But with SD cards AFAIU the controller is in the reader, so this should have the potential to give very cheap low-capacity floppy replacement (and it's smaller than USB sticks anyway). And about licensing: If the patent holder is any smart, he'll make the licensing for low-capacity sticks/cards cheap.
Yes, but the beginning of the end, the beginning of the end of the end, the beginning of the end of the end of the end, etc. form a converging series. The point of convergence is the ultimate end point, where all ends ultimately end.
More interesting are intervals like the beginning of the end of the beginning, or the end of the end of the beginning of the end of the beginning of the beginning of the end. Their extremal points (i.e. the set of limits of those series) form a Cantor set in time, unless you have a case where the end of each beginning is already the beginning of the end. In that case the limits are dense in time, i.e. during the whole interval between ultimate beginning and ultimate end you are continuously experiencing both beginnings and ends.
2) do the maths : Ternary logic values on binary wires :
- either you use 2 wires to encode 3 values and you lose 1/4 of the coding space (as in any base conversion)
- either you use the 3-wire 1-hot encoding and... well, you win nothing.
There is no such thing as a binary wire. There are binary circuits, but then, if you implement ternary hardware, you'd design ternary circuits for it, right?
Now, I don't know how the Russian computers did it, but I think the most obvious encoding for ternary logic would be: Positive voltage/Zero voltage/Negative voltage. One wire to encode 3 values.
Of course the logic circuits for three-values logic would be more complex (a binary NOT needs two transistors; I guess a ternary NOT would need more), but it's not immediately obvious whether the increased complexity for single gates could be offset by a need of less gates for ternary logic.
Also your other arguments in "2" are about using ternary logic on binary hardware. That's completely besides the point. All it says is that we cannot simply reuse our binary hardware for ternary computers. It probably implies that switching to ternary logic today would probably be too expensive, even if ternary logic were found better. However, the converse is also true: If early on the computer industry would have settled on ternary, then all our technology would be based on ternary, and it would be hard to switch to binary (well, you could always use your ternary chips and just not use the middle state, but that would be obviously wasteful). Also your first point is weakened by the early fixation on binary: Since very few people actually do research on ternary logic algorithms, some very advantageous ternary algorithms may have been overlooked.
In short: If the industry had gone ternary early on, you possibly would use the very same arguments against binary now.
Now, I don't know whether ternary logic really would have had advantages, but your arguments are in part weak, and in part just wrong.
I get these all the time from muppet friend who have had their password stolen, but it is definitely easy to tell...
And who tells you that it will not get better? An advanced spamming software might determine common interest between and the person from whom the mail claims to come (now easy, with all the data public on facebook), match them against a database of plausible content, maybe even automatically analyze (in a rudimentary way) the writing style on his facebook profile, and then use that information to compose a mail which doesn't look suspicious.
For example, if both you and your friend like a certain artist, then they could e.g. send a mail claiming to be from him which says "Hey, did you see the new site about $ARTIST? It's at http://malwareinfectedsite.com/ and it's better than $ARTIST's own page!"
Basically, Joliet is a completely separate directory structure. Since Windows 98 didn't come with its own CD burning application, it's nost likely the problem of whatever program created the CD. I guess the problem is related to the fact that Windows uses the tilde for the short file names on FAT, but the tilde is not an allowed character for file names on original ISO9660. I guess the burning application copied the original short file name into Joliet (so you'd get a consistent experience under Windows), but replaced the tilde in the ISO9660 file name (necessary to be standard conforming). Windows read the Joliet directory and got the tilde form, while DOS read the ISO9660 directory and got the tilde-free filename.
So if my guess is right (without actually seeing the actual file names, I cannot be sure), the problem is neither the Joliet spec nor Microsoft's implementation of it, but a mismatch between Microsoft's decision to use a tilde in the shortened FAT filename, and the fact that ISO9660 didn't allow a tilde in the filename. A burning program therefore had to decide between using a different short file name on the Joliet and ISO9660 directories (thus producing an inconsistency between operating systems which do and those which don't use Joliet) and generally using a different short file name on the CD than the one on the hard disk (which would have a visible effect even within Windows 98, and would likely have generated more complaints).
Windows uses Joliet (an extension to ISO9660). And before you cry about Windows using proprietary extensions: Linux uses the Rockridge extension to ISO9660.
Another display will not increase the resolution (dpi) on the one display you have. I rarely wish more physical space on my display. What I'd like is higher resolution.
2560x2048 resolution doesn't exactly help me see my web pages or documents any better - in fact it can make them downright hard to see, so why do I need it?
If your web sites are harder to see with higher resolutions, that's a sure sign of broken software. In the times of very low resolutions, it made sense to measure in pixels, because pixels were huge. However with high resolution it's the wrong thing to do. Your text and images shouldn't get half the size on a double-resolution monitor, just as they don't get half the size if you print them on a 600dpi laser printer instead of a 300dpi laser printer. Especially the fonts should not get smaller, but get smoother (without antialiasing) or sharper (with antialiasing) outlines.
With high resolution screens, screen pixels should be an implementation detail, not exposed to the software.
And you are right, why waste the manpower and computing power on this?
Why waste the manpower and network bandwidth discussing about this on Slashdot? Why did you waste your time writing that post? The answers to those questions are very related to the answer to your question.
You mean, the aliens are playing World of Warcraft? Maybe then the best detection method would be to analyse the WoW communication and search for the patterns found there in the SETI data. However, don't forget to account for the long interstellar ping times.
Slashdot Mirror
But with SD cards AFAIU the controller is in the reader, so this should have the potential to give very cheap low-capacity floppy replacement (and it's smaller than USB sticks anyway). And about licensing: If the patent holder is any smart, he'll make the licensing for low-capacity sticks/cards cheap.
So many failures...Betacam, CD, Hi8, miniDV, HDV, DAT, S/PDIF, AIBO; (some in collaboration)
The CD was a failure?
Yes, but the beginning of the end, the beginning of the end of the end, the beginning of the end of the end of the end, etc. form a converging series. The point of convergence is the ultimate end point, where all ends ultimately end.
More interesting are intervals like the beginning of the end of the beginning, or the end of the end of the beginning of the end of the beginning of the beginning of the end. Their extremal points (i.e. the set of limits of those series) form a Cantor set in time, unless you have a case where the end of each beginning is already the beginning of the end. In that case the limits are dense in time, i.e. during the whole interval between ultimate beginning and ultimate end you are continuously experiencing both beginnings and ends.
1984 triple factorial?
Who knows what they'll have at a time that much in the future.
There is no such thing as a binary wire. There are binary circuits, but then, if you implement ternary hardware, you'd design ternary circuits for it, right?
Now, I don't know how the Russian computers did it, but I think the most obvious encoding for ternary logic would be: Positive voltage/Zero voltage/Negative voltage. One wire to encode 3 values.
Of course the logic circuits for three-values logic would be more complex (a binary NOT needs two transistors; I guess a ternary NOT would need more), but it's not immediately obvious whether the increased complexity for single gates could be offset by a need of less gates for ternary logic.
Also your other arguments in "2" are about using ternary logic on binary hardware. That's completely besides the point. All it says is that we cannot simply reuse our binary hardware for ternary computers. It probably implies that switching to ternary logic today would probably be too expensive, even if ternary logic were found better. However, the converse is also true: If early on the computer industry would have settled on ternary, then all our technology would be based on ternary, and it would be hard to switch to binary (well, you could always use your ternary chips and just not use the middle state, but that would be obviously wasteful). Also your first point is weakened by the early fixation on binary: Since very few people actually do research on ternary logic algorithms, some very advantageous ternary algorithms may have been overlooked.
In short: If the industry had gone ternary early on, you possibly would use the very same arguments against binary now.
Now, I don't know whether ternary logic really would have had advantages, but your arguments are in part weak, and in part just wrong.
And who tells you that it will not get better? An advanced spamming software might determine common interest between and the person from whom the mail claims to come (now easy, with all the data public on facebook), match them against a database of plausible content, maybe even automatically analyze (in a rudimentary way) the writing style on his facebook profile, and then use that information to compose a mail which doesn't look suspicious.
For example, if both you and your friend like a certain artist, then they could e.g. send a mail claiming to be from him which says "Hey, did you see the new site about $ARTIST? It's at http://malwareinfectedsite.com/ and it's better than $ARTIST's own page!"
Basically, Joliet is a completely separate directory structure. Since Windows 98 didn't come with its own CD burning application, it's nost likely the problem of whatever program created the CD. I guess the problem is related to the fact that Windows uses the tilde for the short file names on FAT, but the tilde is not an allowed character for file names on original ISO9660. I guess the burning application copied the original short file name into Joliet (so you'd get a consistent experience under Windows), but replaced the tilde in the ISO9660 file name (necessary to be standard conforming). Windows read the Joliet directory and got the tilde form, while DOS read the ISO9660 directory and got the tilde-free filename.
So if my guess is right (without actually seeing the actual file names, I cannot be sure), the problem is neither the Joliet spec nor Microsoft's implementation of it, but a mismatch between Microsoft's decision to use a tilde in the shortened FAT filename, and the fact that ISO9660 didn't allow a tilde in the filename. A burning program therefore had to decide between using a different short file name on the Joliet and ISO9660 directories (thus producing an inconsistency between operating systems which do and those which don't use Joliet) and generally using a different short file name on the CD than the one on the hard disk (which would have a visible effect even within Windows 98, and would likely have generated more complaints).
Of course he was on the no-fly list. He wasn't a fly, after all.
Windows uses Joliet (an extension to ISO9660). And before you cry about Windows using proprietary extensions: Linux uses the Rockridge extension to ISO9660.
Gives a whole new meaning to facelifting ...
Where do you think they get organs and shit for transplants?
They now also transplant shit?
And the before picture of the donor (I don't think I want to see the after picture there).
more liability against software developers who write insecure code
So now we have to buy expensive insurance before we write OSS code? What about the liability of students?
If done sensibly, you'd have to buy insurance if you sell software. If you take money for it, you should also take responsibility for it.
Another display will not increase the resolution (dpi) on the one display you have. I rarely wish more physical space on my display. What I'd like is higher resolution.
A simple litmus test: As long as you can distinguish antialiased fonts from non-antialiased fonts, a higher resolution would improve your experience.
If your web sites are harder to see with higher resolutions, that's a sure sign of broken software. In the times of very low resolutions, it made sense to measure in pixels, because pixels were huge. However with high resolution it's the wrong thing to do. Your text and images shouldn't get half the size on a double-resolution monitor, just as they don't get half the size if you print them on a 600dpi laser printer instead of a 300dpi laser printer. Especially the fonts should not get smaller, but get smoother (without antialiasing) or sharper (with antialiasing) outlines.
With high resolution screens, screen pixels should be an implementation detail, not exposed to the software.
The 1984 style censorship isn't to beep over it, it's to change it to say whatever is desired.
I'm guessing iPharaoh isn't Coptic.
iPharaoh? Is that the new title of Steve Jobs?
So if there is a signal and they've made it available to everyone on Earth, how much does that work out to in damages?
5000 UFO abductions minimum.
So what are the people at the SETI Institute doing?
Why waste the manpower and network bandwidth discussing about this on Slashdot? Why did you waste your time writing that post?
The answers to those questions are very related to the answer to your question.
He didn't talk about people like you. He did talk about fundamentalists who believe everything in the bible is literally true.
For someone who believes the earth was created 6000 years ago during 6*24 days, there was only one such event, the Flood.
You mean, the aliens are playing World of Warcraft?
Maybe then the best detection method would be to analyse the WoW communication and search for the patterns found there in the SETI data. However, don't forget to account for the long interstellar ping times.
The longer your battery lasts, the less the fraction of time the battery is empty.
They did. Then they switched it on, and ever since they are seeking the device.