Got it. Mea culpa. Thanks for the clarification. I had been going by an understanding of the EULA that was posted by someone else the last time this came up.
This does not address my point that permitted protocols may be used to do the job. 2. Auto-update uses a service called "BITTS". Disable that. Auto-update offers a way to disable it. IF you dont trust it, shut it off and hitch the box to a packet sniffer. Prove to us and the world that its not actually off. You'd be a hero. But of course that's not going to happen.
I wasn't suggesting that MS was likely to do this. Rather, that they'd be ALLOWED to do this, because you gave them permission when you clicked-through the EULA
3. On a LAN of any size, use SUS from MS to distribute your patches[...]
Yes but you're missing the point. Even if you do that, you've already given MS permission to update through any backdoor mechanism they like.
... if your own operating system is tunnelling through http to make requests from Microsoft's server to download patches without your knowledge? (Unless, of course, you want to cut off MS's websites from your browsers as well.)
Note that disabling auto-updating is a technical solution that assumes that MS won't ignore that setting for any updates that it consideres to be "really critical", either to your security, or to MS's business needs.
Thanks for the reference! Though, it's overkill for my application (and budget!). I'd love to have the extra cache on a dual-CPU workstation, but I don't need 8 CPUs:).
Seriously. Now, when I'm randomly accessing large volumetric datasets, my CPU can stall for a few dozen more cycles on a cache miss. Woo-hoo!
Someone tell me when they start putting around 32 MB of level-three SRAM cache on the motherboard. Then maybe I'll be more interested in CPU speed improvements.
I'm aware that calculating the integer square root function is part of the cost of the algorithm, but even so, it's still a polynomial time algorithm. And even if it weren't, you could make it polynomial by replacing "sqrt(n)" with "n". This would, of course, make the algorithm take *longer* on any practical implementation, but it would be just as correct and trivially polynomial.
The input size here is log(n) since it requires log(n) bits to represent n. log(n)^12 hence is polynomial (which i believe their algo guarantees), whereas sqrt(n) is not.
Nonsense. Sqrt(n) is less than n for all n, therefore O(sqrt(n)) is even better than O(n).
The guy (me) is wearing the glasses because this larger device can generate some pretty dangerous forces, enough to cause injury. In practice, the application limits the force magnitude, and there are velocity checks as well, but the goggles and the plexiglass case around the device provide an extra level of safety.
Why play pong with one of the little desktop models when they can use one of the larger workspace 6DOF models like we use ? Of course, they might have a little trouble getting their hands on one of these, since SensAble only made six of them.
Strictly-speaking, yes, gravity is everywhere. However, the amount by which SR's predictions deviate from measurement depends on the amount by which spacetime, in the region of the experiment, deviates from being flat. In other words, in places where gravity is negligible (and to the extent to which this holds), SR is applicable, regardless of how much accelerating your rocket is doing.
whereas the general theory is concerned with bodys that are accelerating ( In general relativity acceleration and gravity are equivalent).
Common misconception. Acceleration and gravity are not equivalent in General Relativity. They are *locally* (that word is extremely significant here) indistinguishable. The fact of the matter is that Special Relativity can handle acceleration just fine by using calculus. General Relativity is only needed where spacetime is not flat (i.e. in the presence of gravity), since the two postulates of Special Relativity only hold in regions of flat spacetime.
the whole notion of intellectual property go against common sense, not to mention the Constitution (Article 2, IIRC).
How does the notion of intellectual property go against common sense? Common sense tells me that the production of both physical property and tangible property takes time and effort, and therefore has value.
As for article 2, I suspect you don't recall correctly, since that is about rules regarding the Presidency. Nor does Ammendment 2 appear to be relevant, in case that's what you meant. Perhaps you could elaborate?
BZZZZZZZZZZT. Wrong! You are obviously confusing continuous maths with discrete maths.
BZZZZT. Wrong, because I said nothing of distributing into doses. I was commenting only on the dilution remark. You can pour more and more H2O into the vat without there being any fewer total number of molecules. Obviously, there's a discrete number of molecules. But the concentration will become ineffective long before you produce doses with no active ingredient molecules.
And besides, this has little to do with my remarks on Avogadro's number having any pharmacological significance in itself. I stand by those remarks. Nothing magical happens when the number of molecules per litre of solution drops below Avogadro's number.
but Avogadro's number is a key elment in the efficacy threshold for drug concentration
No it isn't. Molarity and molality are useful measures of concentration, but there's nothing magical about Avagadro's number that makes it a threshold for anything. It's just a big number that serves as a conversion factor between a big man-made unit of mass (Kg) and a miniscule natural unit of mass (AMU).
Look, if the Anu'udrians of Galos-4 measure mass in quatloos (one quatloo equals the mass of the tooth of the great bugblatter beast stored in the temple in the capital city of Anu'udria), and they define Zoltar's Number as the number of Carbon-12 atoms needed to have 12 quatloos of carbon, Zoltar's Number would be just as useful for measuring concentrations, and it would be just as arbitrary as Avagadro's number, no more and no less. If there's none there, then it has no effect
That's blatantly obvious, and completely irrelevant. Avogadro's number is key in figuring how many times you have to dilute it before you have none left
You'd have to dilute something an infinite number of times before it's concentration becomes zero, because there is always "some left". Dilution doesn't remove the particles of interest, it just spreads them out more. Dilution will, however, obviously make a drug less effective. And Avagdro's number does serve to define a useful measure of concentration. But nothing magical happens when you have exactly 1.0-times-Avagdro's-number molecules in a liter of solution. Avagdro's number is *NOT* key to figuring out how many times you'd have to dilute something before it loses efficacy. Different drugs need different concentrations to be effective. And although Avagadro's number may define a convenient unit, you could just as easily use Zoltar's Number.
8.27 * 300 = 2,481... which would be 2,500 rounded to the nearest hundreds. I assume the 300w must be.3 which would be 2.481 instead of 2,481.
Yes, 300 watts is 0.3 kilowatts. What is a kilowatthour?
It's a unit of energy. Energy is power multiplied by time. Watts are power. A kilowatt-hour is the amount of energy consumed by a 1000-watt device running for one hour.
...due to a little problem called Avogadro's number (about 6.3x10^23, the number of molecules in one mole of a substance). Each of these serial dilutions of extracts causes the concentration to descend so far below avogadro's number that there is no chemical in what is administered.
What on earth does Avagadro's number have to do with anything, and why do you refer to it as a "little problem"? It's nothing more than the conversion factor between Atomic Mass Units (AMUs) and kilograms, and is used to define the "mole" (the number of 12-AMU carbon atoms needed to amass 12 Kg of carbon). It is most certainly NOT an efficacy threshold for drug concentration, as you implied above.
Nuclear power is probably unpopular for a number of reasons, such as public perception about safety issues. As for solar and wind, these are fleeting: You can't package wind or sunshine and use it whenever you want. You have to convert it to chemical energy (i.e. charge a battery). Hydrogen has a lot of the properties that make oil attractive, and in addition, they can be used in fuel cells. A big problem with hydrogen is that it is a great energy storage mechanism, but (until now, allegedly) it isn't a *source* of energy because there are no stores of free hydrogen in the earth. You have to *make* hydrogen via electrolysis, which usus electricity, which you get from your typical fossil-fuel power plant. If there is in fact a free supply of hydrogen available, it could trigger a partial, but substantial, transition to fuel-cell technology.
Slashdot Mirror
I can hire the neighbor's kid to stand behind the couch and jump up and down on cue, and still have $19,980 left over.
No one I've talked to that's gotten their degree after they've gotten their career started has regretted it.
And that includes Steven Spielberg
I don't think it is that workable for all directions, or even more then a few.
Not only that, but you'd have to look at it from a pre-determined distance in order for the rendered view-angle to be appropriate.
The MacOS running WebStar and other webservers as has never been exploited or defaced, and are are unbreakable based on historical evidence.
Based on historical evidence, my backyard shed is burglar-proof.
Look here.
Okay? "If you choose", and "by using". Get it?
Got it. Mea culpa. Thanks for the clarification. I had been going by an understanding of the EULA that was posted by someone else the last time this came up.
1. Firewall. FIREWALL.
This does not address my point that permitted protocols may be used to do the job.
2. Auto-update uses a service called "BITTS". Disable that. Auto-update offers a way to disable it. IF you dont trust it, shut it off and hitch the box to a packet sniffer. Prove to us and the world that its not actually off. You'd be a hero. But of course that's not going to happen.
I wasn't suggesting that MS was likely to do this. Rather, that they'd be ALLOWED to do this, because you gave them permission when you clicked-through the EULA
3. On a LAN of any size, use SUS from MS to distribute your patches[...]
Yes but you're missing the point. Even if you do that, you've already given MS permission to update through any backdoor mechanism they like.
... if your own operating system is tunnelling through http to make requests from Microsoft's server to download patches without your knowledge?
(Unless, of course, you want to cut off MS's websites from your browsers as well.)
Note that disabling auto-updating is a technical solution that assumes that MS won't ignore that setting for any updates that it consideres to be "really critical", either to your security, or to MS's business needs.
Thanks for the reference! Though, it's overkill for my application (and budget!). I'd love to have the extra cache on a dual-CPU workstation, but I don't need 8 CPUs :).
Seriously. Now, when I'm randomly accessing large volumetric datasets, my CPU can stall for a few dozen more cycles on a cache miss. Woo-hoo!
Someone tell me when they start putting around 32 MB of level-three SRAM cache on the motherboard. Then maybe I'll be more interested in CPU speed improvements.
I'm aware that calculating the integer square root function is part of the cost of the algorithm, but even so, it's still a polynomial time algorithm. And even if it weren't, you could make it polynomial by replacing "sqrt(n)" with "n". This would, of course, make the algorithm take *longer* on any practical implementation, but it would be just as correct and trivially polynomial.
The input size here is log(n) since it requires log(n) bits to represent n. log(n)^12 hence is polynomial (which i believe their algo guarantees), whereas sqrt(n) is not.
Nonsense. Sqrt(n) is less than n for all n, therefore O(sqrt(n)) is even better than O(n).
The guy (me) is wearing the glasses because this larger device can generate some pretty dangerous forces, enough to cause injury. In practice, the application limits the force magnitude, and there are velocity checks as well, but the goggles and the plexiglass case around the device provide an extra level of safety.
Why play pong with one of the little desktop models when they can use one of the larger workspace 6DOF models like we use ? Of course, they might have a little trouble getting their hands on one of these, since SensAble only made six of them.
Strictly-speaking, yes, gravity is everywhere. However, the amount by which SR's predictions deviate from measurement depends on the amount by which spacetime, in the region of the experiment, deviates from being flat. In other words, in places where gravity is negligible (and to the extent to which this holds), SR is applicable, regardless of how much accelerating your rocket is doing.
whereas the general theory is concerned with bodys that are accelerating ( In general relativity acceleration and gravity are equivalent).
Common misconception. Acceleration and gravity are not equivalent in General Relativity. They are *locally* (that word is extremely significant here) indistinguishable. The fact of the matter is that Special Relativity can handle acceleration just fine by using calculus. General Relativity is only needed where spacetime is not flat (i.e. in the presence of gravity), since the two postulates of Special Relativity only hold in regions of flat spacetime.
What will it be called, Super Special Edition? Speciai Edition Pro? 32-Bit Special Edition Turbo?
Star Wars Millenium Edition
Star Wars XP
Star Wars#
d) Only scientifically-inclined people respond to this sort of survey.
the whole notion of intellectual property go against common sense, not to mention the Constitution (Article 2, IIRC).
How does the notion of intellectual property go against common sense? Common sense tells me that the production of both physical property and tangible property takes time and effort, and therefore has value.
As for article 2, I suspect you don't recall correctly, since that is about rules regarding the Presidency. Nor does Ammendment 2 appear to be relevant, in case that's what you meant. Perhaps you could elaborate?
You need to brush up on your probability.
An interesting remark, given that I said nothing to which the rules of probability pertain.
BZZZZZZZZZZT. Wrong! You are obviously confusing continuous maths with discrete maths.
BZZZZT. Wrong, because I said nothing of distributing into doses. I was commenting only on the dilution remark. You can pour more and more H2O into the vat without there being any fewer total number of molecules. Obviously, there's a discrete number of molecules. But the concentration will become ineffective long before you produce doses with no active ingredient molecules.
And besides, this has little to do with my remarks on Avogadro's number having any pharmacological significance in itself. I stand by those remarks. Nothing magical happens when the number of molecules per litre of solution drops below Avogadro's number.
but Avogadro's number is a key elment in the efficacy threshold for drug concentration
No it isn't. Molarity and molality are useful measures of concentration, but there's nothing magical about Avagadro's number that makes it a threshold for anything. It's just a big number that serves as a conversion factor between a big man-made unit of mass (Kg) and a miniscule natural unit of mass (AMU).
Look, if the Anu'udrians of Galos-4 measure mass in quatloos (one quatloo equals the mass of the tooth of the great bugblatter beast stored in the temple in the capital city of Anu'udria), and they define Zoltar's Number as the number of Carbon-12 atoms needed to have 12 quatloos of carbon, Zoltar's Number would be just as useful for measuring concentrations, and it would be just as arbitrary as Avagadro's number, no more and no less.
If there's none there, then it has no effect
That's blatantly obvious, and completely irrelevant.
Avogadro's number is key in figuring how many times you have to dilute it before you have none left
You'd have to dilute something an infinite number of times before it's concentration becomes zero, because there is always "some left". Dilution doesn't remove the particles of interest, it just spreads them out more. Dilution will, however, obviously make a drug less effective. And Avagdro's number does serve to define a useful measure of concentration. But nothing magical happens when you have exactly 1.0-times-Avagdro's-number molecules in a liter of solution. Avagdro's number is *NOT* key to figuring out how many times you'd have to dilute something before it loses efficacy. Different drugs need different concentrations to be effective. And although Avagadro's number may define a convenient unit, you could just as easily use Zoltar's Number.
8.27 * 300 = 2,481
Yes, 300 watts is 0.3 kilowatts.
What is a kilowatthour?
It's a unit of energy. Energy is power multiplied by time. Watts are power. A kilowatt-hour is the amount of energy consumed by a 1000-watt device running for one hour.
...due to a little problem called Avogadro's number (about 6.3x10^23, the number of molecules in one mole of a substance). Each of these serial dilutions of extracts causes the concentration to descend so far below avogadro's number that there is no chemical in what is administered.
What on earth does Avagadro's number have to do with anything, and why do you refer to it as a "little problem"? It's nothing more than the conversion factor between Atomic Mass Units (AMUs) and kilograms, and is used to define the "mole" (the number of 12-AMU carbon atoms needed to amass 12 Kg of carbon). It is most certainly NOT an efficacy threshold for drug concentration, as you implied above.
Nuclear power is probably unpopular for a number of reasons, such as public perception about safety issues. As for solar and wind, these are fleeting: You can't package wind or sunshine and use it whenever you want. You have to convert it to chemical energy (i.e. charge a battery). Hydrogen has a lot of the properties that make oil attractive, and in addition, they can be used in fuel cells. A big problem with hydrogen is that it is a great energy storage mechanism, but (until now, allegedly) it isn't a *source* of energy because there are no stores of free hydrogen in the earth. You have to *make* hydrogen via electrolysis, which usus electricity, which you get from your typical fossil-fuel power plant. If there is in fact a free supply of hydrogen available, it could trigger a partial, but substantial, transition to fuel-cell technology.