The new chip uses five transistors and can perform divisions by 3 instead of only 2 by previous circuits, allowing a perfect communication between two phones communicating at 2.0001 and 2.0002 gigahertz respectively.
Respectively? Are you saying the 2.0001 divides by 3 and the 2.0002 divides by three? But they both can divide by either, is the point, right?
(Am I just begging for a 'You must be new here' post for not instantly assuming it's just lack of good editing?)
Google does do click-through tracking. If you have Personalised Results, it will always track what's clicked. IF you don't, it still tracks on occation. (I don't know how it whether to track or not, but it was doing it from time to time long before they had personalisation.)
That's wacky. I currently have over thirty tabs open--including Google.com/ig which autoreloads every five minutes and another local file that reloads every thirty seconds, and I've been viewing stuff on Google Video--and it's using 111MB mem + 114MB swap after running sine sometime yesterday or the day before. This is Firefox 1.5.0.1 on Windows XP with 512MB of RAM. I do wish it used a lot less memory, but I'm not complaining so much at this point. It used to use more, but it's been much better these past few weeks, possibly because I set config.trim_on_minimise to true.
On the other hand, it's crashing nearly daily for me. Google Gmail seems to be the primary culprit, probably coupled with one of the extensions I'm running.
Right now, the things I would most want fixed for my own use are (in order): stability, memory usage, CPU usage (esp. when Flash adverts appear, but I should probably just block those), and then improved CSS support.
But I'm too stupid to do it myself, I'm sorry to say. Maybe someday I'll really dive into the codebase, but the code is huge an complex.
You're right, Google isn't coming up with an entirely new concept. All they're is doing is building a better mousetrap, and for some strange reason, the world is beating a path to their door.:-)
Re:The only thing wrong with Flikr is...
on
A History of Flickr
·
· Score: 1
Actually, that's what Yahoo! did when they bought Geocities.
Blogger admits he has never used service. Does not address the fact that you CAN covert to another format if you wish.
Legally? I can remove the DRM without violating the TOS?
I mean, sure I/can/ convert them to MP3. I/can/ just download from Gnutella and get them completely free. But that's/illegal/. I was under the impression that converting my iTunes songs to an un-DRMed format would also be illegal.
'It's always the criminal's fault, and therefore no one else did anything wrong.'
If a car company starts selling cars that all use the same key, the person who uses the key to his car to steal someone else's car is at fault. And the car company did absolutely nothing wrong.
The bit that *was* contested was code *which Gates himself* had taken from public domain.
BASIC was public domain. Perhaps the interpreter he ported was public domain*. Public domain means non-viral. Gates rightfully owned the Altair BASIC port he'd made, insofar as copyright laws applied to computer software at the time. If I recolour a public domain photograph, add Jaffa forehead tatoos to the people in the photograph, and draw a speech bubble, I own the resulting work.
* Actually, some sources suggest he wrote the interpreter essentially from scratch, but your post seems to say otherwise, and I don't see a need to dispute the point here. Anyway, I don't really know.
Here's an idea for the Coral team: what about converting to Coral all links in a coralized web page?
They have a FAQ entry about that. Basically, in order to eventually move to a 'anyone can run a Coral Cache server' model, they need a digest method to ensure a malicious Coral server doesn't insert adverts (or anything else). This means they can't edit the page at all.
For now, I guess we can all use Greasemonkey. I suspect there's a script to do it already available, but even if not, it wouldn't be hard to create one.
There's certainly a balance to be struck, but America is about putting liberty first. If you want safety first, try Singapore. That's where I'd go. From what I hesr, the people there are very friendly ($100 fine for glaring at another person), well-educated, and the streets are clean. But I prefer liberty, so America is the country for me. Singapore is a perfectly fine country, well-suited for people who prefer safety. It's not the liberty-is-top-priority people who need to leave America.
I don't hate people for focusing on safety first. I hate people for trying to change American into a country that focuses on safety first. That's not what this country is about.
(Note: there is no sarcasm in this post. Really. Singapore truly sounds like a great place to live. It's just not for me.)
You're assuming that global warming is a real event and not just part of a multi-million year global trend.
Um...if global warming is part of a multi-million year global trend then it's a real event, and will really raise ocean levels, along with the other fun stuff mentioned.
You may be right. I'm thinking maybe the problem is that I think of it as me using my computer when it's really them using my computer. The latter seems to be the judges position, but it just seems really weird to me. When I download something from sunsite.unc.edu, I'm _asking_ _them_ to send me the file. I'm not going onto their computer and using it to send myself the file--at least, not as I think about it. But it is automatically responding to my request, much the way a copier automatically responds to my pressing the 'Copy' button. (Actually, my copier doesn't work too well, but the point stands.)
(But are you using my CD burner without my permission? When I let people come into my house, does that mean they're allowed to browse through my hardcopy porn collection? I guess I'm authorising them to view my porn CD collection and to use the burner. (The original case the judge cited involved a lirary and copier. Probably used the library's paper too.))
Didn't work out that way with music sharing in Canada. Apparently, when I open a filesharing program, connect to the network, respond to search queries asking for 'Modonna - Like a Virgin.mp3', and send it to requesters, I'm not distributing the file because:
I didn't do any advertising. (Then how'd they know to ask me? No queries weresent until I connected to the network.)
I didn't authorise them to download it from me. (Gee, did they hack my computer?)
And the US had that whole 'wiretapping' cellphones is cool, of course.
Sure, judges can research this stuff, but oftentimes they don't do a very good job.
I work for GoDaddy, so I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies. Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about.
But trust me. You dont.
I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you dont know what you are talking about. This is how bad info gets passed around. If you dont know about the topic, don't make yourself sound like you do. Because some Slashdotters will believe anything they hear.
Why do we need research? We know how to treat it and how to prevent it. What we need to spend money on is actually/doing just that/.
Okay, R&D is still useful, but when are we going to realise we're spending all our money on finding Yet Another Medical Discover that we're too cheap to actually/use/.
Slashdot Mirror
Respectively? Are you saying the 2.0001 divides by 3 and the 2.0002 divides by three? But they both can divide by either, is the point, right?
(Am I just begging for a 'You must be new here' post for not instantly assuming it's just lack of good editing?)
Google does do click-through tracking. If you have Personalised Results, it will always track what's clicked. IF you don't, it still tracks on occation. (I don't know how it whether to track or not, but it was doing it from time to time long before they had personalisation.)
That's wacky. I currently have over thirty tabs open--including Google.com/ig which autoreloads every five minutes and another local file that reloads every thirty seconds, and I've been viewing stuff on Google Video--and it's using 111MB mem + 114MB swap after running sine sometime yesterday or the day before. This is Firefox 1.5.0.1 on Windows XP with 512MB of RAM. I do wish it used a lot less memory, but I'm not complaining so much at this point. It used to use more, but it's been much better these past few weeks, possibly because I set config.trim_on_minimise to true.
On the other hand, it's crashing nearly daily for me. Google Gmail seems to be the primary culprit, probably coupled with one of the extensions I'm running.
Right now, the things I would most want fixed for my own use are (in order): stability, memory usage, CPU usage (esp. when Flash adverts appear, but I should probably just block those), and then improved CSS support.But I'm too stupid to do it myself, I'm sorry to say. Maybe someday I'll really dive into the codebase, but the code is huge an complex.
You're right, Google isn't coming up with an entirely new concept. All they're is doing is building a better mousetrap, and for some strange reason, the world is beating a path to their door. :-)
Actually, that's what Yahoo! did when they bought Geocities.
Legally? I can remove the DRM without violating the TOS?
I mean, sure I /can/ convert them to MP3. I /can/ just download from Gnutella and get them completely free. But that's /illegal/. I was under the impression that converting my iTunes songs to an un-DRMed format would also be illegal.
'It's always the criminal's fault, and therefore no one else did anything wrong.'
If a car company starts selling cars that all use the same key, the person who uses the key to his car to steal someone else's car is at fault. And the car company did absolutely nothing wrong.
Maybe the tax rate isn't 100%? After all, this isn't in Massachusetts.
BASIC was public domain. Perhaps the interpreter he ported was public domain*. Public domain means non-viral. Gates rightfully owned the Altair BASIC port he'd made, insofar as copyright laws applied to computer software at the time. If I recolour a public domain photograph, add Jaffa forehead tatoos to the people in the photograph, and draw a speech bubble, I own the resulting work.
* Actually, some sources suggest he wrote the interpreter essentially from scratch, but your post seems to say otherwise, and I don't see a need to dispute the point here. Anyway, I don't really know.
Beef, actually.
Maybe we should ban divorce and have mandetory remarriage if your spouse dies while you have kids under eighteen(?).
'If you cannot find a new spouse, one will be provided for you at government expense.'
I can't think of a situation where 'have went' would be correct. It's 'have gone'.
That wasn't a run-on sentence, to be a run-on sentence, it would need a comma splice, his sentence was just too damn long.
They have a FAQ entry about that. Basically, in order to eventually move to a 'anyone can run a Coral Cache server' model, they need a digest method to ensure a malicious Coral server doesn't insert adverts (or anything else). This means they can't edit the page at all.
For now, I guess we can all use Greasemonkey. I suspect there's a script to do it already available, but even if not, it wouldn't be hard to create one.
There's certainly a balance to be struck, but America is about putting liberty first. If you want safety first, try Singapore. That's where I'd go. From what I hesr, the people there are very friendly ($100 fine for glaring at another person), well-educated, and the streets are clean. But I prefer liberty, so America is the country for me. Singapore is a perfectly fine country, well-suited for people who prefer safety. It's not the liberty-is-top-priority people who need to leave America.
I don't hate people for focusing on safety first. I hate people for trying to change American into a country that focuses on safety first. That's not what this country is about.
(Note: there is no sarcasm in this post. Really. Singapore truly sounds like a great place to live. It's just not for me.)
Um...if global warming is part of a multi-million year global trend then it's a real event, and will really raise ocean levels, along with the other fun stuff mentioned.
You may be right. I'm thinking maybe the problem is that I think of it as me using my computer when it's really them using my computer. The latter seems to be the judges position, but it just seems really weird to me. When I download something from sunsite.unc.edu, I'm _asking_ _them_ to send me the file. I'm not going onto their computer and using it to send myself the file--at least, not as I think about it. But it is automatically responding to my request, much the way a copier automatically responds to my pressing the 'Copy' button. (Actually, my copier doesn't work too well, but the point stands.)
(But are you using my CD burner without my permission? When I let people come into my house, does that mean they're allowed to browse through my hardcopy porn collection? I guess I'm authorising them to view my porn CD collection and to use the burner. (The original case the judge cited involved a lirary and copier. Probably used the library's paper too.))
Didn't work out that way with music sharing in Canada. Apparently, when I open a filesharing program, connect to the network, respond to search queries asking for 'Modonna - Like a Virgin.mp3', and send it to requesters, I'm not distributing the file because:
And the US had that whole 'wiretapping' cellphones is cool, of course.
Sure, judges can research this stuff, but oftentimes they don't do a very good job.
Ditto for antibiotics.
You got it wrong. It's like this...
I work for GoDaddy, so I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies. Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about.
But trust me. You dont.
I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you dont know what you are talking about. This is how bad info gets passed around. If you dont know about the topic, don't make yourself sound like you do. Because some Slashdotters will believe anything they hear.
-2 is not prime. Primes are a subset of the natural numbers. Gotta be positive to be prime.
Additionally, it's an inelegant definition. I'd just say 'A natural number with exactly two [natural?] factors, namely itself and one.'
I consider the Silmarillion that.
Why do we need research? We know how to treat it and how to prevent it. What we need to spend money on is actually /doing just that/.
Okay, R&D is still useful, but when are we going to realise we're spending all our money on finding Yet Another Medical Discover that we're too cheap to actually /use/.
Nitpick: Cogent is actually a tier-2 carrier.