Yeah. I knew this. In my piece about The Device, I mention something about a similar trick for interrupt-driven state machines
that is too horrible to go into. This is what I was referring to. I never thought it was an adequate general-purpose coroutine implementation because it's not easy to have multiple simultaneous activations of a coroutine and it's not possible using this method to have coroutines give up control anywhere but in their top-level routine. A simple assembly-language stack-switching library lets you do both of those.
Make no mistake, Las Vegas made millions off of Ken Uston. For every player willing to study, practice, refine and yes, even cheat, there are thousands who flock to Vegas with the "latest system" that some person or book promoted as the "easy way to beat the casinos". Inspired by the "easy money" of professional gambling, basically all of the will end up handing whatever money they bring to the table over to the casinos.
Had you actually read the link you provided, you would have found that the page indicates that glass is not a liquid, at least in the sense of flowing over time.
There is virtually nothing actually correct about the parent. Pixar of course does use Mac hardware. We don't use Mac computers for our renderfarm machines, but there are vast numbers of Macs, 0and Mac laptops around the building.
Our renderfarms haven't always been Linux on Intel either. For many years our farms were Suns.
Let's face it: Debian just isn't very glamorous, and open source relies to a certain extent on glamor. You need to have regular, exciting releases that deliver better experience to users, and baseline Debian is about as far from doing that as any of the top 10 distributions out there.
Put another way, the only real reason that distributions like Ubuntu exist is because of frustration at the slow, plodding pace of Debian development.
Unfortunately, the search which yields Darwin's (decidedly not controversial, at least among biologists) Origin of Species claims that it is still covered under copyright. While that may be true of the edition that they used as source material, it is decidedly not true of the original work itself, which is available from a wide number of places like Project Gutengerg.
Nevermind, the point is if the chances are 1 in 455, that means that roughly every 455 years a civilization-ending event must be occuring. I don't see that, do you?
The odds are 1/455 per century, so the supposed extinction events occur roughly every 45,500 years. I don't see that either, but it is slightly more credible.
You are missing something. The key is not being able to make a sketch to show some improvement. That's not really that big of a deal. The key part is storing these images throughout the production pipeline so that artists can refer to Brad's specific directions so that they can accomplish their job efficiently. It is the integration that is important. To bring up photoshop on a separate tablet pc, transfer an image over, sketch over it, send it back and then insert it in a database is not useful.
My favorite creationist example of something that looks like it had to have been "by design" is the explosive defense of the bombardier beetle. It takes 3 simultaneous ingredients to make it work, and having all their production and injection systems arise simultaneously by chance seems to be highly unlikely.
Of course one is left with the job of explaining precisely why God needed to create a beetle which shoots corrosive chemicals from its abdomen.
I never said they weren't wrong, just that there's no point. From a scientist's point of view, you are simply arguing science against someone's fantasies. Why would you work so hard to dispel someone's fantasy land just because it's wrong?
Make no mistake: I'm not trying to dissuade them from their beliefs. Each person is entitled to whatever degree of denial or ignorance they choose. What I am arguing against is the increasing tendancy for these harmful, ignorant beliefs to become part of the political discourse of this country.
By the time someone becomes a creationist, they are probably irreparably screwed intellectually. The best we can do is hope to contain them to prevent the insanity from spreading.
Rather you would prefer to side with a group that says there is no reason for anything other than chance and that what we do in this world doesn't matter at all?
Just what group do you think promotes this idea? Science helps us understand the world around us. Science tells us that the earth looks old, that all living things appear to be related through a pattern of descent with modification via mutation, drift and selection, and that the survivability of the resulting organisms seems to be tied to their reproductive fitness.
It would seem to be a bit presumptuous to tell someone else that they don't understand their religion. Their religion is just that: their religion. They do not misunderstand it: they define it.
Additionally, there is a reason to show that creationists are wrong: they are wrong. Personally, I don't feel comfortable in allowing national policy to be set by those who feel that nature exists solely for the exploitation of humans and should be used up before the imminent second coming.
In this case, at least to me, Nintendo is in the right- while the girl in question is doing something that would be otherwise harmless, i.e., listing favorite games, in this case it's lined right up with porn. I know I wouldn't want my stuff listed on a porn site (unless I'm certain I can gain from it) Nintendo doesn't like porn to be associated to it's stuff, and as such has the right to ask it to be removed. Technically, they own the copyright, meaning they could sue me or whatever for saying Zelda in this post. But this is/., not porn.
Technically, they don't own a copyright on the word Nintendo: they own a trademark. The two are entirely different things. Copyrights protect creative works, trademarks protects the name under which business and goods are transacted. Trademarks convey no protection against unauthorized publication. Infringement of trademarks consist entirely of using the same or similar marks on products where there is a likelihood of confusion. If the SuicideGirls were marketing Nintendo-brand sex toys, there would be a case for trademark infringement, as their trademark would be used in a way which hurts the reputation of the established brand. But I think it is a severe stretch of credibility to suggest that a trademark entitles the registrar to control entirely the means under which the term can be mentioned.
You can of course read more about trademark law here, but the real question is precisely what laws that Nintendo feels the SuicideGirls are violating?
Infringing use of trademarks can only occur when the mark of the infringer creates a likelihood of confusion in the mind of the purchaser, as the result of the use of an identical or similar mark in connection with its goods and services. If the purveyors of the website sold Nintendo branded sex-toys, they would have a case, but I think the idea that the mere mention of Metroid in a page on your website creates any such confusion would be a serious stretch of all credibility.
Project Gutenberg uses a standard set of rules to determine if the works they publish are under copyright. You can review these criteria here if you like. If you feel these rules are somehow being incorrectly applied to specific works, you can of course contact them. For works which are published after 1923, they are supposed to maintain records about how they determined the work was not under copyright. You could merely ask them to provide their reasoning.
I also seriously question whether they are eliminating any ability for a publisher to make a profit. Widespread electronic distribution of texts does not seem to decrease the saleability of dead tree versions of works. Of course even if it were true, copyright does not work to protect the publishing industry, but rather just to promote creation of new works. The two are rather distinct.
You're exactly right: If a licensed user of a portion of the spectrum is using his portion of the spectrum legally, then there is NOTHING the BPL guys can do to stop him from continuing to use it. Hence, it's going to be really easy for a vindictive ham to walk all over the signals BPL use.
Perhaps you should review Part 97.101(d).
It is also far from clear that even strong narrow band emitters will cause any significant problems for BPL users. You are likely just pissing in the stream you drink from.
Given the courts decisions which have established time shifting as a legitimate use of consumer recording technology, it's damned hard to imagine what law they think consumers might be breaking. It is not illegal for me to tape every broadcast of a television show and to build my own personal library. It would seem very difficult to argue that doing the same thing using XM radio would be any different.
Slashdot Mirror
Another nice thing about the LIDE 20, they are supported by Linux (scanimage and the like work just fine right out of the box).
Make no mistake, Las Vegas made millions off of Ken Uston. For every player willing to study, practice, refine and yes, even cheat, there are thousands who flock to Vegas with the "latest system" that some person or book promoted as the "easy way to beat the casinos". Inspired by the "easy money" of professional gambling, basically all of the will end up handing whatever money they bring to the table over to the casinos.
Had you actually read the link you provided, you would have found that the page indicates that glass is not a liquid, at least in the sense of flowing over time.
There is virtually nothing actually correct about the parent. Pixar of course does use Mac hardware. We don't use Mac computers for our renderfarm machines, but there are vast numbers of Macs, 0and Mac laptops around the building.
Our renderfarms haven't always been Linux on Intel either. For many years our farms were Suns.
Did anyone learn anything of interest from this interview? What new insight into Linux or FreeBSD did you come away with?
I think I learned just as much about open software from this article as I did from E!'s coverage of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes.
ever!
Honestly, what the hell were they smoking?
Let's face it: Debian just isn't very glamorous, and open source relies to a certain extent on glamor. You need to have regular, exciting releases that deliver better experience to users, and baseline Debian is about as far from doing that as any of the top 10 distributions out there.
Put another way, the only real reason that distributions like Ubuntu exist is because of frustration at the slow, plodding pace of Debian development.
Unfortunately, the search which yields Darwin's (decidedly not controversial, at least among biologists) Origin of Species claims that it is still covered under copyright. While that may be true of the edition that they used as source material, it is decidedly not true of the original work itself, which is available from a wide number of places like Project Gutengerg.
Nothing like introducing arbitrary notation into a system to make it clearer, eh?
The odds are 1/455 per century, so the supposed extinction events occur roughly every 45,500 years. I don't see that either, but it is slightly more credible.
You are missing something. The key is not being able to make a sketch to show some improvement. That's not really that big of a deal. The key part is storing these images throughout the production pipeline so that artists can refer to Brad's specific directions so that they can accomplish their job efficiently. It is the integration that is important. To bring up photoshop on a separate tablet pc, transfer an image over, sketch over it, send it back and then insert it in a database is not useful.
The alternative question is also sensible: why would you choose to enter a business where you have no demonstrated abilities?
Of course one is left with the job of explaining precisely why God needed to create a beetle which shoots corrosive chemicals from its abdomen.
For more information on the bombardier beetle, try checking out the talk.origins FAQ on the subject.
Make no mistake: I'm not trying to dissuade them from their beliefs. Each person is entitled to whatever degree of denial or ignorance they choose. What I am arguing against is the increasing tendancy for these harmful, ignorant beliefs to become part of the political discourse of this country.
By the time someone becomes a creationist, they are probably irreparably screwed intellectually. The best we can do is hope to contain them to prevent the insanity from spreading.
Just what group do you think promotes this idea? Science helps us understand the world around us. Science tells us that the earth looks old, that all living things appear to be related through a pattern of descent with modification via mutation, drift and selection, and that the survivability of the resulting organisms seems to be tied to their reproductive fitness.
I don't look to science to justify my morals.
It would seem to be a bit presumptuous to tell someone else that they don't understand their religion. Their religion is just that: their religion. They do not misunderstand it: they define it.
Additionally, there is a reason to show that creationists are wrong: they are wrong. Personally, I don't feel comfortable in allowing national policy to be set by those who feel that nature exists solely for the exploitation of humans and should be used up before the imminent second coming.
Technically, they don't own a copyright on the word Nintendo: they own a trademark. The two are entirely different things. Copyrights protect creative works, trademarks protects the name under which business and goods are transacted. Trademarks convey no protection against unauthorized publication. Infringement of trademarks consist entirely of using the same or similar marks on products where there is a likelihood of confusion. If the SuicideGirls were marketing Nintendo-brand sex toys, there would be a case for trademark infringement, as their trademark would be used in a way which hurts the reputation of the established brand. But I think it is a severe stretch of credibility to suggest that a trademark entitles the registrar to control entirely the means under which the term can be mentioned.
You can of course read more about trademark law here, but the real question is precisely what laws that Nintendo feels the SuicideGirls are violating?
Infringing use of trademarks can only occur when the mark of the infringer creates a likelihood of confusion in the mind of the purchaser, as the result of the use of an identical or similar mark in connection with its goods and services. If the purveyors of the website sold Nintendo branded sex-toys, they would have a case, but I think the idea that the mere mention of Metroid in a page on your website creates any such confusion would be a serious stretch of all credibility.
Project Gutenberg uses a standard set of rules to determine if the works they publish are under copyright. You can review these criteria here if you like. If you feel these rules are somehow being incorrectly applied to specific works, you can of course contact them. For works which are published after 1923, they are supposed to maintain records about how they determined the work was not under copyright. You could merely ask them to provide their reasoning.
I also seriously question whether they are eliminating any ability for a publisher to make a profit. Widespread electronic distribution of texts does not seem to decrease the saleability of dead tree versions of works. Of course even if it were true, copyright does not work to protect the publishing industry, but rather just to promote creation of new works. The two are rather distinct.
I believe you meant Karel the Robot.
http://www.mtsu.edu/~untch/karel/
Perhaps you should review Part 97.101(d).
It is also far from clear that even strong narrow band emitters will cause any significant problems for BPL users. You are likely just pissing in the stream you drink from.
Given the courts decisions which have established
time shifting as a legitimate use of consumer recording technology, it's damned hard to imagine what law they think consumers might be breaking. It is not illegal for me to tape every broadcast of a television show and to build my own personal library. It would seem very difficult to argue that doing the same thing using XM radio would be any different.
1000! has 2568 digits. It is indeed between a googol and a googolplex, but much nearer to the googol.