to FD exhaustion. A trivial fix (the non-whitespace part of the diff is 8 lines) sorts this out.
(Currently pulling my hair out with Sun trying to get this fixed:-) )
Software shouldn't be patentable for the same reason that legal argument shouldn't be patentable. (Although I would like to see someone patent "a method and system for avoiding culpabiulity for murder by claiming diminished responsibility on the grounds of experiencing a sugar-rush at the time, said rush to have been brought on by the consumption of a sweet comestible" - aka, The Twinkie Defence.)
What about the wierd guy around the corner who's not making small explosives (whether or not he totures kittens) and isn't a terrorist?
I'd like to see a citation in support of your claims about advertisements. You imply that "they" were doing this prior to their children being involved in a terrorist act (which one?)
Lots of families celebrate their children's religious rites of passage: announcements of christenings, bar mitzvahs, etc, are not uncommon in the papers. How am I supposed to interpret that?
"Either the idea that the behavior is acceptable must be eradicated or that sector of the population must be. They leave the rest of us no choice."
That doesn't hold up to inspection. With the radicalised British natives responsible for 7/7, their nearest and dearest were genuinely shocked and appalled by their actions.
Unless, of course, by "know who they are", you mean, that people know folks who complain about the government, perhaps express frustrated opinions that they should just shoot the sods, and don't toe the party line. Should any (muslim) who meets that criterion be suspected and reported? The US has already tried this before, and those witchhunts didn't do anyone any good.
You've heard of "the twinkie defence": a mthod and system of avoiding legal culpability by claiming that one's competence was temporarily abeyed by the consumption of sugary confectionary.
Arguing for the patenting of legal argument is taking the fight to the lawyers.
Slashdot Mirror
Restaurant? It's a kwik-fit. Anyway, the difference is that if the establishment is doing anything to supply the music or radios, they need to get a license. Personal radios don't (usually) count, although that's what this case will determine, I guess.
Considering that the charitable half of the cost is tax-deductible, what this scheme actually does is let you take money from the government and spend it on something of your choosing. Your attitude is one I usually associate with a resentment of taxation too, so I'm not sure I follow your reasoning.
... so vote with your wallet, and don't buy one. The American Way is surely that OLPC can choose whatever the hell they like as terms; you don't have to purchase one if you don't like that. Or are you saying that you should be entitled to a cheap laptop?
That is, redshift < 0.20. It's stretching a point to call it "local" though.
In the same area? Well, er, yes, kind of. "Redshift 0.20" is what the abstract says.
It's not under zero pressure; it's inside the body. Fluids not contained in the body (on the surface of the eye, in the mouth) do begin to boil. As the article explains, you typically need to breathe out to avoid major damage to the lungs; but there's normally a small residual pressure in the lungs for a small while as the airways don't tend to stay open.
This is not completely theoretical; there have been a few exposures to near-vacuum (on the ground).
Providing the four legs are the same length and form a square on a flat surface, and the ground changes height continuously, then it's a reasonably trivial result that you'll be able to place all four legs in firm contact with the ground simply by rotating them.
Quick sketch:
Let the four feet form a square, ABCD. Suppose A, B, C are in contact with the ground, and D is above the ground. Rotate the feet so that A->the original position of B, B->C, C->D and D->A along any path you desire. Keep A, B and C in contact with the ground.
Since in the original configuration, were B, C and D in contact with the ground, A would have been "submerged", then it follows that the height of D above the ground must have varied continuously along the path it followed from a positive to a negative value.
Consequently, there exists a point somewhere along that path where all of A, B, C and D are in contact with the ground simultaneously.
"From london its what a 3-4hr drive to anywhere in the country?"
:-/
Heh, not done much driving in the UK, I take it? Urban density's much higher, road congestion is awful. There are lots of potential destinations that'll take you much longer than that... once you actually manage to get out of London
Your scheme would only permit a _single_ tcp connection between any pair of hosts attached in the fashion you describe, since a TCP connection is identified by the tuple (src ip, src port, dest ip, dest port). So you'd wind up inventing a whole load of connection multiplexing to go with that NAT.
Frankly, that sounds like more engineering work than switching to IPv6.
Well, there _is_ a search function, and that's what the tier-2 sites will be running. The data describes individual experiements (that is, individual collisions) and comes off LHC at a whacking rate. There's some front-end processing to throw away a lot of it before what's left gets sent to the tier-1 sites for further distribution.
The data is suitable for high-throughput (ie, batch processing) and the idea is to keep copies of the experimental data in several places during processing. Interesting results get flagged up by the batch processing for further study.
No, it doesn't. There was quite a deal of work that went into making sure that that was ok.
"the web"
A version of that would be java plus the proposed closure support, which permits things like being able to fashion "with-blocks" that follow a close-on-completion semantics without having to explicitly write the finally{} block.
:-) )
Example of your type of bug in current java releases: sun.security.krb5 in the core java rt.jar. Look at the code in jdk_sec-1_5_0-src-scsl.zip.
You'll see that sun.security.krb5.internal.UDPClient has no close() method; and the UDPClient-using code path in sun.security.krb5.KrbKdcReq (which has a few other close-to-the-coalface errors) consequently leaks FDs (unlike the TCP path, which has a try/finally that closes the socket properly).
We're seeing a krb5 client application (the Yale CAS SSO) keel over in no time due to FD exhaustion. A trivial fix (the non-whitespace part of the diff is 8 lines) sorts this out.
(Currently pulling my hair out with Sun trying to get this fixed
you mean the one right next to "another"?
... a "nontechnical field", which is the basis for its exemption.
:-(
Once again my government shows itself to be in touch with the IT world
Trying to run up the flight of stairs you start by.
You know about NIS and YP - do you know about NDS? The reason I quite like AD is because it reminds me of that.
Software shouldn't be patentable for the same reason that legal argument shouldn't be patentable. (Although I would like to see someone patent "a method and system for avoiding culpabiulity for murder by claiming diminished responsibility on the grounds of experiencing a sugar-rush at the time, said rush to have been brought on by the consumption of a sweet comestible" - aka, The Twinkie Defence.)
Tony Blair :-)
By what definition of "actual" and "physical" (and "is")?
Hang on; if they're orbiting, they're following a geodesic, right?
What about the wierd guy around the corner who's not making small explosives (whether or not he totures kittens) and isn't a terrorist?
I'd like to see a citation in support of your claims about advertisements. You imply that "they" were doing this prior to their children being involved in a terrorist act (which one?)
Lots of families celebrate their children's religious rites of passage: announcements of christenings, bar mitzvahs, etc, are not uncommon in the papers. How am I supposed to interpret that?
"Either the idea that the behavior is acceptable must be eradicated or that sector of the population must be. They leave the rest of us no choice."
Oh, grow up.
That doesn't hold up to inspection. With the radicalised British natives responsible for 7/7, their nearest and dearest were genuinely shocked and appalled by their actions.
Unless, of course, by "know who they are", you mean, that people know folks who complain about the government, perhaps express frustrated opinions that they should just shoot the sods, and don't toe the party line. Should any (muslim) who meets that criterion be suspected and reported? The US has already tried this before, and those witchhunts didn't do anyone any good.
You've heard of "the twinkie defence": a mthod and system of avoiding legal culpability by claiming that one's competence was temporarily abeyed by the consumption of sugary confectionary.
Arguing for the patenting of legal argument is taking the fight to the lawyers.
..and what year, exactly, was Jesus born, according to your calendar?