I can't really workout your safety perspective here, it's the current that kills you so it would be even more dangerous.
Yebbut the human body has some resistance, so you need a voltage to push that current through you. I was thinking that a superconducting power cable could run at, say, one volt. AFAIK one volt can't possibly push a lethal current through a human body.
--
actually, if your cable can take higher voltages, you'll gladly trade a higher voltage, lower current cable, as losses are related to current, not voltage
I wonder if superconducting cables make the voltage irrelevant? Since the resistive losses are practically nonexistant, the cables might be able to take huge currents at very small voltages, making them a lot safer. --
Deja/Google is an NNTP archive, not just a client. Google wants the right to archive and distribute posts made using Google's own service (ie. resources). I think that's a fair trade.
Of course I do. I'm not sure what your point is; are you saying I'm wrong? You can look at the URLs in the cached pages for yourself. They point to the original documents.
(Submitted to CNN's feedback address. There has been much debate here over this math, so I thought I should post it here too.)
Dear CNN,
I'm sure someone has told you this already, but in an article on Transmeta and AMD, you said this:
"Current 32-bit processors can address 4 gigabytes of data. The industry has been gradually moving toward a 64-bit architecture, which multiplies the amount of data the processor can access by four."
Actually, it multiplies the amount of data the processor can access by four BILLION.
Every byte of data has an "address" which is represented by a certain bit pattern, and every bit in that pattern can be on or off. If you have one bit, you only have two possible states, hence two possible addresses, hence you can only access two bytes of data. However, if you have two bits, you have four possible states (off&off, off&on, on&off, on&on), so you can access four bytes of data.
With 32 bits, you have 4.3 billion possible states, so you can access 4 gigabytes of data. With 64 bits, you can access 17 billion gigabytes (which is 16 exabytes). --
Even with your own math, your conclusion is wrong. (Get a calculator and punch in the numbers.) Plus, x86s are byte-addressable, so no, it wouldn't "figure that 64 Bit processors would accesss data in 8 byte increments". --
The very concept that not being able to measure something means it "doesn't have a value" is so ridiculous as to be laughable.
If you have a theory that doesn't have this property, and explains observations as well as quantum mechanics, please let us know what it is.
The arbitrary decision that a man is an observer but a cat is not is equally stupid and nonsensicle.
Then why have you made that decision? This isn't necessary for the Schrodinger's Cat experiment.
All they have are equations that seem to work.
No, they also have observations. They have reams of observations which are inconsistent, for instance, with the theory that any particle has a definite position at any given time. (Remember, that is also only a theory.)
--
So is the corporations' capacity to buy them. Today, there are three main TLDs (.com,.org,.net) so companies buy their name in all three. If there were a hundred, they'd still buy their name in all hundred.
New TLDs don't solve anything unless there is a policy to govern their usage, so that companies (or any entity) only gets to register under one or two of them. --
Did you see Tom Cruise in Magnolia? I wasn't expecting much, but I thought he was really excellent in that movie. Probably the best performance in the film. --
the time to reach your performance peak is days rather than months
I'm not sure what you mean by that. I played UT for months, improving all the time. When I plateaued, a few freinds and I started a CTF clan, and our skill and strategy improved again for a few months. When I plateaued again, I started specifically practicing things I wasn't good at, like different weapons and different play styles. (I was a flag carrier, and my specialty was avoiding fights, so I wasn't much good at deathmatch.) Again, for a few months, I improved.
Have I misunderstood what you meant? I don't know about other Quake clones, but UT CTF certainly seemed to offer a lot of room to improve one's skill. --
Just try to use a cheat patch or auto-aiming script for more than one round before someone yells "[your name here] is a BOT!!!".
I used to run an Unreal Tournament CTF clan. I was not the best player on my team, yet I got accused of cheating quite regularly, even though I never did.
Aurthur C. Clarke once said that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Well, if you're enough better than your opponent, you are indistinugishable from a bot. --
Which would you rather play: A normal FPS were some idiots will cheat or an FPS where no one cheats but you only get 2 fps?
FPS is not the issue. That has to do with your card's rendering speed. What would happen is that you'd get beautifully-rendered scenes where the objects appear to make odd jerky motions at random times, and characters appear out of nowhere.
The odd jerky motions would happen if the server fell behind in calculating the motions, and position/velocity/acceleration updates are few and far-between. Characters would appear out of nowhere because the client machine doesn't know they exist until the server determines that the client can "see" them, and then the client doesn't find out until one network-latency later, at which point they could be quite a distance away from that wall they were behind. --
All the games need to do is perform more computation on the server, to avoid sending "forbidden knowledge" to the clients.
I'm no game programmer, but it seems to me that this approach would (1) make the game less scalable, since the bulk of the computation would be on the server machine, and (2) make network round-trip latency ("ping") harder to hide.
(1) is important because a lot of the servers out there are run by the gamers, who don't have the means to put together a supercomputer to run the game.
Anyway, I think you are right that the only way to keep information hidden is don't tell anyone. Seems obvious. --
what about a Telnet session that has a free BBS type style to it? How am I supposed to know if that system WANTS guest accounts?
If they can't prove you should have known, it's unlikely you could be convicted of anything. I don't know about US law, but from what I remember of Canadian law, they would have to prove intent. --
Slashdot Mirror
Amen.
--
--
--
I like this one better.
--
Deja/Google is an NNTP archive, not just a client. Google wants the right to archive and distribute posts made using Google's own service (ie. resources). I think that's a fair trade.
Nothing to see here folks. Move along.
--
Of course I do. I'm not sure what your point is; are you saying I'm wrong? You can look at the URLs in the cached pages for yourself. They point to the original documents.
--
Dude, stop guessing and LOOK at the URLs in the cached page. They point directly to the original.
--
Does IA-64 support 64-bit addresses? Perhaps people were thinking of that.
--
--
(Submitted to CNN's feedback address. There has been much debate here over this math, so I thought I should post it here too.)
Dear CNN,
I'm sure someone has told you this already, but in an article on Transmeta and AMD, you said this:
"Current 32-bit processors can address 4 gigabytes of data. The industry has been gradually moving toward a 64-bit architecture, which multiplies the amount of data the processor can access by four."
Actually, it multiplies the amount of data the processor can access by four BILLION.
Every byte of data has an "address" which is represented by a certain bit pattern, and every bit in that pattern can be on or off. If you have one bit, you only have two possible states, hence two possible addresses, hence you can only access two bytes of data. However, if you have two bits, you have four possible states (off&off, off&on, on&off, on&on), so you can access four bytes of data.
With 32 bits, you have 4.3 billion possible states, so you can access 4 gigabytes of data. With 64 bits, you can access 17 billion gigabytes (which is 16 exabytes).
--
Even with your own math, your conclusion is wrong. (Get a calculator and punch in the numbers.) Plus, x86s are byte-addressable, so no, it wouldn't "figure that 64 Bit processors would accesss data in 8 byte increments".
--
--
--
New TLDs don't solve anything unless there is a policy to govern their usage, so that companies (or any entity) only gets to register under one or two of them.
--
You can't just click on the links in a Google cache. They link to the original documents.
--
How does the GPL limit software distribution? Do you mean a lower limit?
--
--
Did you see Tom Cruise in Magnolia? I wasn't expecting much, but I thought he was really excellent in that movie. Probably the best performance in the film.
--
Have I misunderstood what you meant? I don't know about other Quake clones, but UT CTF certainly seemed to offer a lot of room to improve one's skill.
--
Aurthur C. Clarke once said that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Well, if you're enough better than your opponent, you are indistinugishable from a bot.
--
The difference, of course, is that SeeThrough technology is only useful for cheating.
--
The odd jerky motions would happen if the server fell behind in calculating the motions, and position/velocity/acceleration updates are few and far-between. Characters would appear out of nowhere because the client machine doesn't know they exist until the server determines that the client can "see" them, and then the client doesn't find out until one network-latency later, at which point they could be quite a distance away from that wall they were behind.
--
(1) is important because a lot of the servers out there are run by the gamers, who don't have the means to put together a supercomputer to run the game.
Anyway, I think you are right that the only way to keep information hidden is don't tell anyone. Seems obvious.
--
--
--