Operate ethically. Stop going to war for lies and treasure. Demonstrate (not just talk about) care for servicefolks and vets.
You know that the military doesn't have anything to do with this, do you? It is the civilian government that sets the budget and authorizes sending of troops into battle and what weapon systems to buy and from whom and what bases to keep open and shutdown (in the US anyhow). So are you saying that this is a recruitment disaster for the washington DC political cartel? I think not. If anything, it's a boon.
Basically, the military in the US is given a certain pile of money for a congressionally mandated recruitment goal (to maintain a congressionally mandated force level given attrition and other factors), and they have to do what they can to meet that goal with that pile of money (GI-bill stuff, lower recruitment standards, use forced callups and other mechanims as well as fluff stuff like the blue-angels).
All the other stuff is decided by congressional committees and backroom politics. You probably haven't noticed, but there are constantly stories about the US military being forced to buy weapons that they don't want, or the ones that they ask for are not funded.
It seems that many posters are coming to the conclusion that the journals are "fake", but that's not fully understanding the issue.
There are apparently some organizations that go the whole fake journal/conference route, but these have always existed and are no different than the diploma mills (except at the post-graduate level). Or those places you can order "trade-rag" magazines with your picture on the cover that you can put in your waiting rooom to impress your clients. Or those fake conferences where people get their employer to pay for their vacation (or in some cases the government in the form of tax breaks). These will never be quashed because the customers are often not really victims, but co-conspirators (although they may claim to be when outed).
It appears that another part of the issue is that criminal organizations are putting up fake websites that masquarade as the official website of real, but obscure journals (that don't have a website) or a website that is confusingly similar to a well known journal and then using these websites to trick people into sending them submission fees. Often these websites have scraped academic search sites for TOC and other publically available information to fool people.
This aspect is like people putting up typosquating websites, cloning websites in different top level domains, or setting up fake websites for businesses that don't have a website (kind of like what domain tasters do, but in a more malicious manner) and doing a bit of SEO...
On a similar note, they should have in another question asked "What are the order of these numbers: 8, 6, 7, 5, 3, 0, 9?" I'm thinking you might be able to learn something about their answer to this question as well...
Nobody gives a rats ass that Apple can't get a trademark on something they technically already have a trademark on.
"Technically"?
I assume Apple still has the trademark on "iPad", so lacking the "iPad Mini" trademark doesn't exactly allow competetors to go out and release their own products called "iPad Mini"
Although I think this give competetors free license to make say an Slate "mini" or Nexus "mini" whilst Apple can only fume on the sidelines...
Although schools have been very good at scrounging up grants for low-income students for a long time, they have stuck firm to the "list-price" until recently***.
Harvard announced their free-tuition for low-income students program in March, 2006. Stanford announced their free-tuition for low-income students program in February, 2008.
So although the effective price has been low for most lower-income students, the instituions have only officially started discounting. The old fear that discounting would somehow reduce their prestige had been removed.
*** yes I graduated many moons ago relative to 2006/2008
Many moons ago when I was at univeristy I attended, they kicked off a student/faculty committee to study how Cooper Union was able to provide full-tuition scholarships to all registered undergrad students (kindof free as in beer) and how it worked out. As it turned out, CU used a combination of fundraising and endowment income to make this happen.
After a bit of research, the student/faculty committee found that it was possible for the endowment of my university was sufficient to make a similar offer. The trustees came back with the point that if we didn't charge the same as other prestigious universities, people would think that our univerity was somehow inferior. Thus, the every-rising spiral of tuition was to continue.
However, more recently, though, prestigious universities have been offering massive discounts on a "need" basis. For example, Harvard and Stanford offer essentially free tuition for families earning under $60K, although my alma matter hasn't followed suit (it doesn't have an endowment as big as Harvard or Stanford), I imagine that trend will eventually force all universities down this path, if not discounting for all students. This may eventually force another metric (other than tuition or selectiveness) for obtaining status symbol labeling. Not sure how the free courseware will eventually affect them.
I suspect that journals will face the same problem as universities. Eventually, they will discount based on some criteria unrelated to their mission, then they will just discount randomly to fight open access journals. Actually, I think the fates of universities and the academic publishing communities are quite tied together (more than either would care to admit).
An interesting tirade on financial products. Sadly, many human endeavors suffer from similar limitations/pitfalls: computer programming, law and torts, diplomacy/war.
Each of these virtual constructs are created from the human mind, have ephemerial existance (outside of some recorded media like paper and ink), and have the potential for serious impact on the public at large when things go wrong at a large scale.
At the end of the day, human social institutions are all that hold up these virtual constructs of our collective imagination and sadly are the only actual backstops when these creations of ours minds get out of our control.
People have gone off the rail about all sorts of virtual constructs: various tomes on object oriented or functional programming, sql/nosql, trials, rules of evidence, incarceration/recidivism rates, death penalty, liability, insurance, patents, copyrights, treaties, arms control, scanctions, no-fly-zones, etc, etc... mostly about what is wrong about our creations of the mind, but at the end of the day, the crap like "privatize the profits, socialize the losses" are really just a reflection of the later.
Most folks desire living in a social construct which is not too far removed from their current situation, thus anything that rocks the boat must be done in a revolutionary manner. Perhaps this sums up my sentiment on this matter...
There is so much talk about how cost are minuscule and any reasonably sized institute could bear the load. If that was true then why has it not been done already? I am sure most institutes would love to get rid of the costs of journal subscriptions. Perhaps it is not as easy or low cost as some people think.
If you want hard number, look no further than here...
According to their FAQ, arXiv's operating costs for 2013-2017 are projected to average of $826,000 per year, including indirect expenses. Cornell (the hosting institution) kicks in about $75K/year. They also get $350K/year from the Simons Foundation***. Other schools/institutions kick in money based on a "shame" funding model (kind of like a museum suggested donation). arXiv publishes a list of the top 200 downloading institutions sorted by orginating IP address and suggests that they become members and donate between $1.5K and $3K/year based on their position on the list. Looking at the top 25 institutions, there appears to be only 3 "dead-beats" (14, 21, and 22 who are unnamed), and a greater than 75% uptake on the top 100.
As more institutions pony-up, it is anticipated that the funding from the Simons Foundation will eventually drop down to a nominal level ($50K/year) as the extra $300K/year it was provided to bootstrap the endeavor so that the suggested donation from institutions could be kept low enough to be "miniscule".
*** The Simons Foundation was started by a Mathemetician turned Hedge-fund manager billionare.
No story mentions that. He certainly doesn't have 26.8B dollars. Is it a bluff to get the dividends he wanted?
Probably, it is a bluff, but Mr Icahn is the king of leveraged buyouts (basically you take a loan out to buy the company with the company you bought as colateral). Kind of like how you buy a house with a loan, except the "house" (well actually the company that holds the house as an asset) really owes the money, not you.
Why would someone invest the money for a leveraged buyout (LBO)? It's because the debt is generally structured in tranches with different terms and interest rates, rather than one big lump. The senior tranches generally yield a low interest rate but are backed by a higher percentage of the collateral so you can attract more risk-adverse money. The junior tranches generally have a high interest rate for those with the stomach (much higher than a typical bank loan, so it is more profitable, but more risky, essentially junk bonds). With a typical LBO structure people can make different types of bets on the same loan segmenting the secondary loan market making it much easier to attract the money from the capital markets than a straight-up monolithic loan of $28.6B with uniform risk profile.
Back in the day, most engineers wish IBM had gone with motorollas 68000 rather than the address hobbled 8086 series. Oh how we hated paging 640k hell.
That might have just traded one set of problems for another. For example, Apple went the 68K route with their Macs. The early versions of the 68K family only implemented 24/32 address bits, so some clever programmers (like those on their OS team) hid all sorts of pointer tags in the MSBs (like lock-bits). When Apple finally transitioned to the 68020, those clever pointer-tags hacks came back to bite them in a major way.
Maybe the 8088 wasn't the best overall technical choice, but from a business perspective: the availablity of more 8080-derived OSs (like CP/M 86), and the fact that the 68008 was pretty crappy/buggy at the time and its peripheral chips weren't available in volume on IBM's schedule compared with the 8088 which was ready to go probably were issues that tipped the balance.
Apparently, in europe, shit like this doesn't happen.
When there's a transition in the whitehouse, you probably need to assume everything needs to get replaced, so you start with a clean slate.
And if you are paranoid, you might assume that the previous administration left a few backdoors in the old IT system, so it'd probably be prudent in any case to replace them even if the place wasn't trashed. I haven't met a politician that wasn't paranoid, so well, I guess that says it all...
Also, having been inflicted with IBM/Lotus Notes for many years, replacing it was the smart thing to do in any case.;^)
FWIW, Univision (based in Caracas) is the Fox News of Latin America.
Where do you get your information?
There are a few Venezuelan media companies, but Univision is a USA based network (in Nueva/New York, I think) that does not broadcast in Venezuela.
The only network that (historically) broadcasts in Venezula that seems to fit your imagination is the RCTV (the network that Chavez seized, and turned over to a state run media company). The other big networks in Venezuela that might fit your imagination would be either Venevision or Televen, which both were in the pocket of Mr Chavez after the RCTV was shutdown. There is another network Globovision which had been traditionally anti-Chavez, but Chavez nationalized a bank that owned 25% of the network and replaced it's board of directors... I'm not sure your politics would admit that at this time Venevision, Televen, or Globovison was fox-news-ish (whatever the hell that means)....
Originially, there was some thought given to the tradeoff between a single centralized computer, and a distributed computing architecture. After much analysis, the 3 dual-computer configuration was selected.
The CCS (computer command system) is essentially identical to the computer used in viking. The AACS (attitude and articulation control system) is sort of a souped up version of the CCS (higher clockrate, added "index" registers + a few opcodes) The FDS (flight-data sub-system) was a new design that had DMA and CMOS memories.
The 18-bit words of the CCS and AACS were either data (2's complement numbers), or instructions (6-bit opcode, 12-bit address). The processor has 13 special purpose ("cisc-y") registers. The processors effectively have 32-interrupt levels to run various tasks.
The FDS is a bit different beast as it is a 4-bit/byte-serial 16-bit machine with 128 registers.
The each dual-computer configuration had 3 operating modes: individual (separate tasks), parallel (cooperate on same task for high performance), and tandem (do the same thing and compare for fault tolerance).
"Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead." - Ben Franklin
"Let me alone for keeping this secret between you and me. Howbeit, three may keep counsel, if two be away; and, if I knew my cap was privy to my counsel, I would cast it into the fire and burn it..." - King Henry the 8th
It might be murder. In my state, if someone dies as a result if a crime being committed (say, arson) the perpetrator can be charged with murder.
It usually requires the crime being committed is a felony. In some states, SWATing may only be a misdemeanor.
AFAIK, most juristiction are allowed to charge SWATing depending on the nature of the false report. Generally, if you falsely report a felony and the police take immediate action, then felony charges will usually be brought (although they are often plea-bargined). If you falsely report a misdemenor, or if the police don't take any immediate action, then it's highly likely that you won't get charged at all. Almost all laws are structured that way (allowed to be felony or misdemenor depending on degree) to give room for plea-bargining (w/o the "stick" of a felony-charge, too many misdemenor cases would end up going to trial).
Since most SWATing perpetrators want to bring overwhelming action to their victim, they often falsly report heineous felonies in progress which would generally draw the felony charge for malicious false reporting to police. If the overwhelming police action got someone killed and thus made the police look bad, you can be sure that they'd use any option to charge the SWATing as a felony false police report which would likely make the person eligible for murder charges as well.
No sane business holds grudges like that. If MS wants it, it'll be written into the next contract and either nVidia will agree or not get the contract.
Apple anyone? Rumor was Apple was going with Nvidia. Nvidia announced that had a deal with Apple and then Apple (well Jobs) killed the deal. Why? Apple has to announces things on Apple's schedule i.e. at some hyped Apple event.
Many businesses are run by what many would consider to be not sane people. Sometimes that helps the business and others it hurts the business.
I think you mangledthe rumor a little bit. I believe the alleged event you were alluding to was that Apple punishing ATI (not Nvidia) for a pre-announcement faux pax... Of course it probably actually didn't happen that way IRL, but it still makes a funny internet fable...
As I understand it, ARC4 originally stood for 'Alleged' RC-4 since it was reverse engineered from RSA's proprietary RC4 implementation. The name RC4 is trademarked by RSA and they refuse to confirm that ARC4 was 100% compatible with their trademarked RC4, so for these two reason, the name ARC4 stuck.
Of course nobody today disputes that there is any actual difference between the public ARC4 and RSA's RC4...
How does the Higgs Boson giver mass to other particles?
Nobody knows for sure, but people suspect that Higgs field (a complicated directionless/scalar field) interacts with other particles which creates the effect of expected non-zero rest mass. Other fields can yield non-rest mass effect so it's only the rest-mass that was problematic.
How is a Higgs Boson produced?
You don't really make them, they are more like a momentary "quiver" in the higgs field which immedietly decays into something else. Right now we are making this momentary quiver by colliding protons.
Can we produce these particles at will?
No. We are just colliding protons together and hoping that statistically some of the "quivers" will momentarily be higgs particles before they decay into something else. I believe the probability is about 1 in 10billion proton/proton collisions.
Can we affect gravity with them?
As far as we know, gravity affects all things with mass, but under a common interpretations of gravity, it is really mass that bends space-time so under this interpretation, the higgs has no special relationship to gravity.
Now we hear about NASA producing plutonium. So how are they planning on funding this plutonium operation? Hopefully it isn't by selling it on the internet*** to raise money;^)
** Yes, you can actually buy radioactive isotopes on the internet. For example, from these guys here. Of course these guys don't sell plutonium, so NASA would be able to have a monopoly on that;^)
Sure they could sell the software alone, but I'm assuming that's the majority of the cost anyhow. I'd expect to pay over a grand for that software...
We are here on/. I think what you meant to convey was that you are sure that there is (or could be) an open source project dedicated to do this function with a connect available for free (say like OpenSource version of KinectFusion), but I'm too lazy to contribute and I just want something that works anyhow...
What is the purpose of regulating telcos, and is that purpose still relevant to the proper operation of telcos and in providing fair and equal services to the citizens?
At least in the USA (which I am the most familiar), the purpose of regulating telcos is primarily twofold 1. To provide "tariff-like" access and pricing (both for customers and inter-teleco, intended to promote competition) 2. To provide for the USF (universal service fund). Of course, there are some other requirements: emergency 911, wiretap, etc...
At least in the US, Skype is not subject to these rules. although it is widely believed that skype can be "wiretap"-ed (well, not literally). Other than taxes, there's not much to US regulation.
As to why France is pushing this, well, it's not a recent thing, they've been saying Skype has been operating illegally in France since 2007, and that is the pace of these sorts of things. It probably doesn't hurt that now MS owns Skype and thus the pockets are deeper.
Yeah, right. If it was profitable to mine BTC then the people making BTC mining hardware would operate it, not sell it.
And yet the makers of oil, natural gas, coal, silver and gold mining equipment sell their equipment and don't operate it.
The reason that makers of traditional mining equipment sell them and don't operate them is that they don't own the rights to mining operations. Owning the rights to speculatively mine is a big-money investment game (sometimes it doesn't pan out, sometimes it does, so you need a really-big set to average that out). Every once and a while, you get a wild-cat hit, but that's the exception rather than the rule. Especially for oil, it costs $1B to build a platform, you can sell it to someone for $3B (making you a profit of $2B), or you could attempt to buy the rights to some oil field and hope for the best. If you have big-money, sure, if you only have $1B, that $2B looks pretty tempting...
On the flip-side, you can "mine" bitcoin w/o speculative investment in mining rights (just buy your equipment and attempt to figure out hashcodes). If you had to "bid" up front for exclusive rights to verify blocks of bit-coin transactions, and pay royalties back to the owner of those rights, it would be more like traditional mining. Now you can just plug in your server and hope for a few "wins" over a certain amount of time.
If traditional mining worked like bitcoin, you could just go mining for gold anywhere you felt like it and if you happened to get the gold out before the next guy, you'd win the lottery. I'm sure in that environment, you'd see people who made mining equipment think twice about selling it, but even then, it's likely they would conclude that it would be more profitable to sell the mining equipment.
As a silly historical example, it was kinda like that in the '49 gold rush (stakes or mining rights were cheap, and even if you paid for them, keeping other miners off your claim was nearly impossible, so mining rights were nearly free) the average rate of return was much better for the sellers of mining equimement than the average miner.
This morning on Morning Edition NPR broadcast a talk with Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg. (Probably because Sandberg has a new book out on the subject.) I thought it was quite interesting.
On the other hand this book also got Gloria Allred on the warpath to bash the book. Ms Allred's claim is that 'Lean In' (the title of Ms Sandberg's book) is a thinly veiled attempt to blame women for their own predicament. The basic premise of the book (I haven't read it yet), appears to be that women are not self-confident enough and that career choices for women are often about compromise, some of which are compromises that male colleagues do not have to make.
Instead, Ms Allred (in numerous radio interviews) appears to claim that the proper role of women who achieve in the workplace should be to encourage the enlistment of collective bargining (e.g., unions), to eliminate compromises and to help all women to achieve rather than to promote more self-confidence among women (since women are chided for being self-confident in the work place) and allow women make any career/family choices since they should be able to have it all.
An interesting spin on Ms Sandberg's book. One wonders if she meant that women should be submitting themselves to the male-dominated union power structure rather than promote their own accomplishments individually? I'm not sure if that's exactly how that's supposed to work out... Anyhoo... To each their own politics...
Slashdot Mirror
Operate ethically. Stop going to war for lies and treasure. Demonstrate (not just talk about) care for servicefolks and vets.
You know that the military doesn't have anything to do with this, do you? It is the civilian government that sets the budget and authorizes sending of troops into battle and what weapon systems to buy and from whom and what bases to keep open and shutdown (in the US anyhow). So are you saying that this is a recruitment disaster for the washington DC political cartel? I think not. If anything, it's a boon.
Basically, the military in the US is given a certain pile of money for a congressionally mandated recruitment goal (to maintain a congressionally mandated force level given attrition and other factors), and they have to do what they can to meet that goal with that pile of money (GI-bill stuff, lower recruitment standards, use forced callups and other mechanims as well as fluff stuff like the blue-angels).
All the other stuff is decided by congressional committees and backroom politics. You probably haven't noticed, but there are constantly stories about the US military being forced to buy weapons that they don't want, or the ones that they ask for are not funded.
It seems that many posters are coming to the conclusion that the journals are "fake", but that's not fully understanding the issue.
There are apparently some organizations that go the whole fake journal/conference route, but these have always existed and are no different than the diploma mills (except at the post-graduate level). Or those places you can order "trade-rag" magazines with your picture on the cover that you can put in your waiting rooom to impress your clients. Or those fake conferences where people get their employer to pay for their vacation (or in some cases the government in the form of tax breaks). These will never be quashed because the customers are often not really victims, but co-conspirators (although they may claim to be when outed).
It appears that another part of the issue is that criminal organizations are putting up fake websites that masquarade as the official website of real, but obscure journals (that don't have a website) or a website that is confusingly similar to a well known journal and then using these websites to trick people into sending them submission fees. Often these websites have scraped academic search sites for TOC and other publically available information to fool people.
This aspect is like people putting up typosquating websites, cloning websites in different top level domains, or setting up fake websites for businesses that don't have a website (kind of like what domain tasters do, but in a more malicious manner) and doing a bit of SEO...
Sadly these two problems are conflated.
On a similar note, they should have in another question asked "What are the order of these numbers: 8, 6, 7, 5, 3, 0, 9?"
I'm thinking you might be able to learn something about their answer to this question as well...
"Technically"?
I assume Apple still has the trademark on "iPad", so lacking the "iPad Mini" trademark doesn't exactly allow competetors to go out and release their own products called "iPad Mini"
Although I think this give competetors free license to make say an Slate "mini" or Nexus "mini" whilst Apple can only fume on the sidelines...
Although schools have been very good at scrounging up grants for low-income students for a long time, they have stuck firm to the "list-price" until recently***.
Harvard announced their free-tuition for low-income students program in March, 2006.
Stanford announced their free-tuition for low-income students program in February, 2008.
So although the effective price has been low for most lower-income students, the instituions have only officially started discounting. The old fear that discounting would somehow reduce their prestige had been removed.
*** yes I graduated many moons ago relative to 2006/2008
Many moons ago when I was at univeristy I attended, they kicked off a student/faculty committee to study how Cooper Union was able to provide full-tuition scholarships to all registered undergrad students (kindof free as in beer) and how it worked out. As it turned out, CU used a combination of fundraising and endowment income to make this happen.
After a bit of research, the student/faculty committee found that it was possible for the endowment of my university was sufficient to make a similar offer. The trustees came back with the point that if we didn't charge the same as other prestigious universities, people would think that our univerity was somehow inferior. Thus, the every-rising spiral of tuition was to continue.
However, more recently, though, prestigious universities have been offering massive discounts on a "need" basis. For example, Harvard and Stanford offer essentially free tuition for families earning under $60K, although my alma matter hasn't followed suit (it doesn't have an endowment as big as Harvard or Stanford), I imagine that trend will eventually force all universities down this path, if not discounting for all students. This may eventually force another metric (other than tuition or selectiveness) for obtaining status symbol labeling. Not sure how the free courseware will eventually affect them.
I suspect that journals will face the same problem as universities. Eventually, they will discount based on some criteria unrelated to their mission, then they will just discount randomly to fight open access journals. Actually, I think the fates of universities and the academic publishing communities are quite tied together (more than either would care to admit).
An interesting tirade on financial products. Sadly, many human endeavors suffer from similar limitations/pitfalls: computer programming, law and torts, diplomacy/war.
Each of these virtual constructs are created from the human mind, have ephemerial existance (outside of some recorded media like paper and ink), and have the potential for serious impact on the public at large when things go wrong at a large scale.
At the end of the day, human social institutions are all that hold up these virtual constructs of our collective imagination and sadly are the only actual backstops when these creations of ours minds get out of our control.
People have gone off the rail about all sorts of virtual constructs: various tomes on object oriented or functional programming, sql/nosql, trials, rules of evidence, incarceration/recidivism rates, death penalty, liability, insurance, patents, copyrights, treaties, arms control, scanctions, no-fly-zones, etc, etc... mostly about what is wrong about our creations of the mind, but at the end of the day, the crap like "privatize the profits, socialize the losses" are really just a reflection of the later.
Most folks desire living in a social construct which is not too far removed from their current situation, thus anything that rocks the boat must be done in a revolutionary manner. Perhaps this sums up my sentiment on this matter...
There is so much talk about how cost are minuscule and any reasonably sized institute could bear the load. If that was true then why has it not been done already? I am sure most institutes would love to get rid of the costs of journal subscriptions. Perhaps it is not as easy or low cost as some people think.
If you want hard number, look no further than here...
According to their FAQ, arXiv's operating costs for 2013-2017 are projected to average of $826,000 per year, including indirect expenses. Cornell (the hosting institution) kicks in about $75K/year. They also get $350K/year from the Simons Foundation***. Other schools/institutions kick in money based on a "shame" funding model (kind of like a museum suggested donation). arXiv publishes a list of the top 200 downloading institutions sorted by orginating IP address and suggests that they become members and donate between $1.5K and $3K/year based on their position on the list. Looking at the top 25 institutions, there appears to be only 3 "dead-beats" (14, 21, and 22 who are unnamed), and a greater than 75% uptake on the top 100.
As more institutions pony-up, it is anticipated that the funding from the Simons Foundation will eventually drop down to a nominal level ($50K/year) as the extra $300K/year it was provided to bootstrap the endeavor so that the suggested donation from institutions could be kept low enough to be "miniscule".
*** The Simons Foundation was started by a Mathemetician turned Hedge-fund manager billionare.
No story mentions that. He certainly doesn't have 26.8B dollars. Is it a bluff to get the dividends he wanted?
Probably, it is a bluff, but Mr Icahn is the king of leveraged buyouts (basically you take a loan out to buy the company with the company you bought as colateral). Kind of like how you buy a house with a loan, except the "house" (well actually the company that holds the house as an asset) really owes the money, not you.
Why would someone invest the money for a leveraged buyout (LBO)? It's because the debt is generally structured in tranches with different terms and interest rates, rather than one big lump. The senior tranches generally yield a low interest rate but are backed by a higher percentage of the collateral so you can attract more risk-adverse money. The junior tranches generally have a high interest rate for those with the stomach (much higher than a typical bank loan, so it is more profitable, but more risky, essentially junk bonds). With a typical LBO structure people can make different types of bets on the same loan segmenting the secondary loan market making it much easier to attract the money from the capital markets than a straight-up monolithic loan of $28.6B with uniform risk profile.
Back in the day, most engineers wish IBM had gone with motorollas 68000 rather than the address hobbled 8086 series. Oh how we hated paging 640k hell.
That might have just traded one set of problems for another. For example, Apple went the 68K route with their Macs. The early versions of the 68K family only implemented 24/32 address bits, so some clever programmers (like those on their OS team) hid all sorts of pointer tags in the MSBs (like lock-bits). When Apple finally transitioned to the 68020, those clever pointer-tags hacks came back to bite them in a major way.
Maybe the 8088 wasn't the best overall technical choice, but from a business perspective: the availablity of more 8080-derived OSs (like CP/M 86), and the fact that the 68008 was pretty crappy/buggy at the time and its peripheral chips weren't available in volume on IBM's schedule compared with the 8088 which was ready to go probably were issues that tipped the balance.
Apparently, in europe, shit like this doesn't happen.
When there's a transition in the whitehouse, you probably need to assume everything needs to get replaced, so you start with a clean slate.
And if you are paranoid, you might assume that the previous administration left a few backdoors in the old IT system, so it'd probably be prudent in any case to replace them even if the place wasn't trashed. I haven't met a politician that wasn't paranoid, so well, I guess that says it all...
Also, having been inflicted with IBM/Lotus Notes for many years, replacing it was the smart thing to do in any case. ;^)
FWIW, Univision (based in Caracas) is the Fox News of Latin America.
Where do you get your information?
There are a few Venezuelan media companies, but Univision is a USA based network (in Nueva/New York, I think) that does not broadcast in Venezuela.
The only network that (historically) broadcasts in Venezula that seems to fit your imagination is the RCTV (the network that Chavez seized, and turned over to a state run media company). The other big networks in Venezuela that might fit your imagination would be either Venevision or Televen, which both were in the pocket of Mr Chavez after the RCTV was shutdown. There is another network Globovision which had been traditionally anti-Chavez, but Chavez nationalized a bank that owned 25% of the network and replaced it's board of directors... I'm not sure your politics would admit that at this time Venevision, Televen, or Globovison was fox-news-ish (whatever the hell that means)....
A bit more info for history buffs...
Originially, there was some thought given to the tradeoff between a single centralized computer, and a distributed computing architecture. After much analysis, the 3 dual-computer configuration was selected.
The CCS (computer command system) is essentially identical to the computer used in viking.
The AACS (attitude and articulation control system) is sort of a souped up version of the CCS (higher clockrate, added "index" registers + a few opcodes)
The FDS (flight-data sub-system) was a new design that had DMA and CMOS memories.
The 18-bit words of the CCS and AACS were either data (2's complement numbers), or instructions (6-bit opcode, 12-bit address). The processor has 13 special purpose ("cisc-y") registers. The processors effectively have 32-interrupt levels to run various tasks.
The FDS is a bit different beast as it is a 4-bit/byte-serial 16-bit machine with 128 registers.
The each dual-computer configuration had 3 operating modes: individual (separate tasks), parallel (cooperate on same task for high performance), and tandem (do the same thing and compare for fault tolerance).
"Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead." - Ben Franklin
"Let me alone for keeping this secret between you and me. Howbeit, three may keep counsel, if two be away; and, if I knew my cap was privy to my counsel, I would cast it into the fire and burn it..." - King Henry the 8th
It might be murder. In my state, if someone dies as a result if a crime being committed (say, arson) the perpetrator can be charged with murder.
It usually requires the crime being committed is a felony. In some states, SWATing may only be a misdemeanor.
AFAIK, most juristiction are allowed to charge SWATing depending on the nature of the false report. Generally, if you falsely report a felony and the police take immediate action, then felony charges will usually be brought (although they are often plea-bargined). If you falsely report a misdemenor, or if the police don't take any immediate action, then it's highly likely that you won't get charged at all. Almost all laws are structured that way (allowed to be felony or misdemenor depending on degree) to give room for plea-bargining (w/o the "stick" of a felony-charge, too many misdemenor cases would end up going to trial).
Since most SWATing perpetrators want to bring overwhelming action to their victim, they often falsly report heineous felonies in progress which would generally draw the felony charge for malicious false reporting to police. If the overwhelming police action got someone killed and thus made the police look bad, you can be sure that they'd use any option to charge the SWATing as a felony false police report which would likely make the person eligible for murder charges as well.
No sane business holds grudges like that. If MS wants it, it'll be written into the next contract and either nVidia will agree or not get the contract.
Apple anyone? Rumor was Apple was going with Nvidia. Nvidia announced that had a deal with Apple and then Apple (well Jobs) killed the deal. Why? Apple has to announces things on Apple's schedule i.e. at some hyped Apple event.
Many businesses are run by what many would consider to be not sane people. Sometimes that helps the business and others it hurts the business.
I think you mangledthe rumor a little bit. I believe the alleged event you were alluding to was that Apple punishing ATI (not Nvidia) for a pre-announcement faux pax... Of course it probably actually didn't happen that way IRL, but it still makes a funny internet fable...
As I understand it, ARC4 originally stood for 'Alleged' RC-4 since it was reverse engineered from RSA's proprietary RC4 implementation. The name RC4 is trademarked by RSA and they refuse to confirm that ARC4 was 100% compatible with their trademarked RC4, so for these two reason, the name ARC4 stuck.
Of course nobody today disputes that there is any actual difference between the public ARC4 and RSA's RC4...
IANAP, but here's my take...
How does the Higgs Boson giver mass to other particles?
Nobody knows for sure, but people suspect that Higgs field (a complicated directionless/scalar field) interacts with other particles which creates the effect of expected non-zero rest mass. Other fields can yield non-rest mass effect so it's only the rest-mass that was problematic.
How is a Higgs Boson produced?
You don't really make them, they are more like a momentary "quiver" in the higgs field which immedietly decays into something else. Right now we are making this momentary quiver by colliding protons.
Can we produce these particles at will?
No. We are just colliding protons together and hoping that statistically some of the "quivers" will momentarily be higgs particles before they decay into something else. I believe the probability is about 1 in 10billion proton/proton collisions.
Can we affect gravity with them?
As far as we know, gravity affects all things with mass, but under a common interpretations of gravity, it is really mass that bends space-time so under this interpretation, the higgs has no special relationship to gravity.
So first we hear about funding problems at NASA.
Now we hear about NASA producing plutonium. So how are they planning on funding this plutonium operation? Hopefully it isn't by selling it on the internet*** to raise money ;^)
** Yes, you can actually buy radioactive isotopes on the internet. For example, from these guys here. Of course these guys don't sell plutonium, so NASA would be able to have a monopoly on that ;^)
Sure they could sell the software alone, but I'm assuming that's the majority of the cost anyhow. I'd expect to pay over a grand for that software...
We are here on /.
I think what you meant to convey was that you are sure that there is (or could be) an open source project dedicated to do this function with a connect available for free (say like OpenSource version of KinectFusion), but I'm too lazy to contribute and I just want something that works anyhow...
firefox, adblock
whoosh ;^P
What is the purpose of regulating telcos, and is that purpose still relevant to the proper operation of telcos and in providing fair and equal services to the citizens?
At least in the USA (which I am the most familiar), the purpose of regulating telcos is primarily twofold
1. To provide "tariff-like" access and pricing (both for customers and inter-teleco, intended to promote competition)
2. To provide for the USF (universal service fund).
Of course, there are some other requirements: emergency 911, wiretap, etc...
At least in the US, Skype is not subject to these rules. although it is widely believed that skype can be "wiretap"-ed (well, not literally). Other than taxes, there's not much to US regulation.
As to why France is pushing this, well, it's not a recent thing, they've been saying Skype has been operating illegally in France since 2007, and that is the pace of these sorts of things. It probably doesn't hurt that now MS owns Skype and thus the pockets are deeper.
Yeah, right. If it was profitable to mine BTC then the people making BTC mining hardware would operate it, not sell it.
And yet the makers of oil, natural gas, coal, silver and gold mining equipment sell their equipment and don't operate it.
The reason that makers of traditional mining equipment sell them and don't operate them is that they don't own the rights to mining operations. Owning the rights to speculatively mine is a big-money investment game (sometimes it doesn't pan out, sometimes it does, so you need a really-big set to average that out). Every once and a while, you get a wild-cat hit, but that's the exception rather than the rule. Especially for oil, it costs $1B to build a platform, you can sell it to someone for $3B (making you a profit of $2B), or you could attempt to buy the rights to some oil field and hope for the best. If you have big-money, sure, if you only have $1B, that $2B looks pretty tempting...
On the flip-side, you can "mine" bitcoin w/o speculative investment in mining rights (just buy your equipment and attempt to figure out hashcodes). If you had to "bid" up front for exclusive rights to verify blocks of bit-coin transactions, and pay royalties back to the owner of those rights, it would be more like traditional mining. Now you can just plug in your server and hope for a few "wins" over a certain amount of time.
If traditional mining worked like bitcoin, you could just go mining for gold anywhere you felt like it and if you happened to get the gold out before the next guy, you'd win the lottery. I'm sure in that environment, you'd see people who made mining equipment think twice about selling it, but even then, it's likely they would conclude that it would be more profitable to sell the mining equipment.
As a silly historical example, it was kinda like that in the '49 gold rush (stakes or mining rights were cheap, and even if you paid for them, keeping other miners off your claim was nearly impossible, so mining rights were nearly free) the average rate of return was much better for the sellers of mining equimement than the average miner.
This morning on Morning Edition NPR broadcast a talk with Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg. (Probably because Sandberg has a new book out on the subject.) I thought it was quite interesting.
On the other hand this book also got Gloria Allred on the warpath to bash the book. Ms Allred's claim is that 'Lean In' (the title of Ms Sandberg's book) is a thinly veiled attempt to blame women for their own predicament. The basic premise of the book (I haven't read it yet), appears to be that women are not self-confident enough and that career choices for women are often about compromise, some of which are compromises that male colleagues do not have to make.
Instead, Ms Allred (in numerous radio interviews) appears to claim that the proper role of women who achieve in the workplace should be to encourage the enlistment of collective bargining (e.g., unions), to eliminate compromises and to help all women to achieve rather than to promote more self-confidence among women (since women are chided for being self-confident in the work place) and allow women make any career/family choices since they should be able to have it all.
An interesting spin on Ms Sandberg's book. One wonders if she meant that women should be submitting themselves to the male-dominated union power structure rather than promote their own accomplishments individually? I'm not sure if that's exactly how that's supposed to work out... Anyhoo... To each their own politics...
Alleged: adjective
Suspected: past participle
I'm going with alleged, until the multitude of allegations of instances plagiarism progresses into a confirmed, or non-confirmed state.
Of course it begs the question why one would think the correct usage might be "suspected", right?