Contrary to your apocryphal belief, banks have entire departments that spend more than the collection is worth to make you balance your account if it is out of balance. This discourages bigger crimes, which would cost them more just on a statistical basis.
You may get away with the "few pennies" mistake once per institution. Three or four times? They'll freeze your funds and demand you clean up your act.
Because here's a secret you should have known: When you give the bank the money, it's not yours any more. It's theirs. You lent it to them, and they owe it to you, but you can't just take it. You are nothing more than a lender, and they are a borrower. You have all the rights of a creditor. Which, you might guess, means you can spend thousands of dollars on legal hassles trying to free up the $123.45 you deposited to steal that 9 cents.
Your PS3 has a tiny fraction of the computing power of a current quad CPU and triple-SLI gaming cards. Throw in a dedicate physics-engine chip, and a decent gross-solution partitioning algorithm, and there's little that the computer can't do faster than you.
It's silly of these "researchers" not to put some real brainpower on that.
Vote the Republicans out of the White House. Then the deceptively-named USA PATRIOT act can be repealed in its entirety, and America can go back to being America.
I would think that any circular references would be self-correcting by the Wikipedia community.
You would think wrong. The way Wikipedia works (or fails to) is that people who are ignorant demand removal of facts added by people who are knowledgeable, and the rank and number of the ignorami is always sufficient to force the change to stick. If there is a dispute, the ignorami goad the knowledgeable person, hold a kangaroo court, and discourage or prevent further participation.
Wikipedia's high error content is due to the triumph of petty bureaucracy over truth. It is a systemic flaw, and exposing it has never had any effect on it. If anything, it makes it worse.
On the other hand, once someone cracks reCaptcha, we'll be on our way to massively increasing the number of old books that are digitized every day......and the spammers might even argue that since they are providing that service to the community, they are compensating the community for the burden of their spam......so, as usual, be careful what you wish for.
1. A bomb that doesn't explode is a diorama. Therefore to explode the bomb is to demonstrate it.
2. Engineers certainly can lie, and do, a lot, which is why we have processes to inspect and test most engineered systems independently if they have any safety-critical aspects at all. Asking "are you a spy" is likely to get an engineered answer, whether it's true or not.
3. Exploiting a security hole in a spectacular way brings it to everyone's attention.
4. See #4. And sacrificing yourself in the process is another trait of an engineer. Cf. having no life in college to become one.
No, your objections are not dispositive towards this issue. Take out the sarcasm, and they rather tend to support the thesis.
The true fact is that engineers solve problems. They don't exploit them or simply expose them.
Anyone blowing themselves up or spreading terror to make a political point is not an engineer but a zealous dupe of an insane religious cult, and a massive sociopath and/or psychopath.
Any attempt to link engineering to terrorism as a causal correlation is post hoc reasoning.
Osama was an engineering student, and he knew how to take down a large building, and he knew nobody engineered large buildings against his ideas, so that is the goal he set. On al Quaeda's second try, they succeeded.
If he were a marketer he might have gone for the popular icons, playing the "nothing is sacred" card. Instead, al Quaeda exploited the weakness they understood.
If he were a politician he might have gone for heads of state. Instead, he attacked what he though was important.
If the authors of this "study" examined their methodology they'd find they were presuming their conclusion.
1) Microscopic black holes require a matter density higher than elementary particles possess. Ergo, once the microscopic black hole tries to swallow an elementary particle, the elementary particle swallows it, making it no longer a black hole, but just part of the particle's matter, with a true radius larger than its schwarzchild radius. Black Hole Down.
2) Strangelets? Don't exist. Don't even have a decent theoretical underpinning. You might as well be worried about the production of caloric or magic.
3) Magnetic monopoles also don't exist. Magnetism is a description of the curvature of electric flux. Imagining a magnetic monopole is like imagining a left with no right, or an up with no down.
And, honestly, these people have no sense of adventure. The universe will end some day. Why be so arrogant as to insist that it be after you die, solo, from something less interesting?
Those are items controlled under roughly the same rules as the rest of the device.
The fact that any part of such a thing was mishandled is a big deal, because it validates the probability that the dangerous parts can be mishandled.
You think it was a couple of irrelevant parts. To the process involved in controlling them, this was an "escape" from the process, and the process has to be re-engineered to ensure such things can not happen at all, because next time it may not be the mundane stuff that gets lost in the mail.
The entangled ones are exchanging terabits of information. Of course, only the sum of 26 chromosomes - and only half of those from each source, will be persistent, and then only if neither has employed a firewall. But the resulting code will be a self-replicating automaton, which will eventually grow to occupy all of its parent objects' manageable resources.
Mozilla comes with half a hundred things in it that may or may not be anything you want, and you have to opt-out of them. The fact that Safari is a whole application (or does it share interface libraries with iTunes? I wouldn't doubt that) doesn't change that.
Personally, I hate how every time you upgrade Firefox it insists on starting up by loading the Firefox webpages. Same deal. Unwanted marketing that I have to counteract, and can't counteract until it's already done.
It doesn't say you're forming a contract. You can't form a contract where one of the parties gets nothing in return anyway (though you could argue that because your clicks and eyeball time are of value to google, which they clearly are, that compensates google for the content and services).
It says Google isn't responsible for anything you do and you're not bound to the terms of the TOS if in your jurisdiction you're not old enough to be presumed to understand something that has rules that may not be explicit and reads like a contract.
And, like all shrink-wrap EULA's, it's useless scare-ware anyway. Nobody ever got kicked off Google for anything that didn't cost Google money.
Yes, haha, but, I run Vista Ultimate on 2 GB and, as always with Windows, it stabilizes at about half the physical memory. Why it does that, I don't know; probably something about keeping the pools in that ballpark and not cleaning up until you need it. And it runs just fine. The only slownesses I ever notice on that machine are:
1. Spooling up my backup drive on the eSata port.
2. Starting java.
2GB is the new 1GB (XP's sweet spot; it was a dog in 512MB and adding that other stick always satisfied the need).
Of course, I'm also running a 3-GHz Intel QX9650 and have the memory bus at 1333 MHz (not even oc'd) and my main HD is on a Sata-2 line, so ymmv.
If you want viewing angle, you're distorting the picture significantly in space, so losing a little luminance or color fidelity shouldn't be too big a deal.
And if you prioritize fidelity and dynamic range beyond what a TI DLP (the guts of many rear-projecting DLP HDTVs) can do, you'll be sitting on the sofa most of the time, so the usable viewing angle might as well be 45 degrees.
And CRTs hit their economics vs. performance limits a long time ago (the 200 lbs of glass is the most expensive part, if not the insurance for people who have to lift 200 lbs of glass into place). They will probably start to increase in price along with their rarity.
"18% of people think they are in the top 1% of incomes."
It's probably not true, but it's probably not far from the truth.
Socialism = sucks. Unfettered Capitalism = sucks. Regulated capitalism with social goals = sucks only if you're trying to do something that should be regulated or get government aid you don't really need; and when politics keeps the regulation and social spending from being performed rationally.
Unless someone can come up with a fourth way to do things, I think we've got our result.
And if they were shipping, they'd only be the 3rd or 4th fastest quad-core chips on the market.
The Intel-hating AMD fanboys need to back away from their false cognitive closure problem and think hard before posting anecdotal evidence.
Re:Prediction made 2 months bef. the Opteron relea
on
Is AMD Dead Yet?
·
· Score: 1
Intel didn't clone the architecture, they merely doubled their bus width.
AM64 did very little for any industry. Very few people ever got any 64-bit instructions to execute, because the software wasn't (and still isn't) primarily geared towards it.
I'm running 64-bit Vista and a casual glance in the task manager shows that I have 12 32-bit processes and 12 64-bit processes running, and the 64-bit code is all system daemons. I would have to deliberately hunt for 64-bit versions of any of the apps. Nobody offers them up front.
Intel went to 64 bits only because AMD had a purely marketing advantage with it. It's been nearly zero value to users so far.
Slashdot Mirror
Contrary to your apocryphal belief, banks have entire departments that spend more than the collection is worth to make you balance your account if it is out of balance. This discourages bigger crimes, which would cost them more just on a statistical basis.
You may get away with the "few pennies" mistake once per institution. Three or four times? They'll freeze your funds and demand you clean up your act.
Because here's a secret you should have known: When you give the bank the money, it's not yours any more. It's theirs. You lent it to them, and they owe it to you, but you can't just take it. You are nothing more than a lender, and they are a borrower. You have all the rights of a creditor. Which, you might guess, means you can spend thousands of dollars on legal hassles trying to free up the $123.45 you deposited to steal that 9 cents.
Your PS3 has a tiny fraction of the computing power of a current quad CPU and triple-SLI gaming cards. Throw in a dedicate physics-engine chip, and a decent gross-solution partitioning algorithm, and there's little that the computer can't do faster than you.
It's silly of these "researchers" not to put some real brainpower on that.
Vote the Republicans out of the White House. Then the deceptively-named USA PATRIOT act can be repealed in its entirety, and America can go back to being America.
if i had a car that ran on patent applications, i could literally shovel garbage into it and get wherever i needed to go
and it wouldn't cost anything
heck, they'd pay me to take the stuff away
I would think that any circular references would be self-correcting by the Wikipedia community.
You would think wrong. The way Wikipedia works (or fails to) is that people who are ignorant demand removal of facts added by people who are knowledgeable, and the rank and number of the ignorami is always sufficient to force the change to stick. If there is a dispute, the ignorami goad the knowledgeable person, hold a kangaroo court, and discourage or prevent further participation.
Wikipedia's high error content is due to the triumph of petty bureaucracy over truth. It is a systemic flaw, and exposing it has never had any effect on it. If anything, it makes it worse.
On the other hand, once someone cracks reCaptcha, we'll be on our way to massively increasing the number of old books that are digitized every day... ...and the spammers might even argue that since they are providing that service to the community, they are compensating the community for the burden of their spam... ...so, as usual, be careful what you wish for.
1. A bomb that doesn't explode is a diorama. Therefore to explode the bomb is to demonstrate it.
2. Engineers certainly can lie, and do, a lot, which is why we have processes to inspect and test most engineered systems independently if they have any safety-critical aspects at all. Asking "are you a spy" is likely to get an engineered answer, whether it's true or not.
3. Exploiting a security hole in a spectacular way brings it to everyone's attention.
4. See #4. And sacrificing yourself in the process is another trait of an engineer. Cf. having no life in college to become one.
No, your objections are not dispositive towards this issue. Take out the sarcasm, and they rather tend to support the thesis.
The true fact is that engineers solve problems. They don't exploit them or simply expose them.
Anyone blowing themselves up or spreading terror to make a political point is not an engineer but a zealous dupe of an insane religious cult, and a massive sociopath and/or psychopath.
Well, let's not forget where the term "engineer" comes from.
They were the military scientists of the middle ages who made the "war engines" such as catapults, rams, etc.
Engineers are of course good at just about everything (or they find something less difficult to do).
So whatever this "Engineers make good terrorists" thing is, it's not suggestive of a tendency among engineers to be terrorists.
Any attempt to link engineering to terrorism as a causal correlation is post hoc reasoning.
Osama was an engineering student, and he knew how to take down a large building, and he knew nobody engineered large buildings against his ideas, so that is the goal he set. On al Quaeda's second try, they succeeded.
If he were a marketer he might have gone for the popular icons, playing the "nothing is sacred" card. Instead, al Quaeda exploited the weakness they understood.
If he were a politician he might have gone for heads of state. Instead, he attacked what he though was important.
If the authors of this "study" examined their methodology they'd find they were presuming their conclusion.
I got mine used from an Amazon reseller on an eBay link on Google Shopping.
Okay, I lied. I snarfed it using Limewire (which I got using Kazaa).
these are all mythical objects
1) Microscopic black holes require a matter density higher than elementary particles possess. Ergo, once the microscopic black hole tries to swallow an elementary particle, the elementary particle swallows it, making it no longer a black hole, but just part of the particle's matter, with a true radius larger than its schwarzchild radius. Black Hole Down.
2) Strangelets? Don't exist. Don't even have a decent theoretical underpinning. You might as well be worried about the production of caloric or magic.
3) Magnetic monopoles also don't exist. Magnetism is a description of the curvature of electric flux. Imagining a magnetic monopole is like imagining a left with no right, or an up with no down.
And, honestly, these people have no sense of adventure. The universe will end some day. Why be so arrogant as to insist that it be after you die, solo, from something less interesting?
Those are items controlled under roughly the same rules as the rest of the device.
The fact that any part of such a thing was mishandled is a big deal, because it validates the probability that the dangerous parts can be mishandled.
You think it was a couple of irrelevant parts. To the process involved in controlling them, this was an "escape" from the process, and the process has to be re-engineered to ensure such things can not happen at all, because next time it may not be the mundane stuff that gets lost in the mail.
The entangled ones are exchanging terabits of information. Of course, only the sum of 26 chromosomes - and only half of those from each source, will be persistent, and then only if neither has employed a firewall. But the resulting code will be a self-replicating automaton, which will eventually grow to occupy all of its parent objects' manageable resources.
Let's see a couple of photons do that.
the cost of building and maintaining 10,000 access points will be what. exactly?
Less than the cost of laying fiber to millions of homes.
It's a marketing tool.
Mozilla comes with half a hundred things in it that may or may not be anything you want, and you have to opt-out of them. The fact that Safari is a whole application (or does it share interface libraries with iTunes? I wouldn't doubt that) doesn't change that.
Personally, I hate how every time you upgrade Firefox it insists on starting up by loading the Firefox webpages. Same deal. Unwanted marketing that I have to counteract, and can't counteract until it's already done.
It doesn't say you're forming a contract. You can't form a contract where one of the parties gets nothing in return anyway (though you could argue that because your clicks and eyeball time are of value to google, which they clearly are, that compensates google for the content and services).
It says Google isn't responsible for anything you do and you're not bound to the terms of the TOS if in your jurisdiction you're not old enough to be presumed to understand something that has rules that may not be explicit and reads like a contract.
And, like all shrink-wrap EULA's, it's useless scare-ware anyway. Nobody ever got kicked off Google for anything that didn't cost Google money.
How are you going to tell that the malloc succeeded?
Unless you have more than 1TB of RAM and need to figure out how to use that...
Yes, haha, but, I run Vista Ultimate on 2 GB and, as always with Windows, it stabilizes at about half the physical memory. Why it does that, I don't know; probably something about keeping the pools in that ballpark and not cleaning up until you need it. And it runs just fine. The only slownesses I ever notice on that machine are:
1. Spooling up my backup drive on the eSata port.
2. Starting java.
2GB is the new 1GB (XP's sweet spot; it was a dog in 512MB and adding that other stick always satisfied the need).
Of course, I'm also running a 3-GHz Intel QX9650 and have the memory bus at 1333 MHz (not even oc'd) and my main HD is on a Sata-2 line, so ymmv.
You don't customize emacs. It customizes you.
I don't quite get the need for all three at once.
If you want viewing angle, you're distorting the picture significantly in space, so losing a little luminance or color fidelity shouldn't be too big a deal.
And if you prioritize fidelity and dynamic range beyond what a TI DLP (the guts of many rear-projecting DLP HDTVs) can do, you'll be sitting on the sofa most of the time, so the usable viewing angle might as well be 45 degrees.
And CRTs hit their economics vs. performance limits a long time ago (the 200 lbs of glass is the most expensive part, if not the insurance for people who have to lift 200 lbs of glass into place). They will probably start to increase in price along with their rarity.
" meatspace has it's own rules "
Never forget that cyberspace is just an electronic subdivision of meatspace.
Money rules all of the meat, and the meat runs your network as well as your freeways and zoning commissions.
Where there is cash, opportunity, and a lack of diligence, the cash will override the commonweal every time.
One of my favorite quotes from The West Wing:
"18% of people think they are in the top 1% of incomes."
It's probably not true, but it's probably not far from the truth.
Socialism = sucks. Unfettered Capitalism = sucks. Regulated capitalism with social goals = sucks only if you're trying to do something that should be regulated or get government aid you don't really need; and when politics keeps the regulation and social spending from being performed rationally.
Unless someone can come up with a fourth way to do things, I think we've got our result.
http://www.slashdottedstreetmap.awhell/
Oh?
http://www.google.com/search?q=skulltrail+8-core
Intel's building chips with 80 cores on them.
http://www.google.com/search?q=80-core+chip
And AMD actually can't do what you say, since they can't ship these chips right now:
http://www.google.com/search?q=tlb+bug
And if they were shipping, they'd only be the 3rd or 4th fastest quad-core chips on the market.
The Intel-hating AMD fanboys need to back away from their false cognitive closure problem and think hard before posting anecdotal evidence.
Intel didn't clone the architecture, they merely doubled their bus width.
AM64 did very little for any industry. Very few people ever got any 64-bit instructions to execute, because the software wasn't (and still isn't) primarily geared towards it.
I'm running 64-bit Vista and a casual glance in the task manager shows that I have 12 32-bit processes and 12 64-bit processes running, and the 64-bit code is all system daemons. I would have to deliberately hunt for 64-bit versions of any of the apps. Nobody offers them up front.
Intel went to 64 bits only because AMD had a purely marketing advantage with it. It's been nearly zero value to users so far.