I don't ever recall seeing a Bank of Scotland note issued by a cash machine in England so I guess the banks sort out the Scottish notes and send them back home.
Notes won't stay in circulation for long anyway as once you've spent them in a shop they'll more than likely get cashed into a bank at the end of the day and taken out of circulation then.
You'll probably find most, if not all of those resolve to the same IP.
From where I am (UK), co.uk, fr, de, co.jp, fi and ca all resolve to 216.239.57.104, 216.239.59.104, 216.239.39.104
google.com and.se are both 216.239.37.99, 216.239.39.99, 216.239.57.99
Tracerouting any of these points to Palo Alto (PaloAlto.Teleglobe.net is the last hop with a name available).
In the past when I've traced Google, they all pointed to somewhere in Germany. They appear to do global load-balancing and point all the Google domains at your local (or most efficient) host. Therefore, using google.com is probably no slower, it just doesn't have the localised UI.
Then, when you run out of digits, change the 17 to an 18 and recompile.
Except, if you look at how a VIN code is made up, it isn't simply a 17 digit number. It's a 17 character code with specific fields within it and some of these fields are reaching capacity. To extend the VIN requires redefining the fields and changing all the software that parses those fields.
As has already been mentioned, the 30 year lifetime prediction is accurate because the code has a single character to identify the year and there's 30 possible values for it. Nothing to do with unusually astute sales analysts.
I find AllTheWeb's image search superior to Google's at the moment. Also has a reasonably useful mp3 search. But does anyone else translate, index and cache pdfs, powerpoints etc. the way Google does?
As always, you pick the best tool for the job.
A few years back I routinely used one of 4 or 5 different search engines depending on the type of query I wanted to do (keyword search, concept search, particular type of media etc.). I still have all those other engines bookmarked, but only ever use Google these days. Very much the multitool of search engines.
The article on WordSpy does note the other, more general, definition that you suggest:
Note, too, that people are using google as a more general verb meaning "to use an Internet search engine, particularly google.com":
It might be that they're using the main definition that they *are* using because they have definitive references to its use in published articles. Dictionaries tend to be strict on how often a word must appear before it can make it into the dictionary. They don't just go on hearsay.
So although it's a strangely specific definition to choose, it is simply reflecting current usage. How does this affect the legal position? If they are just reporting other people's use of the word, can they be banned from doing that if Google so decide?
People with only one eye still have depth perception - they just don't posess stereo depth perception.
There are many different cues that contribute to our perception of depth: stereo, perspective, parallax, overlapping objects, shading and shadows and changes in accommodation and convergence of the eyes.
Those with one eye lack stereo (the strongest cue), but still have a decent amount of depth perception for surviving in the real world. It is only when attempting to use devices that rely soley on stereo to generate a pseudo-3D image that they have problems.
The description is not a decription of the patch itself, but of the original flaw.
Taking this further: once the security flaw has been discovered, does it then become illegal to distribute the unpatched version of the software as it now contains a 'circumvention device'?
Amen!
How about having to complete a short multi-choice quiz on the linked-to story before posting a comment? Then we could filter out the relevant posts from the drivel.
Or even better: Slashdot could do a deal with doubleclick to track users and know for sure if they'd visited the page and stayed long enough to have read it properly.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't ever recall seeing a Bank of Scotland note issued by a cash machine in England so I guess the banks sort out the Scottish notes and send them back home.
Notes won't stay in circulation for long anyway as once you've spent them in a shop they'll more than likely get cashed into a bank at the end of the day and taken out of circulation then.
You'll probably find most, if not all of those resolve to the same IP.
.se are both 216.239.37.99, 216.239.39.99, 216.239.57.99
From where I am (UK), co.uk, fr, de, co.jp, fi and ca all resolve to 216.239.57.104, 216.239.59.104, 216.239.39.104
google.com and
Tracerouting any of these points to Palo Alto (PaloAlto.Teleglobe.net is the last hop with a name available).
In the past when I've traced Google, they all pointed to somewhere in Germany. They appear to do global load-balancing and point all the Google domains at your local (or most efficient) host. Therefore, using google.com is probably no slower, it just doesn't have the localised UI.
As has already been mentioned, the 30 year lifetime prediction is accurate because the code has a single character to identify the year and there's 30 possible values for it. Nothing to do with unusually astute sales analysts.
... and how do we deal with removing such packets from the network?
I think we need to immediately start work on a patriot missile-style defence system for identifying and eliminating evil avian packets.
A transport layer firewall for avian carriers. Just hink of the possibilities...
A few years back I routinely used one of 4 or 5 different search engines depending on the type of query I wanted to do (keyword search, concept search, particular type of media etc.). I still have all those other engines bookmarked, but only ever use Google these days. Very much the multitool of search engines.
So although it's a strangely specific definition to choose, it is simply reflecting current usage. How does this affect the legal position? If they are just reporting other people's use of the word, can they be banned from doing that if Google so decide?
There are many different cues that contribute to our perception of depth: stereo, perspective, parallax, overlapping objects, shading and shadows and changes in accommodation and convergence of the eyes.
Those with one eye lack stereo (the strongest cue), but still have a decent amount of depth perception for surviving in the real world. It is only when attempting to use devices that rely soley on stereo to generate a pseudo-3D image that they have problems.
See this page for a more detailed discussion.
The description is not a decription of the patch itself, but of the original flaw.
Taking this further: once the security flaw has been discovered, does it then become illegal to distribute the unpatched version of the software as it now contains a 'circumvention device'?
Amen! How about having to complete a short multi-choice quiz on the linked-to story before posting a comment? Then we could filter out the relevant posts from the drivel. Or even better: Slashdot could do a deal with doubleclick to track users and know for sure if they'd visited the page and stayed long enough to have read it properly.