Do you have any clue what you are talking about? Other than physically torturing someone for information, or building a better brute-force machine, physics doesn't break encryption. Mathmatics does.
I don't think he means that physics beats encryption, but that he would rather choose a solution to cracking networks involving physics, like the paint, than using encryption.
but why can't we all be against them promoting a format that locks you into their hardware?
It doesn't lock you in to their hardware any more than if they offered MP3 or WMA formatted music. The problem is that other makers of digital music players don't support AAC-encoded files.
Dear god. I see messages with empty bodies all the time on the internal newsgroups at work.
It's probably worse on newsgroups, because I often tend not to read the subject lines, as they are, in NORMAL circles, simply a precis for what is contained within the body of the message, and so when the body is left blank I am left confused and dizzy for a second.
Dizzy with just how ineffective some people make electronic communications.
Archimedies is reputed to have discovered the law of displacement of water being equal to the weight of a floating body in the bath
Not quite. The displaced water is equal to the volume of the body in the water, not the weight.
If my memory serves me, Archimedes was tasked to find if a crown made for a king was made purely of gold as requested and not tainted with lead, or some other metal, to make it cheaper to make, which would let the makers effectively steal some extra profit.
After his eureka moment Archimedes realised that he could dunk the crown in water and measure the volume of the displaced water. He could then dunk an amount of gold that weighed the same as the crown and that this should displace the same amount of water. If the displacements, i.e. volumes, of water were different, the composition of the two metals were dissimilar.
I don't agree, despite us flying off on a tangent to the discussion.
Inertia is essentially a resistance to change, so there is an effort to make a stationary object start moving, just as much as there is to make the same object that is now moving stop or change direction.
While it's true that people are less likely to switch the OS or applications they use because they are unfamiliar with the alternatives, there is little reistance in using the ones they all ready know, and just as there is no effort required to keep using something one is familiar with, there is no change in inertia for an object that is not having it's velocity changed.
Of course we dont deserve the right to other people labor. But people dont deserve most of what they get in life. Be it good or bad, lifes not fair that way. But that doesnt mean that its wrong to take advantage of the situation and get ahead while you can.
Maybe not absolutely wrong, but it is morally dubious, certainly. None of us lives an entirely isolated existance, and are connected to a society in one way or another. In order for this society, which brings us such entertainment in the form of films, to continue to thrive a governing body has laid down a set of rules, or laws, for the people, as a whole, to follow.
So, no, it may not be 'wrong' to infringe the copyright of film studios in some sense, but it is certainly anti-social.
Uh, yes. But you are missing the point slightly; when asked if people would switch to the Mac platform, for whatever reason, a lot of the time the reason for not switching is that the person wants to play games, which just aren't available in the same quantity on the Mac as they are on the PC. If there were just as many games on the Mac as there were on the PC, this reason would no longer exist.
The question therefore is that if this were the case, and the games available on both platforms were the same, would you switch from using Windows to getting a Mac?
Yes, I found the claim of being the first 20-layer circuit board to be bizarre when I first read it.
Dyconex manufacture 30-layer boards, and have done for years. Not quite as big as your 48-layer board, but still enough to debunk the claim in the article.
Because then you'd have scenarios like when Cliff Claven from Cheers went on Jeopardy, Trebek read of the names of 3 ladies, and Cliff said:
"Who are 3 women who have never been in my kitchen?"
Clearly a correct "question", but not exactly what the judges are looking for.
I realise that is a possibility, but that's why game shows have rules: they can state that the question must have some level of relevancy to the answer. It shouldn't be too difficult to adjudicate with a decent host and judges.
As it stands, Jeopardy's gimmick turns an average game show in to something quite irritating.
Jeopardy is a tv game show wherein three contestants choose from various categories. Each category has 5 answers. Each choice is actually the answer. The contestant must phrase their answer in the form of a question.
For example, the category might be Space. A contestant chooses the box for $200. The answer as revealed is "The closest natural satellite to Earth". The contestant who buzzes in first would answer, "What is the Moon?" If the contestant is correct they get the money.
And, frankly, the format is nothing more than a stupid gimmick that does nothing but frustrate me. The contestants invariably add 'what is...', 'who is...', 'where is...' or whatever to the start of their answer-cum-question, where you could just as easily add the same words to the start of the 'answer' to come up with a question.
From your example, I can turn it around to ask 'What is the closest natural satellite to the Earth', with the answer of 'The Moon'. Really, what is the point of having the contestants answer in the form of a question when the format is so trite?
It would be far more interesting should they REALLY turn it around and reveal the answer as 'The Moon' and have the contestant have to come up with a question like 'what is the closest natural satellite to the Earth', or 'what waxes and wanes on roughly a 28-day period', or something equally plausible. That would make the contestants actually THINK. As it stands, Jeopardy is no more interesting than other game shows.
Your numbers are sometimes used as air temperature,
Not just 'sometimes'; they are the standard numbers used on just about every data sheet I have read, and I've worked with component data sheets for over a decade.
Air numbers are nice, but junction numbers are the ones that actually matter.
Yes, junction temperatures are more important, but how do you measurethem? Air temperatures are used because they can be measured easily with external thermocouples and don't require any heat transfer calculations, needed to derive the junction temperature.
Stealing a milkshake and copying a digital file are not, I repeat not, the same thing.
Perhaps a better example would be the person charging you $10 for the recipe of a milkshake and you took a picture of that recipe and shared it with your friends.
Perhaps an even better example would be someone charging me for a recipe that they worked hard on and produced using skills and knowledge picked up over many years, and then I photocopy that recipe a kajillion times and leave the copies in a huge stack for anyone to take, not just my 'friends'.
Sure, there is a difference between copyright infringement and theft, but using this strawman argument to deflect attention away from many people's habits of just taking what they want, regardless of its value to them and others, and potentially depriving artists of income, is getting tired.
in the corporate mind paying more = better product.
This confuses me, because what I see and hear happening all the time in the corporate world when there is a lot of money to be spent is that the order goes to the vendor offering what the company wants at lowest price.
If it truly were a matter of paying more equalling getting a better product then there would be occasions when sales don't go to the lowest bidder, but when does this happen?
There's got to be something more at work here than the simple 'paying more = better product', because it's just not my experience that companies want to pay more.
I had a lot of trouble controlling Mario in 3D when I first got SM64. I couldn't cross even wide bridges any anything near full speed. But I kept practicing and got over it. If you can't or won't learn to control the camera in Sunshine... well, too bad for you.
That's funny, as I had little trouble adjusting to 3D Mario in SM64. I'll agree that there is more going on in SMS than in the previous Mario game but could there not be a way to have the camera show this information more smoothly? Most of the trouble I have is when the camera switches to a new position too quickly and I have to readjust my movement controls or stop and let things settle down.
This is particularly annoying when the camera moves in mid-jump, as I can end up somewhere else. How can I stop this, because when I release control of the camera it moves by itself again. I just want to play the game, not fight with the controls.
I would also have liked it if the user-set camera position was remembered from moment to moment, as I liked to pull back a little to show more of what was around Mario. But whenever the camera zoomed off to show the result of a blue coin appearing, or whatever, the camera was back in the default position. This was frustrating and showed, to me, a lack of attention to detail.
Also, thanks for assuming that I didn't want to persevere with the game because of the camera. I did, but it still pissed me off.
Did you try Super Mario Sunshine? Again, you have complete camera control.
First, you are being a bit misleading as the camera still moves around Mario without the player's input. As an example, when Mario climbs the road leading up to the windmill the camera suddenly decides at some point to start winding around Mario as Mario winds his way around the road, and then the camera stops doing this near the top. It is a little disorientating because it doesn't feel natural when the camera makes the switches.
This sort of thing happens in many other places, indicating that there is a general algorithm for camera movement that is overridden by specific movements when certain areas are reached. I spent many frustrating moments fighting with the camera in Super Mario Sunshine because of this.
Second, I'm not sure that having 'complete camera control' is a selling point, as that implies that the camera's position cannot be trusted and has to be 'tweaked' far too often. I want to enjoy playing the game, not moving a camera around so that I can see where I want to jump.
In contrast, I thought the camera in Super Mario 64 was excellent, in that it was pretty much where I wanted it to be nearly all of the time and didn't make any sudden changes of attitude that made me fall off a ledge, or whatever. The player didn't have full control of the camera in this game, and it really wasn't needed. How Nintendo managed to make the camera in SMS so bad after SM64 is beyond me.
O for a Muse of fire, that would ascend The brightest heaven of invention, A kingdom for a stage, princes to act And monarchs to behold the swelling scene!
Why the FUCK did I think that read 'William Shatner'? I was expecting the 'I am Canadian' speech.
Slashdot Mirror
You claim that MS made IE for 0 dollars??
I think he meant it was cheaper for the consumer, not cheaper for the company.
waited in line in the 18 degree temps outside the Apple store in Kansas City so I could be fifth in line!
Geez, if you're going to wait in line in that sort of temperature, you could at least aim higher than fifth. Why not first?
Kids these days have no amibition.
Do you have any clue what you are talking about? Other than physically torturing someone for information, or building a better brute-force machine, physics doesn't break encryption. Mathmatics does.
I don't think he means that physics beats encryption, but that he would rather choose a solution to cracking networks involving physics, like the paint, than using encryption.
but why can't we all be against them promoting a format that locks you into their hardware?
It doesn't lock you in to their hardware any more than if they offered MP3 or WMA formatted music. The problem is that other makers of digital music players don't support AAC-encoded files.
Please note that the original read "...output quality that redefines GIGO (Good In, Garbage Out)...".
...'.
Then it should have read, '... redefines GIGO as 'Good In, Garbage Out'
Not the acme of [grammatical construction].
Quite. The way that it is written certainly implies to me that 'Good In, Garbage Out' is the current definition, which it isn't.
Actually if you own a domain. Simply use abuse@yourdomainhere.com as your e-mail address.
I do.
You will never receive any spam. I know this is not practical for most people but it works flawlessly
No, it doesn't.
Dear god. I see messages with empty bodies all the time on the internal newsgroups at work.
It's probably worse on newsgroups, because I often tend not to read the subject lines, as they are, in NORMAL circles, simply a precis for what is contained within the body of the message, and so when the body is left blank I am left confused and dizzy for a second.
Dizzy with just how ineffective some people make electronic communications.
Archimedies is reputed to have discovered the law of displacement of water being equal to the weight of a floating body in the bath
Not quite. The displaced water is equal to the volume of the body in the water, not the weight.
If my memory serves me, Archimedes was tasked to find if a crown made for a king was made purely of gold as requested and not tainted with lead, or some other metal, to make it cheaper to make, which would let the makers effectively steal some extra profit.
After his eureka moment Archimedes realised that he could dunk the crown in water and measure the volume of the displaced water. He could then dunk an amount of gold that weighed the same as the crown and that this should displace the same amount of water. If the displacements, i.e. volumes, of water were different, the composition of the two metals were dissimilar.
I don't agree, despite us flying off on a tangent to the discussion.
Inertia is essentially a resistance to change, so there is an effort to make a stationary object start moving, just as much as there is to make the same object that is now moving stop or change direction.
While it's true that people are less likely to switch the OS or applications they use because they are unfamiliar with the alternatives, there is little reistance in using the ones they all ready know, and just as there is no effort required to keep using something one is familiar with, there is no change in inertia for an object that is not having it's velocity changed.
Of course we dont deserve the right to other people labor. But people dont deserve most of what they get in life. Be it good or bad, lifes not fair that way. But that doesnt mean that its wrong to take advantage of the situation and get ahead while you can.
Maybe not absolutely wrong, but it is morally dubious, certainly. None of us lives an entirely isolated existance, and are connected to a society in one way or another. In order for this society, which brings us such entertainment in the form of films, to continue to thrive a governing body has laid down a set of rules, or laws, for the people, as a whole, to follow.
So, no, it may not be 'wrong' to infringe the copyright of film studios in some sense, but it is certainly anti-social.
There's a sort of friction thing going on. Once you overcome static friction the resistive force isn't so much...
I think the word you are looking for is 'inertia'.
Uh, yes. But you are missing the point slightly; when asked if people would switch to the Mac platform, for whatever reason, a lot of the time the reason for not switching is that the person wants to play games, which just aren't available in the same quantity on the Mac as they are on the PC. If there were just as many games on the Mac as there were on the PC, this reason would no longer exist.
The question therefore is that if this were the case, and the games available on both platforms were the same, would you switch from using Windows to getting a Mac?
Yes, I found the claim of being the first 20-layer circuit board to be bizarre when I first read it.
Dyconex manufacture 30-layer boards, and have done for years. Not quite as big as your 48-layer board, but still enough to debunk the claim in the article.
Jobs was part of the vision, in many cases at Apple, he seems to be the prime visionary, but this 'rubs off' and inspires others and will continue to.
Just like Roddenberry and Star Trek?
It's purely to annoy you.
Because then you'd have scenarios like when Cliff Claven from Cheers went on Jeopardy, Trebek read of the names of 3 ladies, and Cliff said:
"Who are 3 women who have never been in my kitchen?"
Clearly a correct "question", but not exactly what the judges are looking for.
I realise that is a possibility, but that's why game shows have rules: they can state that the question must have some level of relevancy to the answer. It shouldn't be too difficult to adjudicate with a decent host and judges.
As it stands, Jeopardy's gimmick turns an average game show in to something quite irritating.
Jeopardy is a tv game show wherein three contestants choose from various categories. Each category has 5 answers. Each choice is actually the answer. The contestant must phrase their answer in the form of a question.
For example, the category might be Space. A contestant chooses the box for $200. The answer as revealed is "The closest natural satellite to Earth". The contestant who buzzes in first would answer, "What is the Moon?" If the contestant is correct they get the money.
And, frankly, the format is nothing more than a stupid gimmick that does nothing but frustrate me. The contestants invariably add 'what is...', 'who is...', 'where is...' or whatever to the start of their answer-cum-question, where you could just as easily add the same words to the start of the 'answer' to come up with a question.
From your example, I can turn it around to ask 'What is the closest natural satellite to the Earth', with the answer of 'The Moon'. Really, what is the point of having the contestants answer in the form of a question when the format is so trite?
It would be far more interesting should they REALLY turn it around and reveal the answer as 'The Moon' and have the contestant have to come up with a question like 'what is the closest natural satellite to the Earth', or 'what waxes and wanes on roughly a 28-day period', or something equally plausible. That would make the contestants actually THINK. As it stands, Jeopardy is no more interesting than other game shows.
Your numbers are sometimes used as air temperature,
Not just 'sometimes'; they are the standard numbers used on just about every data sheet I have read, and I've worked with component data sheets for over a decade.
Air numbers are nice, but junction numbers are the ones that actually matter.
Yes, junction temperatures are more important, but how do you measurethem? Air temperatures are used because they can be measured easily with external thermocouples and don't require any heat transfer calculations, needed to derive the junction temperature.
-25 to 70 is commercial spec.
-40 to 125 is industrial spec.
-50 to 150 is military spec.
Not for operating temperatures it isn't.
Commercial spec. ranges from 0C to +70C
Industrial spec. ranges from -40C to +85C
Military spec. ranges from -55C to +125C
Stealing a milkshake and copying a digital file are not, I repeat not, the same thing.
Perhaps a better example would be the person charging you $10 for the recipe of a milkshake and you took a picture of that recipe and shared it with your friends.
Perhaps an even better example would be someone charging me for a recipe that they worked hard on and produced using skills and knowledge picked up over many years, and then I photocopy that recipe a kajillion times and leave the copies in a huge stack for anyone to take, not just my 'friends'.
Sure, there is a difference between copyright infringement and theft, but using this strawman argument to deflect attention away from many people's habits of just taking what they want, regardless of its value to them and others, and potentially depriving artists of income, is getting tired.
in the corporate mind paying more = better product.
This confuses me, because what I see and hear happening all the time in the corporate world when there is a lot of money to be spent is that the order goes to the vendor offering what the company wants at lowest price.
If it truly were a matter of paying more equalling getting a better product then there would be occasions when sales don't go to the lowest bidder, but when does this happen?
There's got to be something more at work here than the simple 'paying more = better product', because it's just not my experience that companies want to pay more.
I had a lot of trouble controlling Mario in 3D when I first got SM64. I couldn't cross even wide bridges any anything near full speed. But I kept practicing and got over it. If you can't or won't learn to control the camera in Sunshine... well, too bad for you.
That's funny, as I had little trouble adjusting to 3D Mario in SM64. I'll agree that there is more going on in SMS than in the previous Mario game but could there not be a way to have the camera show this information more smoothly? Most of the trouble I have is when the camera switches to a new position too quickly and I have to readjust my movement controls or stop and let things settle down.
This is particularly annoying when the camera moves in mid-jump, as I can end up somewhere else. How can I stop this, because when I release control of the camera it moves by itself again. I just want to play the game, not fight with the controls.
I would also have liked it if the user-set camera position was remembered from moment to moment, as I liked to pull back a little to show more of what was around Mario. But whenever the camera zoomed off to show the result of a blue coin appearing, or whatever, the camera was back in the default position. This was frustrating and showed, to me, a lack of attention to detail.
Also, thanks for assuming that I didn't want to persevere with the game because of the camera. I did, but it still pissed me off.
Did you try Super Mario Sunshine? Again, you have complete camera control.
First, you are being a bit misleading as the camera still moves around Mario without the player's input. As an example, when Mario climbs the road leading up to the windmill the camera suddenly decides at some point to start winding around Mario as Mario winds his way around the road, and then the camera stops doing this near the top. It is a little disorientating because it doesn't feel natural when the camera makes the switches.
This sort of thing happens in many other places, indicating that there is a general algorithm for camera movement that is overridden by specific movements when certain areas are reached. I spent many frustrating moments fighting with the camera in Super Mario Sunshine because of this.
Second, I'm not sure that having 'complete camera control' is a selling point, as that implies that the camera's position cannot be trusted and has to be 'tweaked' far too often. I want to enjoy playing the game, not moving a camera around so that I can see where I want to jump.
In contrast, I thought the camera in Super Mario 64 was excellent, in that it was pretty much where I wanted it to be nearly all of the time and didn't make any sudden changes of attitude that made me fall off a ledge, or whatever. The player didn't have full control of the camera in this game, and it really wasn't needed. How Nintendo managed to make the camera in SMS so bad after SM64 is beyond me.
This has been said many, MANY times before: Apple does not drop prices.
Old style 20" Cinema Display: 1,099 pounds sterling.
New style 20" Cinema Display: 999 pounds sterling.
There's a chance that the new iMacs could be cheaper than the ones they are replacing, albeit not by much.
I think William Shakespeare said it best:
O for a Muse of fire, that would ascend
The brightest heaven of invention,
A kingdom for a stage, princes to act
And monarchs to behold the swelling scene!
Why the FUCK did I think that read 'William Shatner'? I was expecting the 'I am Canadian' speech.