AFAIK, content providers already pay to send data to other networks.
No, they don't. At least some friends of mine who provide hosting services pay for their bandwidth for being able to send data from some ISP's network to anywhere on the Internet, and they haven't got to pay extra to, say, be able to get their packets to AOL users while answering web queries.
So you are opposed to net neutrality ? Because every law I've seen about net neutrality forbids payment of any kind for prioritising traffic by end-users, making your second option worthless.
I think you are mistaken. You can have flat-rates, data-volume-rates or time-rates (see POTS modem connections) with different qualities and priorities when you contract with your ISP for sending data _from_ their network. AFAIK, net-neutrality wants to avoid ISP charging you for sending data _to_ their networks.
As such, it may make sense to charge the user for having the privilege of being able to send their data _before_ other users can, or charge per GiB of data sent.
But, aren't they both noodly? Don't they get rolled on a fork for eating? Aren't they tasty with a serving of tomato and meat sauce?
(With excuses to William Shakespeare)
Re:Anyone see much of a difference?
on
A Year of GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
And, of course, the non-lawyer has been lucky enough to catch that possible meaning which, by the way, seems to be much like the terms on the GPL: making the source code available through the network or on a physical medium.
People claim to be ripping apart nuclei at room temperature. Pure bullshit.
I guess you meant "mashing together" instead of "ripping apart" since we are talking about fusion and not fission, which happens at room temperature whether we like it or not (that's the reason there are radioactive elements).
Getting back to your assertion, the reason nuclei can't fuse "at room temperature" is... what, that we haven't yet been able to do so? Please substantiate your reasoning. I haven't followed the issue too closely, so I would dare, at most, say that nuclear fusion at low temperatures is quite improbable.
And, lest I be called naive or even astroturfer, I don't think this experiment actually works. They detected helium but no neutrons. That is quite unusual, but the scientific way is for the researcher to publish the method and submit it to peer review. Somehow "pure bullshit" doesn't quite make the cut.
It should be quite simple. Let's say torrentA leaves you with a corrupt/incomplete filesetA (one or more files, it doesn't really matter). Let's supose torrentB contains the files in filesetA, perhaps with different names in its own filesetB.
Ok, you load torrentB in your favorite Bittorrent client, and start it up. It will automatically create 0-sized files with the names in filesetB (at least, all clients I know do that). Stop the transfer of torrentB, and substitute the 0-sized files in filesetB with the corresponding files in filesetA (may require some renaming). As you restart torrentB, your Bittorrent client will recheck the whole filesetB, keeping the valid parts in order to avoid downloading them. Voilá! You have migrated files from one torrent to another.
Note: You should make sure that the files you are substituting in are the same files you want to download through torrentB or, at least, keep a copy around until you see that the restart check accepts most of their contents.
Oh, I see. And british people won't see american movies or series, nor read american books, so they can't grasp the concept of auto being a shortening of automobile, which doesn't seem to be an americanism. It is surprising only the americans managed to shorten the term... well, so did the french (both terms are french in origin). I give british people more credit than that.
Well, I guess Dawkins must have changed his standpoint a bit since 2006. I quote:
The origin of life on this planet -- which means the origin of the first self-replicating molecule -- is hard to study, because it (probably) only happened once, 4 billion years ago and under very different conditions from those with which we are familiar. We may never know how it happened. Unlike the ordinary evolutionary events that followed...
Just two years ago he still stated that the origin of life and evolution were different things. Would you be so kind to point me to references of his conflating both to deny the existence (I'd rather say essence, but that's a Cartesian debate for another day) of God?
"Windows Mobile is #1 in usability." (ROTFLMAO) How in the world did you manage to say that with a straight face?
He actually didn't: a group of six philologists was selected to write one word each. One of them was able to see Windows Mobile at the same time and had to be hospitalized for two months.
They may not teach spontaneous generation but they teach spontaneous creation despite all its flaws and assumptions (which aren't discussed of course to keep it the 'perfect' theory). It's called evolution.
(sigh) I know you're trolling, but I'll bite, anyway.
Evolution has little to do with the origin of life. You would do well to remember that Darwin called his book "On the Origin of Species", not "On the Origin of Life". I think it's interesting that creationists and intelligent design (sorry, it doesn't merit capitals) advocates try to confuse evolution with the origin of life. Somewhat like trying to say that electricity made no sense when it's ruling equations were unknown. Deal with it: evolution happens and it has little to do with the origin of life (as it deals with the ways in which a species turns into another), which is an interesting subject of itself without needing to mix it with evolution.
I fail to see LastMinute as a generic trademark, but Auto Trader sounds quite generic IMHO. It's a case-by-case problem (and the judge will have the last word in the end).
I've been reading the Wikipedia on genericized trademarks (off-topic: shouldn't it be "generized"?) and it doesn't give too much information about the process of certifying the genericity of a trademark: it seems to happen per se if the trademark owner doesn't take steps to avoid genericization, and sometimes even if steps are taken. Would anybody please point me to a better reference?
Why, do you say good anime can't be simultaneously an outlet for pent up frustrations of pedophiles?
No, but I doubt someone who starts asserting that anime is "nothing more" than a legal outlet for paedophiles (as in anime being some kind of low level trash comic) will consider any anime good: painting anime in such broad brush strikes doesn't leave much place for consdering qualities. As such, his saying there is good anime looks too much like a troll (and it probably is).
Anime is nothing more than a legal outlet for the pent up frustrations of pedophiles.
Which is not to say that there isn't good anime out there.
Make up your mind: it's either good, bad or just another medium out there, no more prone (nor less) to being misused than any other comic (or any kind of art, actually). For some definition of misused, that is.
While I'm not defending monster in any way, the information there on the experiment doesn't say what kind of music was played.
I guess I'll save you the hassle of re-reading the article:
A high quality recording of smooth, trio, easy listening jazz was played (Piano, drums, bass). None of us had heard this group or CD before, therefore eliminating biases.
Don't ever turn a user request into a battle where your defense is "we can't support that." You may win that battle, but you will lose the war, every single time.
Oh, no, not every single time. If the user wants to have that request, let _him_ be the one to argue why. At my previous workplace users were used to having administrative privileges. We managed to explain convincingly why they usually shouldn't, and the ones who complained about it had to do it in a reasoned way (several got a privileged account along with repeated requests to use it only for installing/uninstalling software).
I'm repeating the process at my current workplace and it seems to be taking quite smoothly. Now, if I can get them to drop all the unlicensed software they want installed (and use licensed/free/open/freeware software), I'll be really happy.
Of course, all this requires taking the time to talk to each user and work with them to bring their systems as near to compliance as possible. There will always be rogues: if they pose a problem, you just get them isolated so they won't mess with other users' computers.
Do you disturb the electromagnetic fields you walk through? Then you might have to worry about it. Then again, studies concluding that you don't really need to worry are quite more common than those concluding that there is a real risk: even if it isn't a discriminating factor, it might be pointing in the right direction.
I consider this a contradiction... the existence of such a computer violates my sense of reality. It is far easier to believe that factoring is indeed not quite as hard as NP-complete problems.
Got a couple of spares? Your sense of reality seems to be a bit faulty. We already have seen those cut-offs before: they happened when someone decided a computer was a good enough tool to design chips instead of using pencil and paper. Anyway, this is not a mater of something being "easier to believe": either factoring is NP-complete, it isn't, or we can't decide. There is no belief required. Deciding that, because we don't yet know whether quantum computers can factor integers in polynomial time or not, they can't and quantum computer doesn't work is... let's say illogical. Then again, if you are happy jumping to conclusions like that...
Turning back to the debate at hand, if factoring isn't NP-complete, does that mean it is harder than NP-complete problems, easier or what?
Slashdot Mirror
Can parents detain their kids for 42 days without trial?
Isn't that called grounding? And, considering some kids' reaction to showers, one would think they were being waterboarded ;-)
AFAIK, content providers already pay to send data to other networks.
No, they don't. At least some friends of mine who provide hosting services pay for their bandwidth for being able to send data from some ISP's network to anywhere on the Internet, and they haven't got to pay extra to, say, be able to get their packets to AOL users while answering web queries.
So you are opposed to net neutrality ? Because every law I've seen about net neutrality forbids payment of any kind for prioritising traffic by end-users, making your second option worthless.
I think you are mistaken. You can have flat-rates, data-volume-rates or time-rates (see POTS modem connections) with different qualities and priorities when you contract with your ISP for sending data _from_ their network. AFAIK, net-neutrality wants to avoid ISP charging you for sending data _to_ their networks.
As such, it may make sense to charge the user for having the privilege of being able to send their data _before_ other users can, or charge per GiB of data sent.
(With excuses to William Shakespeare)
And, of course, the non-lawyer has been lucky enough to catch that possible meaning which, by the way, seems to be much like the terms on the GPL: making the source code available through the network or on a physical medium.
I guess you meant "mashing together" instead of "ripping apart" since we are talking about fusion and not fission, which happens at room temperature whether we like it or not (that's the reason there are radioactive elements).
Getting back to your assertion, the reason nuclei can't fuse "at room temperature" is... what, that we haven't yet been able to do so? Please substantiate your reasoning. I haven't followed the issue too closely, so I would dare, at most, say that nuclear fusion at low temperatures is quite improbable.
And, lest I be called naive or even astroturfer, I don't think this experiment actually works. They detected helium but no neutrons. That is quite unusual, but the scientific way is for the researcher to publish the method and submit it to peer review. Somehow "pure bullshit" doesn't quite make the cut.
Talking more seriously, fragmenting isn't usually an issue if you don't use FATxx.
Ok, you load torrentB in your favorite Bittorrent client, and start it up. It will automatically create 0-sized files with the names in filesetB (at least, all clients I know do that). Stop the transfer of torrentB, and substitute the 0-sized files in filesetB with the corresponding files in filesetA (may require some renaming). As you restart torrentB, your Bittorrent client will recheck the whole filesetB, keeping the valid parts in order to avoid downloading them. Voilá! You have migrated files from one torrent to another.
Note: You should make sure that the files you are substituting in are the same files you want to download through torrentB or, at least, keep a copy around until you see that the restart check accepts most of their contents.
Oh, I see. And british people won't see american movies or series, nor read american books, so they can't grasp the concept of auto being a shortening of automobile, which doesn't seem to be an americanism. It is surprising only the americans managed to shorten the term... well, so did the french (both terms are french in origin). I give british people more credit than that.
Oh, and here in Spain we call them coches (and autos too, by the way). Auto is a longstanding synonym for car, so auto trader is a generic term.
Just two years ago he still stated that the origin of life and evolution were different things. Would you be so kind to point me to references of his conflating both to deny the existence (I'd rather say essence, but that's a Cartesian debate for another day) of God?
He actually didn't: a group of six philologists was selected to write one word each. One of them was able to see Windows Mobile at the same time and had to be hospitalized for two months.
(sigh) I know you're trolling, but I'll bite, anyway.
Evolution has little to do with the origin of life. You would do well to remember that Darwin called his book "On the Origin of Species", not "On the Origin of Life". I think it's interesting that creationists and intelligent design (sorry, it doesn't merit capitals) advocates try to confuse evolution with the origin of life. Somewhat like trying to say that electricity made no sense when it's ruling equations were unknown. Deal with it: evolution happens and it has little to do with the origin of life (as it deals with the ways in which a species turns into another), which is an interesting subject of itself without needing to mix it with evolution.
I've been reading the Wikipedia on genericized trademarks (off-topic: shouldn't it be "generized"?) and it doesn't give too much information about the process of certifying the genericity of a trademark: it seems to happen per se if the trademark owner doesn't take steps to avoid genericization, and sometimes even if steps are taken. Would anybody please point me to a better reference?
It's "its", not "it's".
No, but I doubt someone who starts asserting that anime is "nothing more" than a legal outlet for paedophiles (as in anime being some kind of low level trash comic) will consider any anime good: painting anime in such broad brush strikes doesn't leave much place for consdering qualities. As such, his saying there is good anime looks too much like a troll (and it probably is).
Make up your mind: it's either good, bad or just another medium out there, no more prone (nor less) to being misused than any other comic (or any kind of art, actually). For some definition of misused, that is.
I guess I'll save you the hassle of re-reading the article:
A high quality recording of smooth, trio, easy listening jazz was played (Piano, drums, bass). None of us had heard this group or CD before, therefore eliminating biases.Happy now?
Oh, no, not every single time. If the user wants to have that request, let _him_ be the one to argue why. At my previous workplace users were used to having administrative privileges. We managed to explain convincingly why they usually shouldn't, and the ones who complained about it had to do it in a reasoned way (several got a privileged account along with repeated requests to use it only for installing/uninstalling software).
I'm repeating the process at my current workplace and it seems to be taking quite smoothly. Now, if I can get them to drop all the unlicensed software they want installed (and use licensed/free/open/freeware software), I'll be really happy.
Of course, all this requires taking the time to talk to each user and work with them to bring their systems as near to compliance as possible. There will always be rogues: if they pose a problem, you just get them isolated so they won't mess with other users' computers.
Are you sure there was any on involved?
Do you disturb the electromagnetic fields you walk through? Then you might have to worry about it. Then again, studies concluding that you don't really need to worry are quite more common than those concluding that there is a real risk: even if it isn't a discriminating factor, it might be pointing in the right direction.
It would seem so.
Let's keep the offtopic nitpicking going. North and South America are two different continents on two different plates.
Considering your anecdote, I would think it's just brain resistance ;-)
Got a couple of spares? Your sense of reality seems to be a bit faulty. We already have seen those cut-offs before: they happened when someone decided a computer was a good enough tool to design chips instead of using pencil and paper. Anyway, this is not a mater of something being "easier to believe": either factoring is NP-complete, it isn't, or we can't decide. There is no belief required. Deciding that, because we don't yet know whether quantum computers can factor integers in polynomial time or not, they can't and quantum computer doesn't work is ... let's say illogical. Then again, if you are happy jumping to conclusions like that...
Turning back to the debate at hand, if factoring isn't NP-complete, does that mean it is harder than NP-complete problems, easier or what?