Running the same code to get the same model results is not "duplicating scientific results". It's running the same program and getting the same output. Ditto for plotting the estimated average temperatures for the last 200 years. Running gnuplot or matlab on someone else's data and getting the same plot isn't science.
Duplicating a scientific result would mean that you take the same starting conditions, do the same process, gather your own data, and get the same result -- with different objects. And it includes a control so that you know the result is due to what you change, not something you haven't taken into account. For cold fusion, it means taking the palladium (or was it Pt?) metal and making the electrodes and putting them into a different beaker and getting the same unexplained temperature rise. If you see that result, then you need to start eliminating alternative causes.
For global warming, it means taking two different planet Earths, adding CO2 to one and not the other, and then measuring the temperatures. Can you show me the referreed journal article that describes that experiment being done even once, much less in a reproducable manner as required by the scientific method?
But no, just observing a correlation in one set of data isn't a scientific experiment. Having two scientists look at one set of data and say "there is a correlation" doesn't mean there have been two experiments. It can lead to hypotheses that can be tested using experiments, but until then you haven't completed the scientific method.
So, killing animals for food is 'going off the deep end'? I lived on a farm from ages 5-11.
When you live on a farm where you raise animals and eat them, yes, killing animals for food is normal.
When you live in a big city and you normally never come close to an animal while it is alive, switching to a mode where you eat no animals except those you've personally killed is "going off the deep end".
Maybe you lived in a city your whole life and got it nicely packaged for you in a supermarket or pre-cooked and now you want to consider people who actually kill the animals as somehow beneath you,...
Nobody said that. Nobody said anything about anyone but Zuckerberg.
It's the same thing as someone who has never worn a shirt other than one made by Brook's Brothers suddenly deciding he's going to plant the backyard in cotton, get himself a cotten gin, start weaving his own cloth, and wear nothing that he hasn't sewn togther himself. It's just looney. For him.
A minute is 60 seconds where a second is defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. Which is the same throughout the entire the universe and to the best of our knowledge the same for all time.
I love quotes like these, as they prove the religious nature of modern science. Hidden for the most part, but still dependent upon "faith". A belief in things unseen.
You don't know that the period of the transition is the same throughout the entire universe, or the same for all time. You assume it because you don't have any reason to think it will be different. That's still an assumption.
Of course, you could be saying that the number 9+ billion is the same throughout the universe and not that the actual length of the second is, in which case you'd be right. The difference is that the number system is a representation of the universe as defined by man; the period of a transition is a physical thing irrespective of man's existance.
Now, I don't know if there is any known physical process that changes the period of that transition, but I do know that there are processes that change the energy levels of atoms. The Zeeman Effect is just one. If the energy levels change, the periods for transitions ought to change, as well, shouldn't they?
Unfortunately, pretty much every school I've visited requires that you do 'N' credits of something you don't love because some ass-hat thought that college kids need to take 'N' credits of something other than focused study.
Oh, my God, how DARE anyone think that a University degree ought to mean you've had a well-rounded diverse education and got a perspective on the world larger than yourself!
If I could go to a college right now and study only computer languages and computer science while skipping all the other stuff...
Go to a trade school if you want to learn a trade. Go to a University if you want a university education. If you don't want the degree but can't find a trade school, take just the classes you want and walk away.
Yes, the concept that University isn't the natural followup to high school has been screwed by high school counselors who are rated by the "success" of their gradutes at getting into Uni.
I left school because I hated attending classes that I had no interest in.
A perfectly valid decision which doesn't prove that the Uni needs to change what it teaches, only that you needed to change your perception of what Uni was all about. Not every place needs to be just the right place for you.
This means that the longer one type of slot at a casino doesn't pay out, the higher the odds are that they will soon.
It is for exactly this lack of comprehension of odds that the casinos put up the "recent numbers" boards at the roulette tables, and people bet based on what numbers or colors haven't shown up for a while.
Please tell me, when was the last time an upgrade changed the your normal user UIDs? Why would an upgrade do that?
He's talking about changing UIDs on existing users to move those below 500 up above 1000. An OS upgrade doesn't force that; changing the default UID numbering system does.
Oh, and there are several ways to extract out the UID from the passwd file, reverse the list, then step through the list using each UID to do the "find exec" above.
So you start by changing UID 500 to UID 1000, and then you get to your 500'th existing user who happens to have UID 1000. You happily find all the files belonging to UID 1000 and change them to 1500. Including the files that originally belonged to UID 500 that you changed to 1000 just a few minutes ago...
It doesn't even take having 500 users. If you've delegated user creation to different departments, say, and allocated them ranges of UID they are responsible for, then you might have one user at 500, one at 1000, one at 1500, etc...
The simple solution is, of course, to sort the changes you need to make and do the highest ones first. That way the UID 500 changes don't create files UID 1000 until after you've changed the 1000 to 1500.
This still leaves the issues brought up above. For the one about backups -- if you are doing something this drastic to the file system, you should back up before you do it, do it, and then do another backup.
a "well-seasoned *NIX admin" isn't the target market for the "desktop" distributions, anyway.
When one has to administer them, yes.
This solves nothing for the noob, since the system is assigning UIDs and unless you have just one user on each system, there is no guarantee that the UIDs for the same user will be the same between machines, unless you do them by hand. If you do them by hand, you can make them be whatever you want and this doesn't help.
This is still going to be a problem for me, since my UID for the last 20 years has been below 500 and I've always had to set mine on the desktops and servers I've installed, where the install script thinks it knows better than I do what my UID should be.
so you can safely assume that any firm is at their current minimum level of employment given their sales. Raising (or lowering) taxes is not going to increase their sales,
The fallacy of ignoring the demand side of the equation. Raising taxes will be passed on to the consumer, and higher prices will result in lowered sales due to lower demand.
(And presumably, when they invest that money elsewhere, that will create jobs.)
Yes, for the Chinese, the Mexicans, the Costa Ricans, the... wherever else the taxes are lower. If they're going to shut down the domestic business, they might as well move at the same time.
Most people (outside of the states' tax offices) think that's something of a stretch.
Most people who don't have a dog in the fight think that justifying every action by congress as part of the interstate commerce clause is something of a stretch, but see how far that's gotten us?
I suspect that there is a reason why Bezos sells stuff on the internet, rather than practicing constitutional law.
Me too. Since it appears he's saying he won't do something he considers unconstitutional until the congress tells him to, I'd say he has a pretty poor grasp on the Constitution and the role the congress plays in regard to it.
For the slow ones, Congress cannot (is not supposed to be able to) tell someone to do something that is unconstitutional. Constitution trumps Congress. Unless they change it.
That said, I don't know that a state requiring sales tax collection on a sale made within that state is unconstitutional. Precedent has been set -- Kentucky, wasn't it, claimed jurisdiction over an online service (Adult Action BBS) that was located in California. And Florida charged a guy in Colorado with kiddie porn even though the guy never set foot in Florida.
Even a micrometer of wire won't be "charged' before the wave goes negative, at which point it discharges... and you wind up with an average of zero volts.
You always wind up with an average of zero volts when you use AC power. What you don't wind up with is zero volts RMS. RMS is a mathematical representation of the amount of work a power source can do -- designed so that 100 V RMS AC does the same work as 100 V DC.
But if a spy sticks a wall wart in an outlet in a room with a bug in it, it can transmit easily to several other houses in the neighborhood with a receiver plugged into the wall in the same way.
No. The transformers that downconvert the higher transmission voltage to the household voltage are very bad at carrying RF upstream. Powerline RF works only on things fed by the same transformer.
BPL requires special hardware to get it past the large transformers, and ends at your transformer. It gets put on fiber or copper as a normal network there.
It'd depend on the receiver being used, the frequency chosen, and a lot of other factors, as to just how much BBOPL interferes with such a device. I'm sure some wouldn't be affected while others would be rendered useless.
BPL won't appear as RF on your outlets, it won't interfere with anything using your household wiring. What it DOES do is radiate from the high tension lines and interfere with radio signals, such as creating a horrendous noise floor on any HF radio nearby. But it isn't conduction that causes the problem, it is radiation.
If the two different frequencies you pick up are not in phase and coherent (sunlight isn't, to my knowledge), then you won't get a beat frequency.....sadly. Nice try.
If there are two different frequencies, they can't be in phase and coherent. Even a harmonic will be 180 degrees out of phase some of the time.
Yes, obviously the right thing to do is condition our teenagers to believe that authority figures have absolute control over their ability to communicate.
Authority figures already have control, that's why they are called "authority figures" and not "random people off the street.".
Control how they communicate? From kindergarten, they are taught "Raise your hand if you want to ask a question." "Five pages double spaced for your report." "Typed, not handwritten". "Billy, stop passing notes to Susie." "Minus five points for the use of the word 'ain't'." "Minus two points for putting the period outside the quotation marks".
Which is better, a complete ban on cell phones in school because the "authority figure" cannot control them at a finer grain, or a local cell that allows finer grained control and the ability for some communications and doesn't require confiscation of the phones themselves?
Tell the GM shareholders that lost out about that.
So you think that debts are not owned by the owners of a corporation, as well? How interesting. Please tell me how I can subscribe to your newsletter.
So who from BP is in jail for that oil spill?
Nobody I know of, yet. Was it BP breaking the law, or was it the firm that was supposed to maintain the flow diverters that didn't do it? Are you actually stupid enough to think that the legal process dealing with the gulf spill is actually over and nobody else will wind up in court?
If I let my car leak oil all over town and nature parks(since my car does not float) I bet I would be paying for cleanup and fines.
And now you are trying to tell us that BP didn't pay anything for the cleanup. Fines, well, when they are taken to court, they'll wind up paying them, too. If they owe any.
If you are responsible, you pay the fine. If your mechanic is responsible, you pay the fine and then sue your mechanic to recover the loss. Of course, the big difference is that you leaking oil all over the place is a localized phomenon that you can trivially mitigate (that means "stop", in this context.) A hole in the bottom of the ocean isn't. And when a company other than BP was the cause, your continued rant against BP is just that.
Also where can we find BPs internal organs?
Ok, now I know you are just being stupid for the sake of confrontation. Telling you that the owners of a company own the property of that company has nothing to do with "internal organs", and I expect that you know that.
This has zero to do with private property for real humans, just the construct called the corporation.
Corporations are owned by people. The property owned by a corporation is owned, ultimately, by the people who own the corporation.
Having limited liability and unlimited freedom just means everyone should become a corporation and start committing crimes for fun.
That statement is so pathetically ridiculous that it does not merit any response, buy I'll point out one tiny fact that demonstrates your lunacy: corporations don't have unlimited freedom, and people in corporations have gone to jail for committing crimes. Even so, many people do become corporations so they can take advantage of the laws for corporations, which also pretty much shoots down you nonsense about corporations not being people.
So you'd also claim that, the NY Times, not being a person, has no right to free speech and the government may censor the NY Times all it wants? Or let's use the Tokyo Shinbun (I think that's the Tokyo daily) as the example. Governments may censor corporations all they want? Even when corporations are made up of people who actually do have the right to free speech?
But then, this isn't an issue of free speech, it is an issue of commercial activity, and discrimination by company is not a valid activity of government. If what Sony wants to do is legal, then Japanese government should shut up and let them do it. If the Japanese government wants to make it illegal, then pass a law.
Difference: that limitation was applied to all and every aircraft, either commercial or private, without regard to ownership. It was invocation of a legal power congress gave the FAA in controlling the airspace.
If Japan had said: there is a clear threat to the wellbeing of the populace from network services and NO company may operate one until further notice, you'd have a fair comparison. For Japan to single out Sony in a prohibition against performing a legal service that others were still permitted -- Japan's bad. Just as if the FAA had said "United, you may not fly any more airplanes until YOU, and ONLY YOU, install better anti-hijacking methods in all of your aircraft", while allowing Delta and Southwest to continue flying, they would have been just as wrong.
And yet, if the US tried to tell YOU that you were not permitted to run a legal server that you wanted to run, there would be screams of censorship.
The government does not have the duty to protect the citizens from themselves, nor to deny the citizens the right to run a service that is within the bounds of the law.
IF the Sony service is breaking the law, the government has the duty to step in. Until it breaks the law, Sony should be allowed to run its service just as Apple and Google and every other content provider is.
Yes, I suppose me having to sue my neighbour who decided to use a high-power transmitter on the frequency I was using for something like my wi-fi is not anarchy.
I'm sorry, did you BUY the frequencies you are using, or are you just using them anyway? Just how does one split up the WI-FI frequencies into geographically-relevant sized pieces so that people can buy the frequencies they use?
And what happens when you move? I'm sorry, your neighbor owns the WI-FI frequencies for this part of the block, you don't get to use any. Wait, you're on the fiftieth floor of an apartment building and he's on the second? Hmmm. Multiple sales of frequencies based on VERTICAL separation. What a cash cow for the government.
By the way, make sure you sell the next tenant the frequencies so he can use his WI-FI when he moves in.
Then you get to worry about someone using his frequencies in a way that is incompatible with your use. Only then.
By the way, what government agency is responsible for doing this splitting up by region and allocating bandwidths to chunks of spectrum? We'll have to create one. Maybe call it "Federal" because it is a federal agency. Then something about "communications" because it deals with communications. Not sure what other words might apply...
Fascinating. Simply amazing. Selling the airwaves PERMANENTLY. No regulation other than "you own that much of the spectrum".
Nobody could buy up the bandwidth to prevent competition? One TRILLION dollars is the value, according to this nutcase. Sorry, he's wrong. Someone doesn't need to buy it all to have a monopoly. All they need to do is buy all the spectrum of the appropriate kind in the limited geographic area and they'd have a lock on that medium for that area. One TV station in LA buys all the TV channels, he owns them FOR LIFE. No give-backs. Leave all but one sitting idle/empty. No take-backs.
Somebody buys channel A in one area, someone else channel A in another area, and they interfere with each other. A sues B, B countersues, both own what they own, neither is "at fault". Both are using their property in the manner authorized by their purchase agreement.
A buys a TV channel in LA. B buys a TV channel in LA. B decides he likes a new technology for doing TV so he switches. Viewers in LA now need TWO different TVs to watch those two channels, because nobody is there to tell manufacturers they need to support both. Hell, there isn't even anyone who can define the STANDARDS that apply, so two isn't the upper limit on incompatible uses.
The TV I buy has spurious emissions that blanket the other channels. All my neighbors get interference. They have to HIRE someone to come find the source, and then they have to SUE me to get me to shut the TV off. Lawyers make out like bandits.
The local cops buy a channel for their use. I start using it, too. They have to HIRE someone to come find me, and then they have to SUE me to get me to stop. They can't arrest me, there are no regulations! (And yes, that link is explicit in saying that lawsuits are how the issues are resolved.)
A buys the channels for public safety in an area. B buys the channels for cellular. After a while, everyone figures out that the use of cellular at those specific frequencies is interfering with the public safety users. What to do? The owners own the spectrum. You can't rescind the "license" because there is no license. You can't force anyone to move, they own the spectrum. (And if you think this is far-fetched, google for "nextel" and "rebanding".)
No, I'm sorry. The FCC still has a purpose. It may not have a right or reason to do some of the things it does, but that doesn't mean the baby needs to go out with the bathwater.
By the way, who "sells" the bandwidth for frequencies and uses that are worldwide in nature? HF radio frequencies travel around the globe.
You seem to be seriously overstating the impact of host-based printing.
Uhhh, no. I was there. Firsthand experience.
Obviously when you're not printing (and that's probably most of the time!), there's no overhead.
Other than the half a dozen monitor demons that tell you when there are updates for the drivers, when the printer is out of paper, when the printer is out of ink, when the printer is low on ink and would you like to buy official HP products now?, and whatever other things they had demons doing.
then the rasterizer consumes a little bit of memory and plenty of CPU,
The last 200Mb of disk is "a little bit"?
I haven't personally felt it to be a problem,
And thus it cannot have been a problem for me. Thanks.
Having a CPU capable of rasterizing that fast in the printer itself would probably double its cost,
Wow. A whole $100 for a printer. So the printer could actually be a printer and not just the printhead and servos and the rest of the printer installed as drivers on your main CPU.
I came to read a discussion of writing kernel functions in CUDA and a discussion about the vagaries of encryption methods broke out.
Be careful what you say, next we'll have a hockey game break out.
I'm sorry, but am I the only one here who thinks this is, well, not a good way to go? Even if the code could be kernel-space code on the GPU? I mean, if I buy a CUDA GPU, I'm doing it because I have serious computing I want to do on it, not because I want my file system reads to be faster. I'd be rather miffed if I spent the time writing my CUDA code to speed things up and then found out it wasn't speeding things up because the GPU was already busy doing encryption on the filesystem.
This seems a lot like the problem that cheap HP printers cause. You buy a $50 printer, but the software "driver" consumes the computer you've hooked it to, to the point where you should just consider the computer as part of the printer and get a new one to do computing on.
Slashdot Mirror
Duplicating a scientific result would mean that you take the same starting conditions, do the same process, gather your own data, and get the same result -- with different objects. And it includes a control so that you know the result is due to what you change, not something you haven't taken into account. For cold fusion, it means taking the palladium (or was it Pt?) metal and making the electrodes and putting them into a different beaker and getting the same unexplained temperature rise. If you see that result, then you need to start eliminating alternative causes.
For global warming, it means taking two different planet Earths, adding CO2 to one and not the other, and then measuring the temperatures. Can you show me the referreed journal article that describes that experiment being done even once, much less in a reproducable manner as required by the scientific method?
But no, just observing a correlation in one set of data isn't a scientific experiment. Having two scientists look at one set of data and say "there is a correlation" doesn't mean there have been two experiments. It can lead to hypotheses that can be tested using experiments, but until then you haven't completed the scientific method.
So, killing animals for food is 'going off the deep end'? I lived on a farm from ages 5-11.
When you live on a farm where you raise animals and eat them, yes, killing animals for food is normal.
When you live in a big city and you normally never come close to an animal while it is alive, switching to a mode where you eat no animals except those you've personally killed is "going off the deep end".
Maybe you lived in a city your whole life and got it nicely packaged for you in a supermarket or pre-cooked and now you want to consider people who actually kill the animals as somehow beneath you, ...
Nobody said that. Nobody said anything about anyone but Zuckerberg.
It's the same thing as someone who has never worn a shirt other than one made by Brook's Brothers suddenly deciding he's going to plant the backyard in cotton, get himself a cotten gin, start weaving his own cloth, and wear nothing that he hasn't sewn togther himself. It's just looney. For him.
A minute is 60 seconds where a second is defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. Which is the same throughout the entire the universe and to the best of our knowledge the same for all time.
I love quotes like these, as they prove the religious nature of modern science. Hidden for the most part, but still dependent upon "faith". A belief in things unseen.
You don't know that the period of the transition is the same throughout the entire universe, or the same for all time. You assume it because you don't have any reason to think it will be different. That's still an assumption.
Of course, you could be saying that the number 9+ billion is the same throughout the universe and not that the actual length of the second is, in which case you'd be right. The difference is that the number system is a representation of the universe as defined by man; the period of a transition is a physical thing irrespective of man's existance.
Now, I don't know if there is any known physical process that changes the period of that transition, but I do know that there are processes that change the energy levels of atoms. The Zeeman Effect is just one. If the energy levels change, the periods for transitions ought to change, as well, shouldn't they?
Unfortunately, pretty much every school I've visited requires that you do 'N' credits of something you don't love because some ass-hat thought that college kids need to take 'N' credits of something other than focused study.
Oh, my God, how DARE anyone think that a University degree ought to mean you've had a well-rounded diverse education and got a perspective on the world larger than yourself!
If I could go to a college right now and study only computer languages and computer science while skipping all the other stuff ...
Go to a trade school if you want to learn a trade. Go to a University if you want a university education. If you don't want the degree but can't find a trade school, take just the classes you want and walk away.
Yes, the concept that University isn't the natural followup to high school has been screwed by high school counselors who are rated by the "success" of their gradutes at getting into Uni.
I left school because I hated attending classes that I had no interest in.
A perfectly valid decision which doesn't prove that the Uni needs to change what it teaches, only that you needed to change your perception of what Uni was all about. Not every place needs to be just the right place for you.
This means that the longer one type of slot at a casino doesn't pay out, the higher the odds are that they will soon.
It is for exactly this lack of comprehension of odds that the casinos put up the "recent numbers" boards at the roulette tables, and people bet based on what numbers or colors haven't shown up for a while.
Casinos make money when you gamble stupidly.
At what speed would it explode?
To what degree is it spherical?
Remember, TMI equals width times girth divided by the angle ...
Please tell me, when was the last time an upgrade changed the your normal user UIDs? Why would an upgrade do that?
He's talking about changing UIDs on existing users to move those below 500 up above 1000. An OS upgrade doesn't force that; changing the default UID numbering system does.
Oh, and there are several ways to extract out the UID from the passwd file, reverse the list, then step through the list using each UID to do the "find exec" above.
So you start by changing UID 500 to UID 1000, and then you get to your 500'th existing user who happens to have UID 1000. You happily find all the files belonging to UID 1000 and change them to 1500. Including the files that originally belonged to UID 500 that you changed to 1000 just a few minutes ago...
It doesn't even take having 500 users. If you've delegated user creation to different departments, say, and allocated them ranges of UID they are responsible for, then you might have one user at 500, one at 1000, one at 1500, etc...
The simple solution is, of course, to sort the changes you need to make and do the highest ones first. That way the UID 500 changes don't create files UID 1000 until after you've changed the 1000 to 1500.
This still leaves the issues brought up above. For the one about backups -- if you are doing something this drastic to the file system, you should back up before you do it, do it, and then do another backup.
a "well-seasoned *NIX admin" isn't the target market for the "desktop" distributions, anyway.
When one has to administer them, yes.
This solves nothing for the noob, since the system is assigning UIDs and unless you have just one user on each system, there is no guarantee that the UIDs for the same user will be the same between machines, unless you do them by hand. If you do them by hand, you can make them be whatever you want and this doesn't help.
This is still going to be a problem for me, since my UID for the last 20 years has been below 500 and I've always had to set mine on the desktops and servers I've installed, where the install script thinks it knows better than I do what my UID should be.
so you can safely assume that any firm is at their current minimum level of employment given their sales. Raising (or lowering) taxes is not going to increase their sales,
The fallacy of ignoring the demand side of the equation. Raising taxes will be passed on to the consumer, and higher prices will result in lowered sales due to lower demand.
(And presumably, when they invest that money elsewhere, that will create jobs.)
Yes, for the Chinese, the Mexicans, the Costa Ricans, the ... wherever else the taxes are lower. If they're going to shut down the domestic business, they might as well move at the same time.
Most people (outside of the states' tax offices) think that's something of a stretch.
Most people who don't have a dog in the fight think that justifying every action by congress as part of the interstate commerce clause is something of a stretch, but see how far that's gotten us?
I suspect that there is a reason why Bezos sells stuff on the internet, rather than practicing constitutional law.
Me too. Since it appears he's saying he won't do something he considers unconstitutional until the congress tells him to, I'd say he has a pretty poor grasp on the Constitution and the role the congress plays in regard to it.
For the slow ones, Congress cannot (is not supposed to be able to) tell someone to do something that is unconstitutional. Constitution trumps Congress. Unless they change it.
That said, I don't know that a state requiring sales tax collection on a sale made within that state is unconstitutional. Precedent has been set -- Kentucky, wasn't it, claimed jurisdiction over an online service (Adult Action BBS) that was located in California. And Florida charged a guy in Colorado with kiddie porn even though the guy never set foot in Florida.
Even a micrometer of wire won't be "charged' before the wave goes negative, at which point it discharges... and you wind up with an average of zero volts.
You always wind up with an average of zero volts when you use AC power. What you don't wind up with is zero volts RMS. RMS is a mathematical representation of the amount of work a power source can do -- designed so that 100 V RMS AC does the same work as 100 V DC.
But if a spy sticks a wall wart in an outlet in a room with a bug in it, it can transmit easily to several other houses in the neighborhood with a receiver plugged into the wall in the same way.
No. The transformers that downconvert the higher transmission voltage to the household voltage are very bad at carrying RF upstream. Powerline RF works only on things fed by the same transformer.
BPL requires special hardware to get it past the large transformers, and ends at your transformer. It gets put on fiber or copper as a normal network there.
It'd depend on the receiver being used, the frequency chosen, and a lot of other factors, as to just how much BBOPL interferes with such a device. I'm sure some wouldn't be affected while others would be rendered useless.
BPL won't appear as RF on your outlets, it won't interfere with anything using your household wiring. What it DOES do is radiate from the high tension lines and interfere with radio signals, such as creating a horrendous noise floor on any HF radio nearby. But it isn't conduction that causes the problem, it is radiation.
If the two different frequencies you pick up are not in phase and coherent (sunlight isn't, to my knowledge), then you won't get a beat frequency.....sadly. Nice try.
If there are two different frequencies, they can't be in phase and coherent. Even a harmonic will be 180 degrees out of phase some of the time.
Yes, obviously the right thing to do is condition our teenagers to believe that authority figures have absolute control over their ability to communicate.
Authority figures already have control, that's why they are called "authority figures" and not "random people off the street.".
Control how they communicate? From kindergarten, they are taught "Raise your hand if you want to ask a question." "Five pages double spaced for your report." "Typed, not handwritten". "Billy, stop passing notes to Susie." "Minus five points for the use of the word 'ain't'." "Minus two points for putting the period outside the quotation marks".
Which is better, a complete ban on cell phones in school because the "authority figure" cannot control them at a finer grain, or a local cell that allows finer grained control and the ability for some communications and doesn't require confiscation of the phones themselves?
Tell the GM shareholders that lost out about that.
So you think that debts are not owned by the owners of a corporation, as well? How interesting. Please tell me how I can subscribe to your newsletter.
So who from BP is in jail for that oil spill?
Nobody I know of, yet. Was it BP breaking the law, or was it the firm that was supposed to maintain the flow diverters that didn't do it? Are you actually stupid enough to think that the legal process dealing with the gulf spill is actually over and nobody else will wind up in court?
If I let my car leak oil all over town and nature parks(since my car does not float) I bet I would be paying for cleanup and fines.
And now you are trying to tell us that BP didn't pay anything for the cleanup. Fines, well, when they are taken to court, they'll wind up paying them, too. If they owe any.
If you are responsible, you pay the fine. If your mechanic is responsible, you pay the fine and then sue your mechanic to recover the loss. Of course, the big difference is that you leaking oil all over the place is a localized phomenon that you can trivially mitigate (that means "stop", in this context.) A hole in the bottom of the ocean isn't. And when a company other than BP was the cause, your continued rant against BP is just that.
Also where can we find BPs internal organs?
Ok, now I know you are just being stupid for the sake of confrontation. Telling you that the owners of a company own the property of that company has nothing to do with "internal organs", and I expect that you know that.
This has zero to do with private property for real humans, just the construct called the corporation.
Corporations are owned by people. The property owned by a corporation is owned, ultimately, by the people who own the corporation.
Having limited liability and unlimited freedom just means everyone should become a corporation and start committing crimes for fun.
That statement is so pathetically ridiculous that it does not merit any response, buy I'll point out one tiny fact that demonstrates your lunacy: corporations don't have unlimited freedom, and people in corporations have gone to jail for committing crimes. Even so, many people do become corporations so they can take advantage of the laws for corporations, which also pretty much shoots down you nonsense about corporations not being people.
But then, this isn't an issue of free speech, it is an issue of commercial activity, and discrimination by company is not a valid activity of government. If what Sony wants to do is legal, then Japanese government should shut up and let them do it. If the Japanese government wants to make it illegal, then pass a law.
If Japan had said: there is a clear threat to the wellbeing of the populace from network services and NO company may operate one until further notice, you'd have a fair comparison. For Japan to single out Sony in a prohibition against performing a legal service that others were still permitted -- Japan's bad. Just as if the FAA had said "United, you may not fly any more airplanes until YOU, and ONLY YOU, install better anti-hijacking methods in all of your aircraft", while allowing Delta and Southwest to continue flying, they would have been just as wrong.
So kiss off any concept of private property.
The government does not have the duty to protect the citizens from themselves, nor to deny the citizens the right to run a service that is within the bounds of the law.
IF the Sony service is breaking the law, the government has the duty to step in. Until it breaks the law, Sony should be allowed to run its service just as Apple and Google and every other content provider is.
Yes, I suppose me having to sue my neighbour who decided to use a high-power transmitter on the frequency I was using for something like my wi-fi is not anarchy.
I'm sorry, did you BUY the frequencies you are using, or are you just using them anyway? Just how does one split up the WI-FI frequencies into geographically-relevant sized pieces so that people can buy the frequencies they use?
And what happens when you move? I'm sorry, your neighbor owns the WI-FI frequencies for this part of the block, you don't get to use any. Wait, you're on the fiftieth floor of an apartment building and he's on the second? Hmmm. Multiple sales of frequencies based on VERTICAL separation. What a cash cow for the government.
By the way, make sure you sell the next tenant the frequencies so he can use his WI-FI when he moves in.
Then you get to worry about someone using his frequencies in a way that is incompatible with your use. Only then.
By the way, what government agency is responsible for doing this splitting up by region and allocating bandwidths to chunks of spectrum? We'll have to create one. Maybe call it "Federal" because it is a federal agency. Then something about "communications" because it deals with communications. Not sure what other words might apply...
More details in the link.
Fascinating. Simply amazing. Selling the airwaves PERMANENTLY. No regulation other than "you own that much of the spectrum".
Nobody could buy up the bandwidth to prevent competition? One TRILLION dollars is the value, according to this nutcase. Sorry, he's wrong. Someone doesn't need to buy it all to have a monopoly. All they need to do is buy all the spectrum of the appropriate kind in the limited geographic area and they'd have a lock on that medium for that area. One TV station in LA buys all the TV channels, he owns them FOR LIFE. No give-backs. Leave all but one sitting idle/empty. No take-backs.
Somebody buys channel A in one area, someone else channel A in another area, and they interfere with each other. A sues B, B countersues, both own what they own, neither is "at fault". Both are using their property in the manner authorized by their purchase agreement.
A buys a TV channel in LA. B buys a TV channel in LA. B decides he likes a new technology for doing TV so he switches. Viewers in LA now need TWO different TVs to watch those two channels, because nobody is there to tell manufacturers they need to support both. Hell, there isn't even anyone who can define the STANDARDS that apply, so two isn't the upper limit on incompatible uses.
The TV I buy has spurious emissions that blanket the other channels. All my neighbors get interference. They have to HIRE someone to come find the source, and then they have to SUE me to get me to shut the TV off. Lawyers make out like bandits.
The local cops buy a channel for their use. I start using it, too. They have to HIRE someone to come find me, and then they have to SUE me to get me to stop. They can't arrest me, there are no regulations! (And yes, that link is explicit in saying that lawsuits are how the issues are resolved.)
A buys the channels for public safety in an area. B buys the channels for cellular. After a while, everyone figures out that the use of cellular at those specific frequencies is interfering with the public safety users. What to do? The owners own the spectrum. You can't rescind the "license" because there is no license. You can't force anyone to move, they own the spectrum. (And if you think this is far-fetched, google for "nextel" and "rebanding".)
No, I'm sorry. The FCC still has a purpose. It may not have a right or reason to do some of the things it does, but that doesn't mean the baby needs to go out with the bathwater.
By the way, who "sells" the bandwidth for frequencies and uses that are worldwide in nature? HF radio frequencies travel around the globe.
You seem to be seriously overstating the impact of host-based printing.
Uhhh, no. I was there. Firsthand experience.
Obviously when you're not printing (and that's probably most of the time!), there's no overhead.
Other than the half a dozen monitor demons that tell you when there are updates for the drivers, when the printer is out of paper, when the printer is out of ink, when the printer is low on ink and would you like to buy official HP products now?, and whatever other things they had demons doing.
then the rasterizer consumes a little bit of memory and plenty of CPU,
The last 200Mb of disk is "a little bit"?
I haven't personally felt it to be a problem,
And thus it cannot have been a problem for me. Thanks.
Having a CPU capable of rasterizing that fast in the printer itself would probably double its cost,
Wow. A whole $100 for a printer. So the printer could actually be a printer and not just the printhead and servos and the rest of the printer installed as drivers on your main CPU.
I came to read a discussion of writing kernel functions in CUDA and a discussion about the vagaries of encryption methods broke out.
Be careful what you say, next we'll have a hockey game break out.
I'm sorry, but am I the only one here who thinks this is, well, not a good way to go? Even if the code could be kernel-space code on the GPU? I mean, if I buy a CUDA GPU, I'm doing it because I have serious computing I want to do on it, not because I want my file system reads to be faster. I'd be rather miffed if I spent the time writing my CUDA code to speed things up and then found out it wasn't speeding things up because the GPU was already busy doing encryption on the filesystem.
This seems a lot like the problem that cheap HP printers cause. You buy a $50 printer, but the software "driver" consumes the computer you've hooked it to, to the point where you should just consider the computer as part of the printer and get a new one to do computing on.