Actually even the cheap Garmins have digital magnetic compasses. I have an eTrek series one (don't remember the model number but I know it was only around $100) and it has a digital magnetic compass.
While you are correct about the modem connection not being secure, I think that the parent might have had a different thought when he mentioned that.
I think it is conceivable that a modem user would go for a year without patching simply because of the inconvenience of trying to download a major patch (one that requires reboot, like a service pack) over a dial-up connection.
No, that number represented hyperlink jumps. That represents the average number of hyperlink jumps it takes to get from any one site to any other site. Not necessarily from google or yahoo, but between any two given pages.
Though, this is a bit dated. The "Bow-tie" theory holds that the Internet is significantly less connected than once thought. Only about 30% of the web is symmetrically linked.
I think that the VAB has dropped on that list a little bit. I believe that both the Boeing hanger and Hong Kong's Container Freight Station are larger than the VAB.
The VAB is roughly 3.3 million cubic meters, the Boeing Hanger is about 13.3 million cubic meters. So it beats the VAB by a healthy margin.
I believe that in a strict legal interpretation, it is theft. If I am paying per gallon for that water, then he is costing me money (albeit a miniscule amount).
Now, would I care if someone took that amount of water from a tap outside my house? Not at all.
I am curious if the owner of the access point even wants to press charges in this case. To me it sounds like he called the police because he didn't know what this guy was doing parked outside of his house and was just worried about what might be going on (which is perfectly reasonable)... he might never have intended to get the guy arrested for illegaly using a wireless network.
So theoretically, if the gubbmi't takes your house to build a park, it has to pay you fair market value for the property. But if it takes it so that your senator can build his own personal mansion on the property, they don't have to pay you a cent.
Only if you are referring to a state senator and ot a federal one. The 10th ammendment restricts the federal government from having any rights other than those specified in the constitution.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Stargate is the game of which you are thinking. It was a sequel to Defender. Same basic idea, a few new enemies, and a few new controls (I can't remember what the new controls were though)
The photo of that billboard (the "strong leadership" link) has been doctored. Though I am not sure I understand why they even bothered.
The actual billboard (I drive past it daily) actually says "Our Leaders", not "Our Leader.", and it has a picture of Mel Martinez on the right hand side of it. Note that in the one shown, the right hand side of the billboard is cut off.
With that said, I don't think the doctoring really effects the message being shown on the billboard at all. And even though I tend to be conservative leaning, I have always said that there are two warning signs about any government: If the head of state wears a military uniform, and if there are pictures of the him (or her) posted up all over the place.
So, in short, I find that billboard very disturbing.
bi-weekly ( is it 2 per week or every 2 weeks ) the correct answer for every 2 weeks is fortnightly
bi-monthly ( is it every 2 weeks or every 2 months ) I have no definitive proof that it's every 2 months. it would seem them you could use the word fortnightly. and it could also mean 2 times per month.
bi-weekly means every 2 weeks. bi-monthly means every 2 months.
semi-monthly means twice a month. semi-weekly means twice a week.
Also, the use of semi implies that it is an even half period (for example, something that happens on the 1st and 3rd of every month happens twice a month, but isn't really semi-monthly).
Just think of it this way: Would you ask whether a bicycle has two wheels or 1/2 a wheel? Does a bi-sexual like having sex with two sexes or half a sex? Is a semi-circle half a circle or two circles?
Not so. The formula for Coke is a trade secret, not a patent or a copyright. If the formula ever leaked out, it would obviously be a secret no longer. There would be nothing (legally) that Coca Cola could do to you unless you were dumb enough to sell your drink under one of their trademarked names.
Actually, that's not quite right. If Coca Cola revealed its formula, you would be free to make your own drink and sell it, but just because a trade secret is leaked out doesn't mean that it is fair game. For example, if a disgruntled employee of Coca Cola decided to publish the formula, it could still be protected under trade secret law. A corporation only has to make reasonable efforts to protect the secrecy of their product.
You can't ignore the fact that Monsanto created these crops. Why should they be required to allow the free and unlimited spread of the products that they create?
If there wasn't the potential for profit through repeated sales and restricted use of these crops, Monsanto would never have created them and the farmer's would not have had access to them.
If there are companies/groups/governments/etc. out there that want to create these types of crops (similar ones, not exactly the same) and let them be used freely, more power to them. But you can not force a company to give away its product.
If Monstanto were to allow unrestricted replanting of its crops, then it would have to charge significantly more for the original seeds in order to make similar profits.
Believe it or not, some of those seeds come with requirements to make efforts to reduce spread of pollen. This is done to both reduce the spread of the product and avoid potentially dangerous hybrids with other plants.
For example, many hybrid crops are made to be resistant to specific pesticides (i.e., Round-Up, also made by Monsanto). That allows the farmers to use those pesticides freely, killing everything else, but leaving their crops unharmed. If those traits were to start showing up in wild versions of the crops, or in 'weed' plants, it could greatly curtail agricultural production.
This is nothing unusual or unreasonable. The farmer's have an agreement with Monsanto. The agreement lets them use the seeds they bought to produce a single crop. If they don't like that agreement, then they don't have to buy the seeds!
This, by the way, is one of the main reasons that seedless crops have been developed. There is, of course, the benefit of not having to deal with the seeds when harvesting or eating the produce, but it also helps enforce the use agreements on them.
Next time you go to a nursery, have a look at the plants for sale. Most specialty hybrids will have usage restrictions printed on them, preventing you (legally at least) from growing new plants from cuttings, etc...
Actually in some situations it is. In my 10th grade english class (public school) we read sections from the bible. The religious content of the material was not emphasised, instead the lessons centered on the literary value of the material. This is not uncommon in the public school system (despite what some would have you believe)
i wont shell out 50 euros for most games or 20 euros for a dvd
how comes a VHS of the same movie is only 10 euros? It takes a lot more effort to produce one and the content is the same crap
Actually, the content is not the same crap, it is lower quality crap that degrades quicker. That is why it costs less.
The sale price of a product is not merely a function of how much it costs to produce plus the profit the company wants to make. It is determined by how much the paying consumer is willing to fork over for it. Prices are determined by what the market will bear.
If the consumer considered VHS tapes to be equal (in quality, usuability, etc...) to DVDs, then very few people would pay twice as much for a DVD as for a VHS tape. But they are not considered equal, therefore people are willing to pay a premium for the higher quality product.
If you make a new product that is better, faster, and cheaper than the existing one, you are going to make lots of sales... And you don't always have to pass the cheaper part on to the customers.
No you are not the only who liked it. I didn't the first time I saw it... or probably even the next time. But eventually I grew to appreciate it. It is a bit slow (the drawn out scene flying around the new Enterprise before Kirk boards it for example). And it really didn't feel that much like a Star Trek film. But it was really a pretty darn good sci-fi film.
Ever seen a radiometer? or hear about the radiation pressure equation?
This is a common misconception... one that even Maxwell mistakenly believed. Apparently along with the folks at Encyclopedia Britannica as well.
Pay attention to which way a radiometer turns. If it were turning due to radiation pressure, it should act as if a force were pushing on the white side of the plates. Since the white plates reflect the light, there should be twice as much pressure on them as there is on the black plates which absorb the light. (It takes a greater transfer of momentum for something to bounce off of you than for you to catch it... think of the conservation laws).
The problem with the radiometer is that it turns the wrong directions... it acts as if something is pushing on the black side of the plates. And there is... air pressure. The black side will reach a higher temperature than the white side, and then due to the thermal transpiration, the gas near the edges moves from the hot side to the cool side, and in doing so it pushes the blades along.
Radiometers are in a near vacuum, but there is enough air pressure inside to allow this effect to happen.
The posting that I had made my comment to had started out with the comment about "copying of information that has an artificial barrier on it" is not the same as "physically stealing"... and I was thinking more along the line of DVD rips / other high quality copies... not CAM copies.
I agree with your point that CAM copies are basically extended previews of the movies and often work as free advertising for the movie makers...
Though here is the issue that I have with that: Isn't it still the creator's right to decide who gets to see their work and under what conditions? You can argue that it is going to help them out and make them more money if you make a cam copy and distribute it... and you might even be correct, but is it your right to do so? You can't force someone to take your charity.
When it is your work, you should feel free to distribute it or allow it to be distributed in any way you see fit... but when it is not your work, then it isn't your right to decide these matters.
The one (big) exception that I would make to this is any work that was in any way supported by public funds. If any local/state/federal grant/etc... was used to fund the development of the work of art, then it should be made public, and be open to any non-harmful copying possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually even the cheap Garmins have digital magnetic compasses. I have an eTrek series one (don't remember the model number but I know it was only around $100) and it has a digital magnetic compass.
I think it is conceivable that a modem user would go for a year without patching simply because of the inconvenience of trying to download a major patch (one that requires reboot, like a service pack) over a dial-up connection.
Though, this is a bit dated. The "Bow-tie" theory holds that the Internet is significantly less connected than once thought. Only about 30% of the web is symmetrically linked.
http://www.almaden.ibm.com/almaden/webmap_press.ht ml
I think that the VAB has dropped on that list a little bit. I believe that both the Boeing hanger and Hong Kong's Container Freight Station are larger than the VAB.
The VAB is roughly 3.3 million cubic meters, the Boeing Hanger is about 13.3 million cubic meters. So it beats the VAB by a healthy margin.
This is very much not the IRA.
It is completely against their MO.
The IRA never seek to kill civilians, just to cause terror and as such have almost without exception issues coded warnings prior to the attacks.
What are you talking about?
Just because the IRA apologizes for one attack against civilians after 30 years doesn't mean it didn't happen!
1972 - Bloody Friday (civilians targeted)
1974 - Guildford pub bombing (civilians targeted)
1974 - Birmingham pub bombing (civilians targeted)
1982 - Hyde Park (military targeted)
1983 - Harrods department store (civilians targeted)
1984 - Brighton hotel (government officials targeted)
1987 - Enniskillen (civilians targeted)
1989 - Deal Marine Band (military targeted)
1992 - Omagh (civilian contractors working for military)
1993 - Warrington (children targeted)
1993 - Bishopsgate (civilians targeted)
1993 - Belfast Fish & Chip store (civilians targeted)
1996 - Canary Wharf (civilians targeted)
1996 - Manchester office building (civilians targeted)
It is only on rare occasion that IRA attacks in England have been targeted at the military. They almost always go for civilian targets.
I believe that in a strict legal interpretation, it is theft. If I am paying per gallon for that water, then he is costing me money (albeit a miniscule amount).
Now, would I care if someone took that amount of water from a tap outside my house? Not at all.
I am curious if the owner of the access point even wants to press charges in this case. To me it sounds like he called the police because he didn't know what this guy was doing parked outside of his house and was just worried about what might be going on (which is perfectly reasonable)... he might never have intended to get the guy arrested for illegaly using a wireless network.
Only if you are referring to a state senator and ot a federal one. The 10th ammendment restricts the federal government from having any rights other than those specified in the constitution.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Stargate is the game of which you are thinking. It was a sequel to Defender. Same basic idea, a few new enemies, and a few new controls (I can't remember what the new controls were though)
The photo of that billboard (the "strong leadership" link) has been doctored. Though I am not sure I understand why they even bothered.
The actual billboard (I drive past it daily) actually says "Our Leaders", not "Our Leader.", and it has a picture of Mel Martinez on the right hand side of it. Note that in the one shown, the right hand side of the billboard is cut off.
With that said, I don't think the doctoring really effects the message being shown on the billboard at all. And even though I tend to be conservative leaning, I have always said that there are two warning signs about any government: If the head of state wears a military uniform, and if there are pictures of the him (or her) posted up all over the place.
So, in short, I find that billboard very disturbing.
bi-weekly ( is it 2 per week or every 2 weeks )
the correct answer for every 2 weeks is fortnightly
bi-monthly ( is it every 2 weeks or every 2 months )
I have no definitive proof that it's every 2 months. it would seem them you could use the word fortnightly. and it could also mean 2 times per month.
bi-weekly means every 2 weeks.
bi-monthly means every 2 months.
semi-monthly means twice a month.
semi-weekly means twice a week.
Also, the use of semi implies that it is an even half period (for example, something that happens on the 1st and 3rd of every month happens twice a month, but isn't really semi-monthly).
Just think of it this way: Would you ask whether a bicycle has two wheels or 1/2 a wheel? Does a bi-sexual like having sex with two sexes or half a sex? Is a semi-circle half a circle or two circles?
It is pretty obvious that they just reversed the units.
20-35mi/h and 32-40km/h would have made much more sense.
so now it is both glass and fur. Very Hollywood.
Not so. The formula for Coke is a trade secret, not a patent or a copyright. If the formula ever leaked out, it would obviously be a secret no longer. There would be nothing (legally) that Coca Cola could do to you unless you were dumb enough to sell your drink under one of their trademarked names.
Actually, that's not quite right. If Coca Cola revealed its formula, you would be free to make your own drink and sell it, but just because a trade secret is leaked out doesn't mean that it is fair game. For example, if a disgruntled employee of Coca Cola decided to publish the formula, it could still be protected under trade secret law. A corporation only has to make reasonable efforts to protect the secrecy of their product.
"four buttons that, when pressed, struck an aluminum rod located inside the unit"
Sounds like moving parts to me...
You are incorrect. They are rights that that we all have initially and the government takes them away after a period of time.
The government doesn't grant us the right to our own intellectual property, we have that already. They take it away from us after a set period of time
You can't ignore the fact that Monsanto created these crops. Why should they be required to allow the free and unlimited spread of the products that they create?
If there wasn't the potential for profit through repeated sales and restricted use of these crops, Monsanto would never have created them and the farmer's would not have had access to them.
If there are companies/groups/governments/etc. out there that want to create these types of crops (similar ones, not exactly the same) and let them be used freely, more power to them. But you can not force a company to give away its product.
If Monstanto were to allow unrestricted replanting of its crops, then it would have to charge significantly more for the original seeds in order to make similar profits.
Believe it or not, some of those seeds come with requirements to make efforts to reduce spread of pollen. This is done to both reduce the spread of the product and avoid potentially dangerous hybrids with other plants.
For example, many hybrid crops are made to be resistant to specific pesticides (i.e., Round-Up, also made by Monsanto). That allows the farmers to use those pesticides freely, killing everything else, but leaving their crops unharmed. If those traits were to start showing up in wild versions of the crops, or in 'weed' plants, it could greatly curtail agricultural production.
Exactly!
This is nothing unusual or unreasonable. The farmer's have an agreement with Monsanto. The agreement lets them use the seeds they bought to produce a single crop. If they don't like that agreement, then they don't have to buy the seeds!
This, by the way, is one of the main reasons that seedless crops have been developed. There is, of course, the benefit of not having to deal with the seeds when harvesting or eating the produce, but it also helps enforce the use agreements on them.
Next time you go to a nursery, have a look at the plants for sale. Most specialty hybrids will have usage restrictions printed on them, preventing you (legally at least) from growing new plants from cuttings, etc...
Actually in some situations it is. In my 10th grade english class (public school) we read sections from the bible. The religious content of the material was not emphasised, instead the lessons centered on the literary value of the material. This is not uncommon in the public school system (despite what some would have you believe)
Actually, it only did two orbits (memory limitations) and it lost five tiles during that flight.
Actually, the content is not the same crap, it is lower quality crap that degrades quicker. That is why it costs less.
The sale price of a product is not merely a function of how much it costs to produce plus the profit the company wants to make. It is determined by how much the paying consumer is willing to fork over for it. Prices are determined by what the market will bear.
If the consumer considered VHS tapes to be equal (in quality, usuability, etc...) to DVDs, then very few people would pay twice as much for a DVD as for a VHS tape. But they are not considered equal, therefore people are willing to pay a premium for the higher quality product.
If you make a new product that is better, faster, and cheaper than the existing one, you are going to make lots of sales... And you don't always have to pass the cheaper part on to the customers.
Well, if they were not contaminated already, taking them with a pinch of salt would do the trick....
No you are not the only who liked it. I didn't the first time I saw it... or probably even the next time. But eventually I grew to appreciate it. It is a bit slow (the drawn out scene flying around the new Enterprise before Kirk boards it for example). And it really didn't feel that much like a Star Trek film. But it was really a pretty darn good sci-fi film.
Ever seen a radiometer? or hear about the radiation pressure equation?
This is a common misconception... one that even Maxwell mistakenly believed. Apparently along with the folks at Encyclopedia Britannica as well.
Pay attention to which way a radiometer turns. If it were turning due to radiation pressure, it should act as if a force were pushing on the white side of the plates. Since the white plates reflect the light, there should be twice as much pressure on them as there is on the black plates which absorb the light. (It takes a greater transfer of momentum for something to bounce off of you than for you to catch it... think of the conservation laws).
The problem with the radiometer is that it turns the wrong directions... it acts as if something is pushing on the black side of the plates. And there is... air pressure. The black side will reach a higher temperature than the white side, and then due to the thermal transpiration, the gas near the edges moves from the hot side to the cool side, and in doing so it pushes the blades along.
Radiometers are in a near vacuum, but there is enough air pressure inside to allow this effect to happen.
I don't think we really disagree on much.
The posting that I had made my comment to had started out with the comment about "copying of information that has an artificial barrier on it" is not the same as "physically stealing"... and I was thinking more along the line of DVD rips / other high quality copies... not CAM copies.
I agree with your point that CAM copies are basically extended previews of the movies and often work as free advertising for the movie makers...
Though here is the issue that I have with that:
Isn't it still the creator's right to decide who gets to see their work and under what conditions? You can argue that it is going to help them out and make them more money if you make a cam copy and distribute it... and you might even be correct, but is it your right to do so? You can't force someone to take your charity.
When it is your work, you should feel free to distribute it or allow it to be distributed in any way you see fit... but when it is not your work, then it isn't your right to decide these matters.
The one (big) exception that I would make to this is any work that was in any way supported by public funds. If any local/state/federal grant/etc... was used to fund the development of the work of art, then it should be made public, and be open to any non-harmful copying possible.
But that's just my opinion...