I remember my brother using "purple gas" (same idea) in his motorbike. Only problem was, the dye was light-sensitive, so he'd put it in a jar in the sun for a few hours (or however long, it was a long time ago), and it would look pretty much normal. Then off he'd go. I wonder if the current dye is any better?
The real question is out of the newer specification PDA's which ones can be re-flashed with Linux and work as well as the sharp offering ?
With the exception of the cool screen (4" VGA!), all kinds, there are lists out there for those who want to look. But if you want that cool screen, there's the Zaurus SL-6000 and the Zaurus SL-C7xx/SL-C8xx lines. And the price for this is in line for those. I suspect that screen alone is a significant cost element.
Were these algae genetically engineered? Certainly doesn't say that in the article. This raises a question that has always hung around with me. Do diamonds really take 20k+ years to form, or are we making some incorrect assumptions in our model? Hard to say, but I haven't heard of a lot of holes in that model. Does oil really take millions of years to form? Did it really come from dinosaurs? This model has taken a shit-kicking. History show that we use really poor techniques to get things done - nature always seems to have a better method. This currently holds for hydrogen, solar energy, energy storage, fuel consumption, data-processing. Yet we just found a way to make meat into oil in a few weeks, using water as a critical element to speed the process. Which seems to cover many of the locations where we're finding oil. Now we find algae that are 50% oil! Do we know what conditions would make this oil the primary algae growth in an open system, like the ocean? This could even have an impact on the CO2 cycle. Maybe the carbon has only been isloated from the system for 20k years, 5k years. I'm not saying this is the case, but it seems our models for estimating how long it takes oil to form are hampered by two things - that the majority of this was formed from dead animals (of the macroscopic variety), and that it was a time-consuming process. I really think our models need to be reassessed, to make sure we're working from accurate premises.
I never said it was cheap. I said the price difference in button types wasn't going to to be a large amount. I also said I was waiting until I could afford to do it. I want to add the trackball when I do it - it costs as much as the pre-built controllers cost (~$150 last time I checked). The benefit of doing it yourself is you get something that is just the way you want it.
I suspect that MS chose their logos based on their security models. Windows logo: everyone can see you stuff, but not necessarily touch it. At least until they find a highly-available rock. Butterfly logo: the kind of bugs they catch - relatively small and weak (like a butterfly). The big, powerful bugs break through their butterfly-net security, and the small ones just fly right through.
It's worse than that. GPS Jammers broadcast a conflicting signal at the same wavelength as GPS, overwhelming the distant satellites. So the trick is to use a rocket/missile that is guided by a RF emission, and it will automatically target on the GPS jammer, and the rest is history. This is why GPS is a military advantage for the US. They can stop anyone else from using GPS (through turning off unencrypted channels), but no one can stop them (since jammers are vulnerable).
Mind you, GPS jammers could have some utility for short-term uses, say in the order of a few minutes.
I don't quite agree. $12M is nothing to them, and allows them to legally say they did nothing wrong. This has two nice things: saves litigation costs (and you can bet there will be an appeal no matter who wins); and reduces strategy requirements (no need to worry about the story/lie you're telling in one case coming back to bite you in another case). I wouldn't be surprised if MS paid their lawyers more than that in the federal case. This link notes that the lawyers in the California class-action suit want $258M. If you look at the rates given, most are probably 10x too high, but $25M is still twice what MS paid Opera to just go away. That's not admission, that's hedging your bets and cutting your losses for a guarantee.
That said, I think they were guilty, which certainly influenced them to just make it go away.
You're sorely lacking in research. Old games used leaf spring switches, newer used microswitches (sometimes). Leaf springs need maintenance to use for full lifetime, micros will probably work fine until complete failure (like most electronic hardware). And the price for each button (either kind, last time I checked) were measured in dollars (one or two per). Either hooks up the same way. Piecework may have a bearing on the price (and bet that it is still pretty high), but the type/quality of switches has little bearing on the cost. As said before, Happ is a good reference to find out more. My prices might be off somewhat, but I won't be looking too much more until I can afford to build my own.
This is a different solution to the problem - an animal for resale is required to have a chip. This would be difficult to defeat (without accessing someone within the system). If an animal must not have a chip to be available for resale, all you need is a scalpel and some foreceps. Maybe a scanner, if they all don't go in the same general spot.
Or, more correctly, SCO is trying to pull a Microsoft. The only difference is, MS (apparently) had a leg to stand on, so didn't have to do it in court.
There are two flaws to your logic. First, who besides the big AgriBusiness companies has the resources to research and produce this? Second, which is worse: old-boys club not hurting each other; or, being a victim of corporate war?
We get to take it in the ass again because of which way the hot air is blowing. Of course, we're good for it - we've gotten lots of practice from our politicians.
So, do you work at SCO? Just wondering because you mentioned marrying 2 women (and twins, too!), and Utah is about the only place in the U.S that might let a bigamist off with a nod. Of course, since it's the Olsen twins, you just might be able to get sympathy beer for taking not one, but two, for the team...
First, simplify your model. Assume someone else put a mirror far enough out to reflect the image you want to see. That gets rid of the question of what you see first (not the spaceship). It also negates the issue of the spaceship flying in an arc so you don't see it. Now, here's the problem: if you want to see 50 years back, and a mirror was put in place right now, you would have to wait 50 years to get an image returned. Total time to see image would be 100 years. If you put the mirror at 25 light years, you would see 50 years back at time of viewing, but would only see images from 25 years back at time of placement.
The solution is to look for mirrors that are already in place (or put a large number of mirrors in place for future generations). This sounds absurd, but remember this: black holes can theoretically wrap light around at exactly 180 degrees at a given point from their centre. So we already have a number of mirrors out there. Now the big problem: black holes will have huge distorions around them, and very little light reaching them in the first place, so it's doubtful that you would be able to see anything remotely useful. This is also the problem with placing artificial mirrors: the light returned would be so small, that it would be useless. So much for looking back in time.
There's a very simple rule to get your computer offline until the firewall is up. Disconnect your network connection until startup is complete. Once the firewall is up, get reconnect.
Slashdot Mirror
I read the title and thought, "What the hell, is some punster modding a coffin?"
I remember my brother using "purple gas" (same idea) in his motorbike. Only problem was, the dye was light-sensitive, so he'd put it in a jar in the sun for a few hours (or however long, it was a long time ago), and it would look pretty much normal. Then off he'd go. I wonder if the current dye is any better?
Everyone has to troll now and then, and if the subscribers aren't going to, it's up to the rest of us to take up the slack!
I'd rather they leave them on. That way you know when to take the false facade off your house...
The real question is out of the newer specification PDA's which ones can be re-flashed with Linux and work as well as the sharp offering ?
With the exception of the cool screen (4" VGA!), all kinds, there are lists out there for those who want to look. But if you want that cool screen, there's the Zaurus SL-6000 and the Zaurus SL-C7xx/SL-C8xx lines. And the price for this is in line for those. I suspect that screen alone is a significant cost element.
Were these algae genetically engineered? Certainly doesn't say that in the article. This raises a question that has always hung around with me. Do diamonds really take 20k+ years to form, or are we making some incorrect assumptions in our model? Hard to say, but I haven't heard of a lot of holes in that model. Does oil really take millions of years to form? Did it really come from dinosaurs? This model has taken a shit-kicking. History show that we use really poor techniques to get things done - nature always seems to have a better method. This currently holds for hydrogen, solar energy, energy storage, fuel consumption, data-processing. Yet we just found a way to make meat into oil in a few weeks, using water as a critical element to speed the process. Which seems to cover many of the locations where we're finding oil. Now we find algae that are 50% oil! Do we know what conditions would make this oil the primary algae growth in an open system, like the ocean? This could even have an impact on the CO2 cycle. Maybe the carbon has only been isloated from the system for 20k years, 5k years. I'm not saying this is the case, but it seems our models for estimating how long it takes oil to form are hampered by two things - that the majority of this was formed from dead animals (of the macroscopic variety), and that it was a time-consuming process. I really think our models need to be reassessed, to make sure we're working from accurate premises.
I never said it was cheap. I said the price difference in button types wasn't going to to be a large amount. I also said I was waiting until I could afford to do it. I want to add the trackball when I do it - it costs as much as the pre-built controllers cost (~$150 last time I checked). The benefit of doing it yourself is you get something that is just the way you want it.
No, the fruits go for Apples...
I suspect that MS chose their logos based on their security models. Windows logo: everyone can see you stuff, but not necessarily touch it. At least until they find a highly-available rock. Butterfly logo: the kind of bugs they catch - relatively small and weak (like a butterfly). The big, powerful bugs break through their butterfly-net security, and the small ones just fly right through.
It's worse than that. GPS Jammers broadcast a conflicting signal at the same wavelength as GPS, overwhelming the distant satellites. So the trick is to use a rocket/missile that is guided by a RF emission, and it will automatically target on the GPS jammer, and the rest is history. This is why GPS is a military advantage for the US. They can stop anyone else from using GPS (through turning off unencrypted channels), but no one can stop them (since jammers are vulnerable).
Mind you, GPS jammers could have some utility for short-term uses, say in the order of a few minutes.
I don't quite agree. $12M is nothing to them, and allows them to legally say they did nothing wrong. This has two nice things: saves litigation costs (and you can bet there will be an appeal no matter who wins); and reduces strategy requirements (no need to worry about the story/lie you're telling in one case coming back to bite you in another case). I wouldn't be surprised if MS paid their lawyers more than that in the federal case. This link notes that the lawyers in the California class-action suit want $258M. If you look at the rates given, most are probably 10x too high, but $25M is still twice what MS paid Opera to just go away. That's not admission, that's hedging your bets and cutting your losses for a guarantee.
That said, I think they were guilty, which certainly influenced them to just make it go away.
You're sorely lacking in research. Old games used leaf spring switches, newer used microswitches (sometimes). Leaf springs need maintenance to use for full lifetime, micros will probably work fine until complete failure (like most electronic hardware). And the price for each button (either kind, last time I checked) were measured in dollars (one or two per). Either hooks up the same way. Piecework may have a bearing on the price (and bet that it is still pretty high), but the type/quality of switches has little bearing on the cost. As said before, Happ is a good reference to find out more. My prices might be off somewhat, but I won't be looking too much more until I can afford to build my own.
Are you saying that RMS should sue George Lucas for the characterization of Yoda? Confusing, oddly-spoken hero longing for the "good ol' days"?
This is a different solution to the problem - an animal for resale is required to have a chip. This would be difficult to defeat (without accessing someone within the system). If an animal must not have a chip to be available for resale, all you need is a scalpel and some foreceps. Maybe a scanner, if they all don't go in the same general spot.
And you know how much those big 12" novelty cubes hurt! It's like being hit with a pointy basketball!
Yeah, but who needs sharks? Greeks work just as well.
It's nice to know that modern nerds are following in the footsteps of such as Archimedes...
Or, more correctly, SCO is trying to pull a Microsoft. The only difference is, MS (apparently) had a leg to stand on, so didn't have to do it in court.
We will therefore need another ruling before we know if Supreme Court Justices are patentable or not.
This was settled long ago in the court of popular opinion. They are not patentable, failing to meet the criteria for the lower limit.
There are two flaws to your logic. First, who besides the big AgriBusiness companies has the resources to research and produce this? Second, which is worse: old-boys club not hurting each other; or, being a victim of corporate war?
We get to take it in the ass again because of which way the hot air is blowing. Of course, we're good for it - we've gotten lots of practice from our politicians.
So, do you work at SCO? Just wondering because you mentioned marrying 2 women (and twins, too!), and Utah is about the only place in the U.S that might let a bigamist off with a nod. Of course, since it's the Olsen twins, you just might be able to get sympathy beer for taking not one, but two, for the team...
Here, I'll help you get started on this endeavour. Stupid faith-hole!
First, simplify your model. Assume someone else put a mirror far enough out to reflect the image you want to see. That gets rid of the question of what you see first (not the spaceship). It also negates the issue of the spaceship flying in an arc so you don't see it. Now, here's the problem: if you want to see 50 years back, and a mirror was put in place right now, you would have to wait 50 years to get an image returned. Total time to see image would be 100 years. If you put the mirror at 25 light years, you would see 50 years back at time of viewing, but would only see images from 25 years back at time of placement.
The solution is to look for mirrors that are already in place (or put a large number of mirrors in place for future generations). This sounds absurd, but remember this: black holes can theoretically wrap light around at exactly 180 degrees at a given point from their centre. So we already have a number of mirrors out there. Now the big problem: black holes will have huge distorions around them, and very little light reaching them in the first place, so it's doubtful that you would be able to see anything remotely useful. This is also the problem with placing artificial mirrors: the light returned would be so small, that it would be useless. So much for looking back in time.
How many programmers does it take to change a LED?
None. It's a hardware problem.
How many engineers does it take to change a LED?
5. One to find the manual, and 4 to try to follow the instructions.
How many people does it take to change a LED?
One, but he has to remember how. After all, it was so long ago...
Yes, and soccer has never caused violence in the recent past. Next time, try to find a rebuttal topic that's different from the other topics.
There's a very simple rule to get your computer offline until the firewall is up. Disconnect your network connection until startup is complete. Once the firewall is up, get reconnect.