Governments should mandate efficiency standards, not technology.
That is in fact what the US government did; it's just that the standards are set to the point that incandescents can't meet it. So we're stuck with shitty fluorescents and shitty LEDs (they're shitty for the same reason, the phosphors). I know Phillips was working on HIR capsules within a regular bulb envelope, but I haven't seen one for sale which meets the requirements (some are which do not).
The GE "advancement" was abandoned, though likely not before they got enough patents to prevent anyone else from following up on that path.
Are you being purposefully retarded? What in the hell are you talking about? I don't give two rat's asses about your freedom of speech, or anybody else's, for that matter - I'm not government (in case you are not aware - it only applies to government institutions, who are prohibited from restricting the right of free speech, read the amendment), and neither is Sony. Sony can restrict your right of speech as much as they like, within the confines of their domain, which PS3 security system and PlayStation Network are (and probably beyond, too - where they have the standing).
You're getting increasingly insane. Now you're asserting that Sony, because they make the PS3, can prevent people from talking about it? From where does that power derive?
Like I said - as long as it remains within your apartment, do whatever you please - you can even smash it into pieces and nobody will say a word.
What I'm arguing against is _public release of a hack_, which with 100% certainty will result in piracy and cheating (already has, as a matter of fact), so that clearly indicates its intentions.
Ah, so it's not freedom to tinker you're opposed to. It's freedom of speech. Hack all you want, just don't talk about it? Excuse me if I don't find that point of view any more acceptable. And for the record, no, just because a side effect is known does not mean it is intentional.
I have no idea what you are going on about. I've been watching Farscape for the first time recently, and it's among the least original and most awful "science" fiction I've seen.
Lost me early on with the metabolism which produced helium as a waste product. I'm not too highbrow to appreciate a fart joke, but a fart joke which requires a nuclear metabolism is a different story.
Then it proved to be neither an episodic nor an arc-based show, but one of those shows where new characters, backgrounds, and plots are introduced willy-nilly just to avoid resolving anything.
So you have the hackers to thank for it. Pity you're too feeble-minded to realize that. If you had your apartment broken into - you'd change the locks, install better doors et cetera. That's what Sony did. Had there been no hacking - there would not be a problem and OtherOS would still be available.
Only... it's not Sony's apartment. And while you may believe it is, the point of view that control of an item should rest with its maker (rather than its putative owner) is not one a tinkerer can take, by definition.
Good question. I do not believe it is possible to make a native binary safe, but then I'm just a computer geek with a degree in the subject and a decade of professional experience. Who am I to question the great Google.
It's certainly possible to make a native binary safe; full virtualization will do it. Given that, I find it hard to believe that it's possible to decide a priori that it is impossible to do it with anything less.
Don't they have any idea how stupid it is to PISS OFF ALL THE SMART FOLKS!
The smart folks are the ones who became lawyers and bureaucrats and politicians, who have the smarts to force the technically inclined to do their bidding for them. The REALLY smart folks are that subset who convinced the technically inclined that this state of affairs was right and proper.
The sole point of the hacking was to run pirated games. It's as clear as day.
Indeed. If your idea of day is an old-fashioned London fog.
NOW there's a reason for them to get to work. It has nothing to do with tinkering - if anything, it had made it pretty much impossible to tinker anymore: thanks to the "hackers", the "Other OS" was removed, so the only way to tinker NOW is to indeed hack it, which violates EULA and might land _real_ tinkerers in hot water.
Real tinkerers don't give a tinker's damn about EULAs.
Everybody is running around talking about military intervention, but you're forgetting a basic point: This is an internal matter of a sovereign nation. We might not like what's happening, but going into Libya with guns blazing is just as illegal as doing it to Iraq.
Which is to say... not at all.
There is a long list of people who complain about america running around invading countries for their oil, and yet they will happily stand there and say that the americans should rush into this country and do the same. If you want your opinions and morals to be respected you have to be consistent in them.
Actually I haven't noticed any particular respect for consistency over hypocrisy, though that's probably not a good thing. Anyway, it's also possible that the opinions of the people involved are more nuanced than you make it out, and that there's differences between the Libyan situation and the Iraqi one which would make intervention valid in the former but not in the latter.
The people of Libya haven't asked for outside aid.
Look, people die, that's horrible. But Libya's problems are their own internal problem. It's ultimately a healthy thing that Libyans are revolting against their dictator. This is democracy at its finest. If all goes well, this is going to be their 1776.
The West is pro-Kadaffi, just Google a bit and you will find pictures of Kadaffi shaking hands the hands of smiling people like Barack Obama, Gordon Brown and Silvio Berlusconi.
Shaking hands, that's your evidence? Shaking hands with someone doesn't mean you like them, particularly if you're a politician or a diplomat. It's true that NOT shaking hands with them is a rather major public snub, but in politics you can shake hands with someone and declare war on him the next day.
I entered my office building into it. It's the most connected building in Manhattan, but according to the site, nothing greater than 25Mbps is available.
Just because you can put a label on something doesn't mean it's simple or easy to defend against. SQL injection, yes. But phishing, malicious attachments, and social engineering aren't easy or simple to defend against. Well, you can get rid of malicious attachments by getting rid of all attachments, but even if that's practical, it leaves the rest.
I thought the Japanese were still turning out popular stuff like Dance Dance Revolution for arcades. Surely someone is still buying those machines, no?
Sure. Plenty of them in Seoul. Presumably Tokyo as well. NYC, not so much.
"If I didn't agree with the law, I would not convict. If the jury instructions conflicted with my reading of the law, I would not convict."
It's not the jury's place to decide the law actually.
That's what the judge will tell you. But the jury can do whatever the fuck it wants. It's one of the few places an individual (aside from a government official) can exercise any effective power at all, and that's why they try so hard to keep individuals who might actually do so off juries.
Consider what you would do, if you were on a jury and the law the defendant was accused of breaking was particularly odious. Let's say, in hopes of recruiting Slashdot groupthink, it's 17 USC 1201(b) -- one of the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions. Some computer programmer is sitting there facing 5 years in Federal Prison for the crime of distributing a program which removes copy protection from eBooks, for instance. There's no doubt in your mind that he in fact did it; that his actions met all the elements of the crime as explained to you by the judge. The judge's wording was that "you must return a guilty verdict if you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the government has proved all the elements of the crime". What do you do?
Obviously, I'm assuming the prosecutor totally screwed up the voir dire.
I know what I do. The government cannot force me, as a juror, to participate in the enforcement of an unjust law. There's no good reason I can think of to do so voluntarily.
The actual real value of GOOG can be found at (where else?) finance.google.com, pull up GOOGs financials, click on balance sheet:
total assets 57851 - virtual made up junk slush fund accounting tricks like intangibles and goodwill -6256 -1044, subtract total liabilties 11610 and GOOG is really worth about 39 billion as of the end of last year.
This is called "book value". And it's not the company's "real value" (if there is such a thing), because it fails to value the company as a company. Obligatory car analogy: If you were to sell your car for scrap, you might get $300 for it. But if the car actually works, or even has a few major parts which are salvageable, it's likely worth more than that.
I got a job through LinkedIn, so that's one out of four.
As for jury duty, there's no way they'd pick me, even though I have a Facebook account. Because I won't be their tool. If the purpose of the jury is to ratify the decision of the judge, they don't need one. If it's (as one prosecutor told unselected jurors in a pool I was in) to provide a random factor to scare the defendant into pleading when the prosecutor's case is weak, they shouldn't have one. If I were to end up in the jury room, I would not be their tool. If I didn't agree with the law, I would not convict. If the jury instructions conflicted with my reading of the law, I would not convict. If the judge refused to allow the jury to see the law (which has happened), I would not convict. And if all jurors who would do those things are excluded (as they are), the jury system is a farce.
On a less sinister note, if they can guide an anti- beam in a controlled manner to impact a regular beam they could take the first steps towards some sort of epic anti-matter based propulsion system.
The Tevatron has been doing that for years. So far, the earth has not moved.
Slashdot Mirror
That is in fact what the US government did; it's just that the standards are set to the point that incandescents can't meet it. So we're stuck with shitty fluorescents and shitty LEDs (they're shitty for the same reason, the phosphors). I know Phillips was working on HIR capsules within a regular bulb envelope, but I haven't seen one for sale which meets the requirements (some are which do not).
The GE "advancement" was abandoned, though likely not before they got enough patents to prevent anyone else from following up on that path.
You're getting increasingly insane. Now you're asserting that Sony, because they make the PS3, can prevent people from talking about it? From where does that power derive?
Ah, so it's not freedom to tinker you're opposed to. It's freedom of speech. Hack all you want, just don't talk about it? Excuse me if I don't find that point of view any more acceptable. And for the record, no, just because a side effect is known does not mean it is intentional.
Lost me early on with the metabolism which produced helium as a waste product. I'm not too highbrow to appreciate a fart joke, but a fart joke which requires a nuclear metabolism is a different story.
Then it proved to be neither an episodic nor an arc-based show, but one of those shows where new characters, backgrounds, and plots are introduced willy-nilly just to avoid resolving anything.
Only... it's not Sony's apartment. And while you may believe it is, the point of view that control of an item should rest with its maker (rather than its putative owner) is not one a tinkerer can take, by definition.
Haha, abuse of the comma operator FTW!
It's certainly possible to make a native binary safe; full virtualization will do it. Given that, I find it hard to believe that it's possible to decide a priori that it is impossible to do it with anything less.
The smart folks are the ones who became lawyers and bureaucrats and politicians, who have the smarts to force the technically inclined to do their bidding for them. The REALLY smart folks are that subset who convinced the technically inclined that this state of affairs was right and proper.
Indeed. If your idea of day is an old-fashioned London fog.
Real tinkerers don't give a tinker's damn about EULAs.
How much to you get paid to be a shill, anyway.
Which is to say... not at all.
Actually I haven't noticed any particular respect for consistency over hypocrisy, though that's probably not a good thing. Anyway, it's also possible that the opinions of the people involved are more nuanced than you make it out, and that there's differences between the Libyan situation and the Iraqi one which would make intervention valid in the former but not in the latter.
Perhaps because they've been prevented?
They already had that. It's how they got Gaddafi.
Shaking hands, that's your evidence? Shaking hands with someone doesn't mean you like them, particularly if you're a politician or a diplomat. It's true that NOT shaking hands with them is a rather major public snub, but in politics you can shake hands with someone and declare war on him the next day.
It's common tactics to come up with some niggling bureaucratic reason for taking an evil action rather than admit the true one.
I entered my office building into it. It's the most connected building in Manhattan, but according to the site, nothing greater than 25Mbps is available.
Neither DSL nor cable are baseband. I'm not sure if the term is meaningful with fiber.
Just because you can put a label on something doesn't mean it's simple or easy to defend against. SQL injection, yes. But phishing, malicious attachments, and social engineering aren't easy or simple to defend against. Well, you can get rid of malicious attachments by getting rid of all attachments, but even if that's practical, it leaves the rest.
Sure. Plenty of them in Seoul. Presumably Tokyo as well. NYC, not so much.
Islamic "democracy" just means you get to vote (once) for the Ayatollah of your choice.
Clearly you have NOT read estimates, proposals, specifications, scopes...
That's what the judge will tell you. But the jury can do whatever the fuck it wants. It's one of the few places an individual (aside from a government official) can exercise any effective power at all, and that's why they try so hard to keep individuals who might actually do so off juries.
Consider what you would do, if you were on a jury and the law the defendant was accused of breaking was particularly odious. Let's say, in hopes of recruiting Slashdot groupthink, it's 17 USC 1201(b) -- one of the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions. Some computer programmer is sitting there facing 5 years in Federal Prison for the crime of distributing a program which removes copy protection from eBooks, for instance. There's no doubt in your mind that he in fact did it; that his actions met all the elements of the crime as explained to you by the judge. The judge's wording was that "you must return a guilty verdict if you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the government has proved all the elements of the crime". What do you do?
Obviously, I'm assuming the prosecutor totally screwed up the voir dire.
I know what I do. The government cannot force me, as a juror, to participate in the enforcement of an unjust law. There's no good reason I can think of to do so voluntarily.
This is called "book value". And it's not the company's "real value" (if there is such a thing), because it fails to value the company as a company. Obligatory car analogy: If you were to sell your car for scrap, you might get $300 for it. But if the car actually works, or even has a few major parts which are salvageable, it's likely worth more than that.
I got a job through LinkedIn, so that's one out of four.
As for jury duty, there's no way they'd pick me, even though I have a Facebook account. Because I won't be their tool. If the purpose of the jury is to ratify the decision of the judge, they don't need one. If it's (as one prosecutor told unselected jurors in a pool I was in) to provide a random factor to scare the defendant into pleading when the prosecutor's case is weak, they shouldn't have one. If I were to end up in the jury room, I would not be their tool. If I didn't agree with the law, I would not convict. If the jury instructions conflicted with my reading of the law, I would not convict. If the judge refused to allow the jury to see the law (which has happened), I would not convict. And if all jurors who would do those things are excluded (as they are), the jury system is a farce.
The Tevatron has been doing that for years. So far, the earth has not moved.
Doh! Damn slide rule makes me keep track of the decimals myself. There's gotta be a better way...
Unless I've done the math wrong, annihilation of one hydrogen/anti-hydrogen pair yields about 3*10^-9 joules. Not much of a bang.