History suggests that deliberate isolation is a route to stagnation. North Korea today, pre-1850s Japan and so on. Which agrees with my intuition. The do not see how central sharing or date (much of it trivial, but some of it crucial) has become to modern industry. I see it as (another) sign of a pretty sick government.
One convention is that the Internet - definite article, capital I - is this one. An internet - indefinite article, lower case i - is any network connecting several different organisations without an overall controller.
You think this is saddos in their Mom's basement? Hacked machines and botnets are big business nowadays. This is the "Russian Mafia" or equivalent, paying big money for infected machines,
I agree. What we should be doing is replacing these '60s designs as soon as possible, rather than letting them eke their lives out for a long. Regardless of whether nuclear power is or is not a good idea, new nuclear power is better than old nuclear power. We have learned a lot in the last 50 years. Not everything - I am sure there are ways 201x reactors can fail. But they will be a damned site fewer than 196x reactors. And a few new reactors, replacing old ones one-for-one, would give the knowledge of modern reactors to decide if we want to go further down that road.
To put it another way, at any instant the fusion reaction vessel contains about 1 second's fuel, whereas a fission reactor contains more than two years fuel. Extrapolating to the limit (which is not reasonable, but informative), in the worst accident possible by the laws of physics, the fusion reactor will blast of one second's output from the plant and then be inert, which the fission reactor will blast off an unknown fraction of that two years output and keep the rest in a dangerously grumbling state.
Many systems connected to many systems. It doesn't have to be to/from a single CPU or storage device. You can put your datacentre where it is most efficient in energy or cooling terms, but have it appear to be where you want it operationally. Or you can aggregate datacentres scattered across the globe into a unified system, load sharing as the peak load moves round the globe. It makes the physical attributes of "the cloud" more possible.
That would, I think, violate the Terms Of Service with my ISP, which state that the internet connection is for the use of my household only, I don't know whether they could find out that I was providing connections to others, but I prefer not to violate contracts I freely entered in to,
Not that many people would be likely to use it - we are on a country road with no convenient stopping place outside.
I would be pretty certain that there is a law against burning the Chinese flag in China. Just because the US has ruled that flag burning is legal under its constitution does not mean that the same applies in other countries. I think that if you tries that stunt, you would be dragged off quite legally.
I would expect oil to be far more efficient than air. It has a hugely greater thermal capacity (hundreds of times), so it can extract much more heat from the chips and similarly hand it over better to the cooling vanes. You use thermal paste to connect the chip to heat sinks better than air - this is a larger scale version of the same thing, where the whole system is immersed in a sort of thermal paste.
This looks like a spin-off squabble between lawyers relating to the case. As far as I can see, his relates to lawyers and expert witnesses in a dropped US suit. The judgement I read was in a British court, which I can well imagine as being found to be the appropriate jurisdiction.
The case I read the judgement on was Amstrad vs. Western Digital, and the reason I had the judgement was that one of the lawyers working for my company had worked for Amstrad, who won the case.
As I recall WD sold discs to Amstrad, and also wanted to sell disc interfaces. But Amstrad decided that they could design and build their own interfaces cheaper. WD didn't bother (and the judge decided this was intentional) to tell Amstrad that the discs needed to do an end-to-end seek every few minutes to relieve thermal strains in the arm positioning system. As a result, Amstrad PCs using the discs corrupted data and the resulting bad reputation effectively ruined Amstrad's business. WD claimed the discs were good, and it was Amstrad's fault for designing a faulty controller. Amstrad said that WD had not given the information necessary to make the controller good. The judge found for Amstrad - but this needed a lot of information as to exactly why that particular type of disk needed the regular seek, known as a "show-shine", and a decision as to what duty the seller of goods had to tell the buyer how to use them. I found the judgement clear and convincing, and was sure that the judge fully understood the technical details involved. He was also/very/ caustic about one of the alleged expert witnesses.
The other case, where there was an agreed tutorial for the judge, was Quantel vs Adobe,
Some years ago I read the final judgement in a high-tech lawsuit involving detailed understanding of the internal function of disk drives (at that time - technology had moved on). I was impressed with the level of understanding achieved by the judge in the case. The explanation of the facts of the case in the judgment amounted to a fairly good tutorial in the internals of disk drives.
In another case I knew about, the two parties jointly hired a third-part consultant to write a tutorial for the judge on the underlying technology - the parts that both parties agreed on.
I cannot obviously speak for the case in question, but my experience is that judges and trial lawyers (barristers in the UK) are pretty savvy people. The are basically trained to go from 0-60 on a new technology within a few weeks. They may not be able to be creative in the technology, but they know enough to know when they do not know enough and ask further questions.
No, science is not faith. Science describes repeatable patterns. If you heat water at normal pressure, it always boils at 100C. If you pray to God, your prayer may or may not be answered: we have no way of telling if an outcome was a result of prayer or not.
"Understanding" is not necessary to science. Understanding is a matter of being comfortable with something, and is always limited. At one level, I understand how things stay in orbit: gravity, MmG/r^2 etc. But at another level, I don't understand: what/is/ gravity? Where does it come from? Curvature of space, gravitons etc. maybe. But why does mass curve space? What actually us mass? I don't know.
All we can say about science is that it is uncovering repeatable patterns in the structure of the universe. And it is not faith to say the pattern is there, it is observation. Why the pattern appears is a deep question, since "why" is not a well defined word.
Why do you not take the OED seriously? Do you believe it lists words not in use, or that it gives incorrect definitions.
One thing it does not do, which you may be expecting, is make any judgement about/proper/ usage. It is descriptive, not prescriptive. If you are expecting guidance as to good usage, look elsewhere. But take the OED as a source of actual, as opposed to good, usage.
If something often appears in written texts, the OED should list it. The idea is that someone encountering an unfamiliar word should be able to use the OED to find what it it means. The OED differs from some other dictionaries in this matter: it is descriptive, not prescriptive. If a word is or was used often enough with a definable meaning in the written corpus, the OED intends to list it.
The trouble is that the advertisers don't want you. Either they are US only retailers, or the advertising is being paid for by the US branch or franchise. The broadcasters need to get their minds around location-appropriate advertising, and put German ads when you view. But broadcaster are very, very parochial. They are used to thinking only in terms of US distribution, and even limited areas within the US. Both their contracts and their minds are locked on to this model. If they couldn't manage location-appropriate advertising themselves, Google (and probably many others) could do it for them. But that would mean handing control of what they think of as their crown jewels, the advertising slots, to others.
It needs a generational change at the top of the major broadcasters before they will handle the Net properly. In fact, I would expect Fox, owned by Murdock who has fingers in many nations, to be more flexible than the "Big 3" who have lived their lives within the borders of the US.
They don't have to be so drastic. All they have to do is to put a great big splash on the otherwise very clean Google Home Pages saying "Reduced Service (Italy) Mode selected", linking to a page explaining the problem. Total lockouts will make people switch to another search engine - and someone will be happy to set up a search engine which doesn't upset Italy and all the other jurisdictions with silly limits. Giving them the search engine, so they keep returning, but making them feel like second class citizens, will be far more effective. They will continue to use Google, but every time the do so they get to ask why they aren't getting goodies that the rest of the world is getting.
You are looking from the wrong end. Eventually, when a technology is commoditized, the Big Players adopt it - and 400 years is long enough to do so. But when printing first appeared. the Big Players of that time - the Church, the Monarchs - were horrified by this new technology and did their very best to control and restrict it. In England, all publishers has to operate from St Paul's churchyard, and every volume had to be approved by the King's censors, on pain of penalties on both publisher and printer. Of course, it didn't work - people got their seditious ideas printed in more liberal places (Netherlands, Geneva) and smuggled them in. But in its first days, printing was as suspicious a technology as file sharing today.
Environmental levels are low, but someone could pick up a single particle near Fukushima and travel to Tokyo then take a plane to China. Radioactivity is not contagious - you don't become radioactive by being irradiated. Radiation comes from materials which have come from the reactor. The Chinese report could be explained by a single radioactive dust particle on the traveller's clothing, Low general radiation levels are compatible with a few relatively high activity particles. Hence the action of destroying their clothes, where the particle could presumably have lodged.
Im not nuclear scientist, but I think its fair game to call shenanigans when folks a thousand miles away start claiming that the radioactivity skipped over Hiroshima and landed in China.
Since the radioactivity is claimed to have come on people disembarking from an aircraft which followed more or less that course, I can't see why you call it "shenanigans".
This appears to describe the original WW2 bombs, which had the advantage of precision machining etc. A few years ago New Scientist published a much easier way to do it, involving a five story building with stairwell and ordinary plastic drainage pipe. IF you had access to a sufficient quantity of highly enriched uranium, their design could be built with ordinary DIY materials over a weekend. It wouldn't make an efficient bomb, but it would take out a few blocks and leave a nasty radioactive mess.
Look, laptops do it right. The hinge? That's a crease, a fold line, and allows this thing that otherwise should not be bent to use space more efficiently. A cylinder is will have that big empty volume in the middle.
According to TFA, the hole in the middle contains USB ports, power connectors, speakers, webcam - basically all the PC except the keyboard/screen.
Slashdot Mirror
History suggests that deliberate isolation is a route to stagnation. North Korea today, pre-1850s Japan and so on. Which agrees with my intuition. The do not see how central sharing or date (much of it trivial, but some of it crucial) has become to modern industry. I see it as (another) sign of a pretty sick government.
One convention is that the Internet - definite article, capital I - is this one. An internet - indefinite article, lower case i - is any network connecting several different organisations without an overall controller.
You think this is saddos in their Mom's basement? Hacked machines and botnets are big business nowadays. This is the "Russian Mafia" or equivalent, paying big money for infected machines,
I agree. What we should be doing is replacing these '60s designs as soon as possible, rather than letting them eke their lives out for a long. Regardless of whether nuclear power is or is not a good idea, new nuclear power is better than old nuclear power. We have learned a lot in the last 50 years. Not everything - I am sure there are ways 201x reactors can fail. But they will be a damned site fewer than 196x reactors. And a few new reactors, replacing old ones one-for-one, would give the knowledge of modern reactors to decide if we want to go further down that road.
To put it another way, at any instant the fusion reaction vessel contains about 1 second's fuel, whereas a fission reactor contains more than two years fuel. Extrapolating to the limit (which is not reasonable, but informative), in the worst accident possible by the laws of physics, the fusion reactor will blast of one second's output from the plant and then be inert, which the fission reactor will blast off an unknown fraction of that two years output and keep the rest in a dangerously grumbling state.
You fan in and fan out in several stages, the later of which are graphene based.
Many systems connected to many systems. It doesn't have to be to/from a single CPU or storage device. You can put your datacentre where it is most efficient in energy or cooling terms, but have it appear to be where you want it operationally. Or you can aggregate datacentres scattered across the globe into a unified system, load sharing as the peak load moves round the globe. It makes the physical attributes of "the cloud" more possible.
That would, I think, violate the Terms Of Service with my ISP, which state that the internet connection is for the use of my household only, I don't know whether they could find out that I was providing connections to others, but I prefer not to violate contracts I freely entered in to,
Not that many people would be likely to use it - we are on a country road with no convenient stopping place outside.
Not quite. The Planck units could be thought of as fundamental to the universe. However, they are not much use for everyday purposes.
I would be pretty certain that there is a law against burning the Chinese flag in China. Just because the US has ruled that flag burning is legal under its constitution does not mean that the same applies in other countries. I think that if you tries that stunt, you would be dragged off quite legally.
I would expect oil to be far more efficient than air. It has a hugely greater thermal capacity (hundreds of times), so it can extract much more heat from the chips and similarly hand it over better to the cooling vanes. You use thermal paste to connect the chip to heat sinks better than air - this is a larger scale version of the same thing, where the whole system is immersed in a sort of thermal paste.
This looks like a spin-off squabble between lawyers relating to the case. As far as I can see, his relates to lawyers and expert witnesses in a dropped US suit. The judgement I read was in a British court, which I can well imagine as being found to be the appropriate jurisdiction.
I'll check Wikipedia.and fix if needed.
The case I read the judgement on was Amstrad vs. Western Digital, and the reason I had the judgement was that one of the lawyers working for my company had worked for Amstrad, who won the case.
As I recall WD sold discs to Amstrad, and also wanted to sell disc interfaces. But Amstrad decided that they could design and build their own interfaces cheaper. WD didn't bother (and the judge decided this was intentional) to tell Amstrad that the discs needed to do an end-to-end seek every few minutes to relieve thermal strains in the arm positioning system. As a result, Amstrad PCs using the discs corrupted data and the resulting bad reputation effectively ruined Amstrad's business. WD claimed the discs were good, and it was Amstrad's fault for designing a faulty controller. Amstrad said that WD had not given the information necessary to make the controller good. The judge found for Amstrad - but this needed a lot of information as to exactly why that particular type of disk needed the regular seek, known as a "show-shine", and a decision as to what duty the seller of goods had to tell the buyer how to use them. I found the judgement clear and convincing, and was sure that the judge fully understood the technical details involved. He was also /very/ caustic about one of the alleged expert witnesses.
The other case, where there was an agreed tutorial for the judge, was Quantel vs Adobe,
Some years ago I read the final judgement in a high-tech lawsuit involving detailed understanding of the internal function of disk drives (at that time - technology had moved on). I was impressed with the level of understanding achieved by the judge in the case. The explanation of the facts of the case in the judgment amounted to a fairly good tutorial in the internals of disk drives.
In another case I knew about, the two parties jointly hired a third-part consultant to write a tutorial for the judge on the underlying technology - the parts that both parties agreed on.
I cannot obviously speak for the case in question, but my experience is that judges and trial lawyers (barristers in the UK) are pretty savvy people. The are basically trained to go from 0-60 on a new technology within a few weeks. They may not be able to be creative in the technology, but they know enough to know when they do not know enough and ask further questions.
No, science is not faith. Science describes repeatable patterns. If you heat water at normal pressure, it always boils at 100C. If you pray to God, your prayer may or may not be answered: we have no way of telling if an outcome was a result of prayer or not.
"Understanding" is not necessary to science. Understanding is a matter of being comfortable with something, and is always limited. At one level, I understand how things stay in orbit: gravity, MmG/r^2 etc. But at another level, I don't understand: what /is/ gravity? Where does it come from? Curvature of space, gravitons etc. maybe. But why does mass curve space? What actually us mass? I don't know.
All we can say about science is that it is uncovering repeatable patterns in the structure of the universe. And it is not faith to say the pattern is there, it is observation. Why the pattern appears is a deep question, since "why" is not a well defined word.
If they are used intentionally and frequently, and there is a defined meaning, yes. As typos, these to fail my "definable meaning" test.
Why do you not take the OED seriously? Do you believe it lists words not in use, or that it gives incorrect definitions.
One thing it does not do, which you may be expecting, is make any judgement about /proper/ usage. It is descriptive, not prescriptive. If you are expecting guidance as to good usage, look elsewhere. But take the OED as a source of actual, as opposed to good, usage.
If something often appears in written texts, the OED should list it. The idea is that someone encountering an unfamiliar word should be able to use the OED to find what it it means. The OED differs from some other dictionaries in this matter: it is descriptive, not prescriptive. If a word is or was used often enough with a definable meaning in the written corpus, the OED intends to list it.
The trouble is that the advertisers don't want you. Either they are US only retailers, or the advertising is being paid for by the US branch or franchise. The broadcasters need to get their minds around location-appropriate advertising, and put German ads when you view. But broadcaster are very, very parochial. They are used to thinking only in terms of US distribution, and even limited areas within the US. Both their contracts and their minds are locked on to this model. If they couldn't manage location-appropriate advertising themselves, Google (and probably many others) could do it for them. But that would mean handing control of what they think of as their crown jewels, the advertising slots, to others.
It needs a generational change at the top of the major broadcasters before they will handle the Net properly. In fact, I would expect Fox, owned by Murdock who has fingers in many nations, to be more flexible than the "Big 3" who have lived their lives within the borders of the US.
They don't have to be so drastic. All they have to do is to put a great big splash on the otherwise very clean Google Home Pages saying "Reduced Service (Italy) Mode selected", linking to a page explaining the problem. Total lockouts will make people switch to another search engine - and someone will be happy to set up a search engine which doesn't upset Italy and all the other jurisdictions with silly limits. Giving them the search engine, so they keep returning, but making them feel like second class citizens, will be far more effective. They will continue to use Google, but every time the do so they get to ask why they aren't getting goodies that the rest of the world is getting.
You are looking from the wrong end. Eventually, when a technology is commoditized, the Big Players adopt it - and 400 years is long enough to do so. But when printing first appeared. the Big Players of that time - the Church, the Monarchs - were horrified by this new technology and did their very best to control and restrict it. In England, all publishers has to operate from St Paul's churchyard, and every volume had to be approved by the King's censors, on pain of penalties on both publisher and printer. Of course, it didn't work - people got their seditious ideas printed in more liberal places (Netherlands, Geneva) and smuggled them in. But in its first days, printing was as suspicious a technology as file sharing today.
Environmental levels are low, but someone could pick up a single particle near Fukushima and travel to Tokyo then take a plane to China. Radioactivity is not contagious - you don't become radioactive by being irradiated. Radiation comes from materials which have come from the reactor. The Chinese report could be explained by a single radioactive dust particle on the traveller's clothing, Low general radiation levels are compatible with a few relatively high activity particles. Hence the action of destroying their clothes, where the particle could presumably have lodged.
Im not nuclear scientist, but I think its fair game to call shenanigans when folks a thousand miles away start claiming that the radioactivity skipped over Hiroshima and landed in China.
Since the radioactivity is claimed to have come on people disembarking from an aircraft which followed more or less that course, I can't see why you call it "shenanigans".
This appears to describe the original WW2 bombs, which had the advantage of precision machining etc. A few years ago New Scientist published a much easier way to do it, involving a five story building with stairwell and ordinary plastic drainage pipe. IF you had access to a sufficient quantity of highly enriched uranium, their design could be built with ordinary DIY materials over a weekend. It wouldn't make an efficient bomb, but it would take out a few blocks and leave a nasty radioactive mess.
Look, laptops do it right. The hinge? That's a crease, a fold line, and allows this thing that otherwise should not be bent to use space more efficiently. A cylinder is will have that big empty volume in the middle.
According to TFA, the hole in the middle contains USB ports, power connectors, speakers, webcam - basically all the PC except the keyboard/screen.