It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that the mind acquires speed, the hands acquire shaking, the shaking is a warning, it is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion...
I saw the words "Java" and "speed" in your post, and almost modded you as a troll. That is, until I noticed you were talking about coffee.
Take a closer look--you're probably kidding yourself. Mozilla in binary form is a few megabytes, which is no more than a minute or two download. From source, add in the source download to the compile time, and you're way beyond that.
In my work environment, we like to be productive. Taking a thirty minute break while new software compiles does not fit that criteria, when you could have spent five minutes downloading the software, and be configuring it for the twenty-five minutes left.
Intriguing! To think those whom you don't agree with are deluding themselves and ignoring the truth! I have to admit, I never would have thought of such a stunning plan, myself.
Er, scalping tickets is when you sell tickets above their listed price. The problem is that tickets inherently have a limited utility, and supply decreases towards their end-of-life (hence, raising their value and price). That way, one person might buy 100 tickets for a show that will be sold out, and sell them with a 200% markup to fans outside the stadium, since there's effectively a zero supply.
From past readings, most respectable rail guns launch their ammunition at a significant percentage of the speed of light (1/4?).
You are *severely* mistaken. We can barely accelerate subatomic particles at a significant fraction of the speed of light, and that requires immeasurable sums of energy, as well as massive particle accelerators costing billions of dollars and requiring decades of construction.
It would take an inordinately greater amount of power to accelerate a 1g slug to similar speeds.
Not to be pedantic, but the reason we have nearly zero credible foes might just be the fact that we're spending so much money on armaments. There's no better justification for being friends than, "They can reduce our country to little more than a sheet of polished glass in 8.2 seconds."
This bodes well -- it would seem to put the kibosh on any effort to turn this into a "must produce your National ID card on demand" ruling.
I didn't see anything about that in the ruling. Read the line you quoted again--it merely says that the law in question does not involve the suspect produce a document. The wording doesn't even imply that the SCOTUS finds the concept of requiring paper identification unconstitutional.
Not to take away from the brilliant work of this guy, and I'm sure his work will have generated some good math on the way. But just knowing whether the Riemann hypothesis is true is not of much help (people have been assuming it to be true for a while).
Your comment explains why discovering a proof for the Riemann Hypothesis is such a monumental event. Mathematicians have assumed it to be true for some time now, and there exists a massive amount of mathematical theory which rests upon its validity. Proving the hypothesis ensures that their reasoning is on solid ground. Without one, there's no way to know for sure whether or not their conjectures are true.
Canon has so far said little on the hack but certainly cannot be happy with its potential effect on sales.
Unlikely. Not only will an extremely few number of people actually do this (i.e., three people who read it on Slashdot), but it could actually increase sales. Whereas many people may have overlooked the Rebel for another camera with more features for a smaller price, folks that know about this hack may be willing to get the Rebel instead. The end result is that very few people who would have bought the high-end unit in the first place will go for the cheaper model and a mod, but many people who wouldn't have considered the cheaper camera may give it a second look.
Although the author does not seriously argue for capital punishment for the script kiddies, it does raise some interesting issues about how much 'value' society puts on certain types of harm and the author's view of a government's role in protecting us from it.
Doesn't it kind of ruin satire to give the synopsis beforehand?
Imagine reading a preamble like this before Jonathan Switf's A Modest Proposal
Exactly. Media support of, for example, the war, doesn't necessarily point towards political bias. War is good for news media--it means more viewers, more attention, and more money. End of story.
To be fair, you're ignoring a significant third option. Many people have complained about the bias of other news media, including CNN, NBC, etc. Ignoring the question of whether or not they actually are biased, the truth is that many people feel ostracized by what they perceive is a polarized coverage of news. With FOX becoming the choice news station for these people, it leaves three possibilities: the other news stations are biased to the left, FOX is biased to the right, or both are biased in their respective directions. Any of those situations could be a cause for the discrepancy you see.
What does this mean? Without more information, it is just as likely that the other side is being skewed just as much as FOX skews their results (whether intentionally or by their polls catering to only their viewers).
You incriminate FOX for this, but to me it seems just as likely that it could be the other way around, or even that both suffer from this problem.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the correct emphasis is:
Oh, wait, super-human monkeys! Never mind!
Actually, we had all the information we needed to do so, but then we realized that nobody wants to be you.
It's called a joke.
No, really.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that the mind acquires speed, the hands acquire shaking, the shaking is a warning, it is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion...
I saw the words "Java" and "speed" in your post, and almost modded you as a troll. That is, until I noticed you were talking about coffee.
Air. Friction. Case closed.
Air resistance would have slowed him down substantially. Gotta love friction.
Take a closer look--you're probably kidding yourself. Mozilla in binary form is a few megabytes, which is no more than a minute or two download. From source, add in the source download to the compile time, and you're way beyond that.
In my work environment, we like to be productive. Taking a thirty minute break while new software compiles does not fit that criteria, when you could have spent five minutes downloading the software, and be configuring it for the twenty-five minutes left.
That would be Donald Knuth...
Intriguing! To think those whom you don't agree with are deluding themselves and ignoring the truth! I have to admit, I never would have thought of such a stunning plan, myself.
Er, scalping tickets is when you sell tickets above their listed price. The problem is that tickets inherently have a limited utility, and supply decreases towards their end-of-life (hence, raising their value and price). That way, one person might buy 100 tickets for a show that will be sold out, and sell them with a 200% markup to fans outside the stadium, since there's effectively a zero supply.
You are *severely* mistaken. We can barely accelerate subatomic particles at a significant fraction of the speed of light, and that requires immeasurable sums of energy, as well as massive particle accelerators costing billions of dollars and requiring decades of construction.
It would take an inordinately greater amount of power to accelerate a 1g slug to similar speeds.
Not to be pedantic, but the reason we have nearly zero credible foes might just be the fact that we're spending so much money on armaments. There's no better justification for being friends than, "They can reduce our country to little more than a sheet of polished glass in 8.2 seconds."
Perhaps it has to do with Canada's recent laws restricting freedom of speech?
Or maybe it has to do with your healthcare system.
I didn't see anything about that in the ruling. Read the line you quoted again--it merely says that the law in question does not involve the suspect produce a document. The wording doesn't even imply that the SCOTUS finds the concept of requiring paper identification unconstitutional.
But that's eighty megahertz! It's like he clustered his G4 with the awesome power of a 486DX!
Single issue voting is BAD.
Your comment explains why discovering a proof for the Riemann Hypothesis is such a monumental event. Mathematicians have assumed it to be true for some time now, and there exists a massive amount of mathematical theory which rests upon its validity. Proving the hypothesis ensures that their reasoning is on solid ground. Without one, there's no way to know for sure whether or not their conjectures are true.
In your haste to rid the world of package management, you quicky forget about dependencies...
Unlikely. Not only will an extremely few number of people actually do this (i.e., three people who read it on Slashdot), but it could actually increase sales. Whereas many people may have overlooked the Rebel for another camera with more features for a smaller price, folks that know about this hack may be willing to get the Rebel instead. The end result is that very few people who would have bought the high-end unit in the first place will go for the cheaper model and a mod, but many people who wouldn't have considered the cheaper camera may give it a second look.
My god, four cliches in one sentence.
*checks watch*
Geez, I didn't even have any competition =(
Exactly. Media support of, for example, the war, doesn't necessarily point towards political bias. War is good for news media--it means more viewers, more attention, and more money. End of story.
To be fair, you're ignoring a significant third option. Many people have complained about the bias of other news media, including CNN, NBC, etc. Ignoring the question of whether or not they actually are biased, the truth is that many people feel ostracized by what they perceive is a polarized coverage of news. With FOX becoming the choice news station for these people, it leaves three possibilities: the other news stations are biased to the left, FOX is biased to the right, or both are biased in their respective directions. Any of those situations could be a cause for the discrepancy you see.
What does this mean? Without more information, it is just as likely that the other side is being skewed just as much as FOX skews their results (whether intentionally or by their polls catering to only their viewers).
You incriminate FOX for this, but to me it seems just as likely that it could be the other way around, or even that both suffer from this problem.