My 1997 Mindspring account gets over 100 spams per day. I go through them at about two per second just so see if someone i know, or something I have actually signed up for, is sending something and hasn't gotten my new address. I used to only read the headers and body to see where to report things, but there's too much for me to report it all now.
Okay, I acually RTGDFA. Screw this crap!
Those who were effectively smapped, as a group, saw their mean body mass index (BMI) go down, meaning it improved. BMI is a measure of body fat based on height and weight. Overall BMI rose for the control group, which did not get the emails.
Spam has been estimated to cost the U.S. economy several billion dollars a year in decreased productivity and anti-spam efforts. Meanwhile, the new study shows that mass email might produce small effects on a case-by-case basis, but it could be effective because of the low cost and large reach, Plotnikoff said.
"MASS EMAIL" my ass. They don't know the effing difference between solicited and unsolicited emails.
I was going to say this as soon as I saw the article. I recall a big case involving Monster Cable last year, it was widely discussed on a few Usenet groups. They're bullying every commercial use of the word monster with claims that they're about to go into business in whatever area it's used in, not just audio-related businesses.
Want to see who, apparently because of legal bullying (technically called abuse of process), gives a link to Monster Cable? The job site. Look at the link at the very bottom of the page:
I think it's great as long as they're careful not to impede on the user working. Done badly these applications get annoying if they are too pushy about beginning their processing before a reasonable user timeout.
Even back in the Windows NT4 days I would put a long-running task to Idle priority and the machine would be as responsive as when the task wasn't running (though I don't recall running a disk-intensive task that way). I've noticed the badly written apps tend to be viruses and P2P software, crap you don't want to be running anyway.
Does anyone realize that running a CPU at 100% takes more electricity than running a CPU at 10%?
Yes, I do, the same for RAM being accessed and for a hard disk drive when it's seeking. But this is insignificant compared to the overhead of the power supply, fans, hard disk drive spindle motors, other circuitry that runs continuously, and dare I mention all those fancy-dancy computer case lights that are popular now.
The incremental cost of these otherwise-unused cycles is so low that they can be considered free.
So someone prove me wrong, what's the electricity cost of running a CPU at full cycles for a year vs. running at typical load? What's the cost of the lowered processor life due to running at a higher temperature. Chip makers will tell you this is a real cost, but practically, the machine is likely to be replaced with the next generation before the processor has a heat-related problem.
Regardless, the cost is MUCH lower, in both electricity and capital, than buying other machines specifically to do the work assigned to these 'free cycles'.
Replacing the power supply diodes with "faster" ones is a waste of time and money. Any noise the old diodes generate (if any) is many decades above thre audio range. Plus the CD player has to pass FCC emission limits, so they can't be too noisy to begin with. Skip this mod.
I at first thought this might be fixing a real problem and making a relatively expensive solution (fast diodes) for it. 1N400X rectifiers doing 50/60Hz power rectification CAN produce some low-level switching garbage (modulated at a 60 Hz rate, conducted through the ground traces and rectified by a sensitive input circuit - well below the radar of FCC radiated RF tests) that would make it through a linear supply and end up in the output of a high-gain preamp (for a microphone or an old-fashioned RIAA-eq'ed phonograph preamp), but this can be cured by putting a 0.1uF capacitor (with appropriate voltage rating) across each rectifier.
But then, like a fool, I actually read (part of) TFA...
Essentially all low-cost DVD players these days use a switching power supply.
Phuque. A switcher inherently produces ALL KINDS of noise (and is more likely to cause a radiated RF test failure), and is NOT the thing to power anything that's "true hifi.". Nothing you do before the switching part is going to make a penny's worth of difference in the noise on the power supply's output when compared with the noise generated by the high frequency power switching circuit.
The true "tweak" for this is to buy a LINEAR open-frame regulated power supply for each voltage required by the unit, and replace the switcher with those.
The guy absolutely missed the boat on this, and (especially with your other points) it shows him to be a hifi "nut" or audiophool, knowing little about electronics and believing his sighted tests over a double-blind test (if he even knows what that is).
I think you're forgetting that a lot of the "nerds" around here are engineers and not scientists. I think how the two groups differ can be seen in each's response to this finding.
I'm an engineer by profession but am very interested (and perhaps even fairly knowledgable) in science. I'd like to think this is typical of engineers, and it certainly is of some (much more so than nontechnical professions).
I would have liked to have had more pure-science-oriented classes in college (a smallish engineering school with a 'physics and chemistry' department which had no degree path, only offering classes required for other degrees), but with the "publish-or-perish" paradigm of the scientific profession, it's just as well I didn't become a "professional scientist."
I have this CD of all "The Amateur Scientist" columns ever published in Scientific American, and I highly endorse it (I have no connection other than happy buyer) for other True And Pure Science Nerds: http://www.brightscience.com/
I haven't checked this out, but a Usenet poster said the original Shuttle frames were going to be built out of titanium, of course for its great strength-to-weight ratio. There was a decision to switch to aluminum, supposedly both as a cost savings on the Shuttle manufacturing, and because there was great demand for titanium in building US Military aircraft. Due to the extra weight of a same-strength frame made of aluminum, two solid-rocket boosters needed to be added to the launch vehicle which were not a part of the titanium design.
Is this true?
Regardless, it seems clear that any launch hardware intended for reuse should be made of the best strength-to-weight materials available even at larger initial cost, so either there's less energy (the fuel itself is rather cheap, but less of it means smaller launch vehicles, fewer complications, fewer SRB's, etc.) required to launch, or a larger payload could be put into orbit with the same launch energy because of the lighter hardware.
Questions like "How did cooperative behavior evolve?" make an assumption that cooperative behaviour evolved. Starting out with dubious assumptions often leads to research going in wrong directions.
If one really wished to understand such phenomena the question would be phrased something like: "What are the origins of cooperative behaviour?"
As I say in the subject, that's an excellent point overall, but as far as use of the word 'evolve' in this question, I would not be hung up on a literal or dictionary definition of that word. The assumptions I would use are: Cooperative behavior did not exist at some past point in time. Cooperative behavior does exist now. How did this change happen?
A problem I see with this particular question is getting a good, objective definition of cooperative behavior, OTOH the scientists who look at this sort of thing (sociologists? anthropologists?) are probably WAY ahead of me on this.
Interestingly enough, the answer to these sorts of questions (not 100% sure this is one but if not it quickly becomes one), is "because." Either it is simply because the math works out that way (and it is true of the real world), or if you happen to be a theist / etc., its "because god said so."
"Why does it rain? Because God is in Heaven pours water from a huge watering can."
"It's turtles all the way down."
Part of the intent of these answers is to stop the questioning. Even when the answer is "clearly correct" as in the force of gravity, f=G*M1*M2/d^2, it is still appropriate to ask the questions "Is this correct?" and "Why?" These are asked in many high schools and colleges everywhere.
Only 100 years ago, at the advent of powered heavier-than-air human flight, people believed it to be immoral to fly (The old quote "If God had intended man to fly, He would have given him wings" was meant literally). With time, advances in aerodynamics, and cheap commercial airline tickets, most people don't even know it used to be considered immoral.
I am in favor of investigating why each and every turtle is there.
(In fact, glass is a fluid much like water - only a LOT more viscous.)
I've often heard this, and the windows of several-hundred-year-old buildings are often cited as an example of this (a high school physics teacher told this story to the class), with the bottom part of the glass pane being thicker than the top, but I recall hearing an alternative explanation of this. Also, many precisely made pieces of glass, such as binocular lenses and telescope lenses and mirrors, do NOT flow measurably over decades or centuries at normal temperatures.
Okay, perhaps glass does flow, but if so the rate of flow is many orders of magnitude slower than would be indicated by the thicknesses of the old glass windows.
It's only very expensive oil (perhaps much more than the current $60/barrel) that has a chance of being replaced by something else, something less costly.
I dunno what it would be, but I'm NOT betting on fusion, regardless of temperature.
That gives me an idea for a sure-fire space program that will enjoy the full support of the American public:
Create two teams each comprised of a combination of rocket scientists and washed-up hollywood celebrities. Pit them against each other in a battle to create the next manned space launch system. . .
Not quite what I was expecting, which is: "Who will be voted out the airlock THIS week?!?!?!"
Actually the Justices are quite capable of reading, the 5th amendment clearly reads, as you so nicely pointed out:...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In the Kelo v. New London case the homeowners who refused to give up their land WERE offered compensation for their private property.
That's not the contention. The contention is over the words public use, and whether it was legal for the Government to take their property at all, regardles of whether they would receive "just compensation."
It's also well-known that when private property IS taken by government for any reason (whether truly for public use such as parks, schools, roads, or military bases, or to turn over to private entities which would pay more taxes on the property than the original owner would), the compensation given is NOT just - the amount paid is usually well below the market value of the property - but that's not what this ruling was about.
OTOH, The (U.S. Federal) Government is the one entity that can use force (this means guns) against an individual without having to directly answer to another authority. One of the few 'indirect authorities' is the vote. When is the last time you (anyone reading this, not just parent), voted?
While I'm here, I'll quote the first few sentences from that link you gave, bold highlighting by me:
KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al.
certiorari to the supreme court of connecticut
No. 04-108.Argued February 22, 2005--Decided June 23, 2005
After approving an integrated development plan designed to revitalize its ailing economy, respondent city, through its development agent, purchased most of the property earmarked for the project from willing sellers, but initiated condemnation proceedings when petitioners, the owners of the rest of the property, refused to sell. Petitioners brought this state-court action claiming, inter alia, that the taking of their properties would violate the "public use" restriction in the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause.
I absolutely hated the 512K jobs. First, you would take a pair of cutters and cut the 16 64K x 1 bit RAM chips off the board,
I did 128k-to-512k upgrades based on the Dr. Dobb's Journal cover article on making a 'Fat Mac', ISTR the issue was January 1985.
I actually desoldered, using the small-but-effective Palladin solder sucker as well as Solder Wick when needed, but I had to clean out the sucker every few holes. The board had BIG holes for those RAM chip pins, perhaps so automatic insertion machines could more reliably get the pins in the holes. So the holes had a lot of solder in them. I wonder if I got any significant lead poisinong from it - I recall doing 10 to 15 upgrades for friends and early AMUG members (it seems that group has grown since then), including doing three in an all-nighter for a local computer store.
I'm remembering more of it, I soldered in machine-pin sockets to put the new chips in. If there was a bad chip, I could easily swap it out without soldering, though I don't recall a single bad chip (I followed common-sense ESD guidelines to the letter).
Somewhere around here in an aluminum-foil-lined plastic drawer I think I've got a few dozen 64kx1 DRAM's with solder on the pins.
The first thing I thought of when reading "at times we see upwards of 90% of the traffic from Blogspot being spam" is the "DO YOU WANT TO KNOW FOR SURE YOU ARE GOING TO HEAVEN? HERE IS HOW YOU CAN KNOW FOR SURE YOU ARE GOING TO HEAVEN" Usenet spammer, who linked to his Blogspot page of the hour (because last hour's page got deleted) earlier this year. He eventually stopped using Blogspot and pointed to various Christian websites, much to their chagrin.
I think the Usenet Cabal finally noticed and added autocancels to his multiposts (I once got headers, saw another of his posts, but when I accessed the body it was gone - shades of a resurrection!). Haven't seen anything for a while now.
This is really no different than the widely-ignored anti-fax laws.
The laws on the books state prohibit a company sending faxes to someone who explicitly tells you not to.
It's worse than that. It's against the law if they don't have a business relationship. If explicitely told not to, the damages are triple.
Yet we get deluged with hundreds of spam faxes a week. Over and over and over from the same companies. Many with blocked or deliberately falsified caller ID.
Law enforcement doesn't stop junk faxers,
HUH? From what I've read of the Junk Fax law, law enforcement has nothing to do with it. It was my understanding you can take a junk faxer to court, point out the law to the Judge and get $500 PER UNSOLICITED FAX (BEFORE you tell them to stop), or even $1,500 PER FAX if you (can prove you) had already told them to stop. This gives you a judgement against them - if they don't pay, you can get their wages garnished and have similar things done to get the money out of them. It sure seems worth it to me.
Washington State passed a very similar anti-spam law a few years ago, and there was a news item where a recipient in Washington State got an out-of-state spammer to pay up as per the law.
Why don't more people do this to junk faxers?
Googling for junk fax law and a couple clicks brings up these pertinent links:
Isn't that effectively "downloading" copyrighted material? How is that, and how should that be viewed? Is taping music off the radio "stealing?" Do we refer to those who tape their favorite TV shows at home on their VCR "thieves?" How is that different from downloading music from the internet?
The specific act of aping TV shows for later viewing (called "Time-shifting") has been ruled a legal "fair-use" exception to copyright laws. This was a famous case 25+ years ago when VCR's were a newish consumer product, ISTR it went to the Supreme Court. There should be plenty of info on it on the web.
Downloading copyrighted material (without proper permission and such) has not had such a ruling that it's legal (except I recently heard about some judge in Canada saying it's okay, search/. archives), and IANAL, so I can't say for sure, but I tend to think it's illegal (in the USA and (almost) all other Berne Convention countries).
I wrote pages of 6502 assembly with pencil and paper, hand assembled it and keyed the object into the hex keypad of my Kim-1 (I know, it reads like "I walked six miles to school every day in the snow, uphill both ways" but this is NOT a joke). I still recall the hex codes for several instructions and addressing modes, including the "two-cycle delay" instruction, $EA. And yes, I can tell the number of cycles of just about every instruction with every addressing mode. It's not that great an accomplishment, it's just that I did a good bit of code on the 6502 and these 8-bit processors were quite small and simple.
At least the Apple ][ had a crude hex-data-only, no-labels assembler as part of the ROM. Did I ever feel high-fallutin' on one of those things.
Slashdot Mirror
My 1997 Mindspring account gets over 100 spams per day. I go through them at about two per second just so see if someone i know, or something I have actually signed up for, is sending something and hasn't gotten my new address. I used to only read the headers and body to see where to report things, but there's too much for me to report it all now.
Okay, I acually RTGDFA. Screw this crap!
Those who were effectively smapped, as a group, saw their mean body mass index (BMI) go down, meaning it improved. BMI is a measure of body fat based on height and weight. Overall BMI rose for the control group, which did not get the emails.
Spam has been estimated to cost the U.S. economy several billion dollars a year in decreased productivity and anti-spam efforts. Meanwhile, the new study shows that mass email might produce small effects on a case-by-case basis, but it could be effective because of the low cost and large reach, Plotnikoff said.
"MASS EMAIL" my ass. They don't know the effing difference between solicited and unsolicited emails.
Screw this crap.
I was going to say this as soon as I saw the article. I recall a big case involving Monster Cable last year, it was widely discussed on a few Usenet groups. They're bullying every commercial use of the word monster with claims that they're about to go into business in whatever area it's used in, not just audio-related businesses.
Want to see who, apparently because of legal bullying (technically called abuse of process), gives a link to Monster Cable? The job site. Look at the link at the very bottom of the page:
http://monster.com/
I think it's great as long as they're careful not to impede on the user working. Done badly these applications get annoying if they are too pushy about beginning their processing before a reasonable user timeout.
Even back in the Windows NT4 days I would put a long-running task to Idle priority and the machine would be as responsive as when the task wasn't running (though I don't recall running a disk-intensive task that way). I've noticed the badly written apps tend to be viruses and P2P software, crap you don't want to be running anyway.
Does anyone realize that running a CPU at 100% takes more electricity than running a CPU at 10%?
Yes, I do, the same for RAM being accessed and for a hard disk drive when it's seeking. But this is insignificant compared to the overhead of the power supply, fans, hard disk drive spindle motors, other circuitry that runs continuously, and dare I mention all those fancy-dancy computer case lights that are popular now.
The incremental cost of these otherwise-unused cycles is so low that they can be considered free.
So someone prove me wrong, what's the electricity cost of running a CPU at full cycles for a year vs. running at typical load? What's the cost of the lowered processor life due to running at a higher temperature. Chip makers will tell you this is a real cost, but practically, the machine is likely to be replaced with the next generation before the processor has a heat-related problem.
Regardless, the cost is MUCH lower, in both electricity and capital, than buying other machines specifically to do the work assigned to these 'free cycles'.
Replacing the power supply diodes with "faster" ones is a waste of time and money. Any noise the old diodes generate (if any) is many decades above thre audio range. Plus the CD player has to pass FCC emission limits, so they can't be too noisy to begin with. Skip this mod.
I at first thought this might be fixing a real problem and making a relatively expensive solution (fast diodes) for it. 1N400X rectifiers doing 50/60Hz power rectification CAN produce some low-level switching garbage (modulated at a 60 Hz rate, conducted through the ground traces and rectified by a sensitive input circuit - well below the radar of FCC radiated RF tests) that would make it through a linear supply and end up in the output of a high-gain preamp (for a microphone or an old-fashioned RIAA-eq'ed phonograph preamp), but this can be cured by putting a 0.1uF capacitor (with appropriate voltage rating) across each rectifier.
But then, like a fool, I actually read (part of) TFA...
Essentially all low-cost DVD players these days use a switching power supply.
Phuque. A switcher inherently produces ALL KINDS of noise (and is more likely to cause a radiated RF test failure), and is NOT the thing to power anything that's "true hifi.". Nothing you do before the switching part is going to make a penny's worth of difference in the noise on the power supply's output when compared with the noise generated by the high frequency power switching circuit.
The true "tweak" for this is to buy a LINEAR open-frame regulated power supply for each voltage required by the unit, and replace the switcher with those.
The guy absolutely missed the boat on this, and (especially with your other points) it shows him to be a hifi "nut" or audiophool, knowing little about electronics and believing his sighted tests over a double-blind test (if he even knows what that is).
I think you're forgetting that a lot of the "nerds" around here are engineers and not scientists. I think how the two groups differ can be seen in each's response to this finding.
I'm an engineer by profession but am very interested (and perhaps even fairly knowledgable) in science. I'd like to think this is typical of engineers, and it certainly is of some (much more so than nontechnical professions).
I would have liked to have had more pure-science-oriented classes in college (a smallish engineering school with a 'physics and chemistry' department which had no degree path, only offering classes required for other degrees), but with the "publish-or-perish" paradigm of the scientific profession, it's just as well I didn't become a "professional scientist."
I have this CD of all "The Amateur Scientist" columns ever published in Scientific American, and I highly endorse it (I have no connection other than happy buyer) for other True And Pure Science Nerds:
http://www.brightscience.com/
I haven't checked this out, but a Usenet poster said the original Shuttle frames were going to be built out of titanium, of course for its great strength-to-weight ratio. There was a decision to switch to aluminum, supposedly both as a cost savings on the Shuttle manufacturing, and because there was great demand for titanium in building US Military aircraft. Due to the extra weight of a same-strength frame made of aluminum, two solid-rocket boosters needed to be added to the launch vehicle which were not a part of the titanium design.
Is this true?
Regardless, it seems clear that any launch hardware intended for reuse should be made of the best strength-to-weight materials available even at larger initial cost, so either there's less energy (the fuel itself is rather cheap, but less of it means smaller launch vehicles, fewer complications, fewer SRB's, etc.) required to launch, or a larger payload could be put into orbit with the same launch energy because of the lighter hardware.
Questions like "How did cooperative behavior evolve?" make an assumption that cooperative behaviour evolved. Starting out with dubious assumptions often leads to research going in wrong directions.
If one really wished to understand such phenomena the question would be phrased something like:
"What are the origins of cooperative behaviour?"
As I say in the subject, that's an excellent point overall, but as far as use of the word 'evolve' in this question, I would not be hung up on a literal or dictionary definition of that word. The assumptions I would use are: Cooperative behavior did not exist at some past point in time. Cooperative behavior does exist now. How did this change happen?
A problem I see with this particular question is getting a good, objective definition of cooperative behavior, OTOH the scientists who look at this sort of thing (sociologists? anthropologists?) are probably WAY ahead of me on this.
Interestingly enough, the answer to these sorts of questions (not 100% sure this is one but if not it quickly becomes one), is "because." Either it is simply because the math works out that way (and it is true of the real world), or if you happen to be a theist / etc., its "because god said so."
"Why does it rain? Because God is in Heaven pours water from a huge watering can."
"It's turtles all the way down."
Part of the intent of these answers is to stop the questioning. Even when the answer is "clearly correct" as in the force of gravity, f=G*M1*M2/d^2, it is still appropriate to ask the questions "Is this correct?" and "Why?" These are asked in many high schools and colleges everywhere.
Only 100 years ago, at the advent of powered heavier-than-air human flight, people believed it to be immoral to fly (The old quote "If God had intended man to fly, He would have given him wings" was meant literally). With time, advances in aerodynamics, and cheap commercial airline tickets, most people don't even know it used to be considered immoral.
I am in favor of investigating why each and every turtle is there.
Not only that, but it is transcendental.
What's the resistance of a transcendental number?
Ohmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....
(In fact, glass is a fluid much like water - only a LOT more viscous.)
a ss_being_liquid_at_room_temperature
I've often heard this, and the windows of several-hundred-year-old buildings are often cited as an example of this (a high school physics teacher told this story to the class), with the bottom part of the glass pane being thicker than the top, but I recall hearing an alternative explanation of this. Also, many precisely made pieces of glass, such as binocular lenses and telescope lenses and mirrors, do NOT flow measurably over decades or centuries at normal temperatures.
Googling glass flow bring several relevant links such as this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass#The_myth_of_gl
Okay, perhaps glass does flow, but if so the rate of flow is many orders of magnitude slower than would be indicated by the thicknesses of the old glass windows.
What Can Replace Cheap Oil
It's only very expensive oil (perhaps much more than the current $60/barrel) that has a chance of being replaced by something else, something less costly.
I dunno what it would be, but I'm NOT betting on fusion, regardless of temperature.
What is knowledge? What is consciousness, and what is truth?
A little bit off topic, but weren't these questions, or some like them, asked in the original recording of Jesus Christ Superstar?
This should be answered before the question of what the biological basis of consciousness can be known.
The ultimate question is, "Is Roger Penrose conscious?"
That gives me an idea for a sure-fire space program that will enjoy the full support of the American public:
Create two teams each comprised of a combination of rocket scientists and washed-up hollywood celebrities. Pit them against each other in a battle to create the next manned space launch system. . .
Not quite what I was expecting, which is: "Who will be voted out the airlock THIS week?!?!?!"
Actually the Justices are quite capable of reading, the 5th amendment clearly reads, as you so nicely pointed out: ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In the Kelo v. New London case the homeowners who refused to give up their land WERE offered compensation for their private property.
That's not the contention. The contention is over the words public use, and whether it was legal for the Government to take their property at all, regardles of whether they would receive "just compensation."
It's also well-known that when private property IS taken by government for any reason (whether truly for public use such as parks, schools, roads, or military bases, or to turn over to private entities which would pay more taxes on the property than the original owner would), the compensation given is NOT just - the amount paid is usually well below the market value of the property - but that's not what this ruling was about.
OTOH, The (U.S. Federal) Government is the one entity that can use force (this means guns) against an individual without having to directly answer to another authority. One of the few 'indirect authorities' is the vote. When is the last time you (anyone reading this, not just parent), voted?
While I'm here, I'll quote the first few sentences from that link you gave, bold highlighting by me:
KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al.
certiorari to the supreme court of connecticut
No. 04-108.Argued February 22, 2005--Decided June 23, 2005
After approving an integrated development plan designed to revitalize its ailing economy, respondent city, through its development agent, purchased most of the property earmarked for the project from willing sellers, but initiated condemnation proceedings when petitioners, the owners of the rest of the property, refused to sell. Petitioners brought this state-court action claiming, inter alia, that the taking of their properties would violate the "public use" restriction in the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause.
I absolutely hated the 512K jobs. First, you would take a pair of cutters and cut the 16 64K x 1 bit RAM chips off the board,
I did 128k-to-512k upgrades based on the Dr. Dobb's Journal cover article on making a 'Fat Mac', ISTR the issue was January 1985.
I actually desoldered, using the small-but-effective Palladin solder sucker as well as Solder Wick when needed, but I had to clean out the sucker every few holes. The board had BIG holes for those RAM chip pins, perhaps so automatic insertion machines could more reliably get the pins in the holes. So the holes had a lot of solder in them. I wonder if I got any significant lead poisinong from it - I recall doing 10 to 15 upgrades for friends and early AMUG members (it seems that group has grown since then), including doing three in an all-nighter for a local computer store.
I'm remembering more of it, I soldered in machine-pin sockets to put the new chips in. If there was a bad chip, I could easily swap it out without soldering, though I don't recall a single bad chip (I followed common-sense ESD guidelines to the letter).
Somewhere around here in an aluminum-foil-lined plastic drawer I think I've got a few dozen 64kx1 DRAM's with solder on the pins.
Alright I'm sold. Where can I pick one up?
Used to be at any thrift store, but all I've seen in recent years are five-dollar SE30's.
Mouse and keyboard sold separately.
The first thing I thought of when reading "at times we see upwards of 90% of the traffic from Blogspot being spam" is the "DO YOU WANT TO KNOW FOR SURE YOU ARE GOING TO HEAVEN? HERE IS HOW YOU CAN KNOW FOR SURE YOU ARE GOING TO HEAVEN" Usenet spammer, who linked to his Blogspot page of the hour (because last hour's page got deleted) earlier this year. He eventually stopped using Blogspot and pointed to various Christian websites, much to their chagrin.
I think the Usenet Cabal finally noticed and added autocancels to his multiposts (I once got headers, saw another of his posts, but when I accessed the body it was gone - shades of a resurrection!). Haven't seen anything for a while now.
The British flag in an apparent outline of Great Britain goes to this link:
http://www.gyrotec.de/Navi/Navigation-eng.htm
The other response calls it a gyrocopter, the English page calls it a gyroplane, and the name I usually heard is autogyro.
Unfortunately, there's no American version of the website. {emoticon}
The player with the most kings wins. The score is either 1 to 0 or 0 to 1. Unless it's a tie.
In sportscaster terms:
"In hot chess action today, Deep Blue pummeled Kasparov."
This is really no different than the widely-ignored anti-fax laws.
/. terms:
...
The laws on the books state prohibit a company sending faxes to someone who explicitly tells you not to.
It's worse than that. It's against the law if they don't have a business relationship. If explicitely told not to, the damages are triple.
Yet we get deluged with hundreds of spam faxes a week. Over and over and over from the same companies. Many with blocked or deliberately falsified caller ID.
Law enforcement doesn't stop junk faxers,
HUH? From what I've read of the Junk Fax law, law enforcement has nothing to do with it. It was my understanding you can take a junk faxer to court, point out the law to the Judge and get $500 PER UNSOLICITED FAX (BEFORE you tell them to stop), or even $1,500 PER FAX if you (can prove you) had already told them to stop. This gives you a judgement against them - if they don't pay, you can get their wages garnished and have similar things done to get the money out of them. It sure seems worth it to me.
Washington State passed a very similar anti-spam law a few years ago, and there was a news item where a recipient in Washington State got an out-of-state spammer to pay up as per the law.
Why don't more people do this to junk faxers?
Googling for junk fax law and a couple clicks brings up these pertinent links:
The Junk Fax Law (portion of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991):
http://www.keytlaw.com/faxes/usc.htm
Example demand letter:
http://www.keytlaw.com/faxes/demandltr.htm
In
1. Buy fax machine and dedicated phone line.
2. Add "FAX: [fax phone number] (for C++ code only)" to webpage
3.
4. Profit $$$
Anonymous Coward wrote:
:-)
Speaking of animation, let's not forget Marvin the Martian's disintegration ray on Bugs Bunny.
Unfortunately, he didn't leave his name.
Isn't that effectively "downloading" copyrighted material? How is that, and how should that be viewed? Is taping music off the radio "stealing?" Do we refer to those who tape their favorite TV shows at home on their VCR "thieves?" How is that different from downloading music from the internet?
/. archives), and IANAL, so I can't say for sure, but I tend to think it's illegal (in the USA and (almost) all other Berne Convention countries).
The specific act of aping TV shows for later viewing (called "Time-shifting") has been ruled a legal "fair-use" exception to copyright laws. This was a famous case 25+ years ago when VCR's were a newish consumer product, ISTR it went to the Supreme Court. There should be plenty of info on it on the web.
Downloading copyrighted material (without proper permission and such) has not had such a ruling that it's legal (except I recently heard about some judge in Canada saying it's okay, search
I wrote pages of 6502 assembly with pencil and paper, hand assembled it and keyed the object into the hex keypad of my Kim-1 (I know, it reads like "I walked six miles to school every day in the snow, uphill both ways" but this is NOT a joke). I still recall the hex codes for several instructions and addressing modes, including the "two-cycle delay" instruction, $EA. And yes, I can tell the number of cycles of just about every instruction with every addressing mode. It's not that great an accomplishment, it's just that I did a good bit of code on the 6502 and these 8-bit processors were quite small and simple.
At least the Apple ][ had a crude hex-data-only, no-labels assembler as part of the ROM. Did I ever feel high-fallutin' on one of those things.
http://kossi.physics.hmc.edu/Courses/p23a/Experime nts/Cavendish.html
http://www.fourmilab.com/gravitation/