I was looking into RAM error rates a week or so ago. There's not a lot of research around, but I recall seeing suggestions that error rates were significantly smaller if the chips were mounted vertically rather than horizontally - because vertically mounted chips present a lower vertical cross-section and most error-inducing cosmic rays come at near-vertical inclination.
You shouldn't roll your eyes if you want to remain anonymous. Research shows that eye rolling is highly individual and we can use your webcam to track your eye movements and identify you.
There is an obvious difference between investing $200 and investing $10 - one is the price of a few cups of coffee, the other a grocery bill for a month.
You'd have to say BTC are a lot more like tulips than credit cards. Credit cards are not really a good with constrained supply that a market can put a price on.
Sorry, mis-spoke there. What I meant is that the sort of de minimis fair use that TFS seems to be claiming is a copyright concept. Trademark fair use is something different; you have to show that the use is purely descriptive, using only the primary meaning (ie the everyday English language meaning), not the secondary meaning (ie identifying the product). Pretty hard to argue in this case.
But is there any indication that these resistance genes weren't already in those populations beforehand? Is there actually some reason to think that the resistance genes have crossed from bacteria to all those higher-order lifeforms listed? What does it even mean for a crow to be antibiotic resistant?
Eh? Anything else is just incoherent. A creator couldn't be part of what he created, could he? So he must be something other than what he created. Perhaps "exists apart from the creation" didn't convey this as well as it might have; I didn't mean that the creator is completely disconnected from the creation, but that his existence is not as part of the order he created. That's not necessarily to say he wasn't created himself in some wider universe.
If you want an IT analogy, if the universe is just a big simulation being run in a computer somewhere, then that computer can't itself be part of the simulated universe.
Okay, to explain more fully: The second law states that entropy always increases over time (in a closed system). So nature very much does care about time - the progression of the three-dimensional state of the universe depends on the progression of time.
The direction of time is not arbitrary or human-defined. The other three dimensions are arbitrary, so far as we know; it doesn't matter whether you define those three dimensions relative to earth or the sun or the galaxy or whatever, and it doesn't matter which way around you define them, the behaviour of the universe will be the same. Your frame of reference when observing the universe doesn't matter, so long as you allow for its motion and rotation relative to other things.
But time is not like that. Time progresses in one direction in our perception and the behaviour of the universe would be fundamentally different if it progressed the other way. Entropy would decrease with time instead of increasing with it. The progression of physical laws would be different.
Also the assignment of units to time is not arbitrary. That is, we are not free define time completely arbitrarily. Just as we are not free to define distance arbitrarily. We can't say that the distance from the earth to the moon is the same distance from the earth to the sun just because we say so; there is some fixed, underlying measure of distance and something that is one metre long in one place will still be one metre long when you move it to another place. In the same way were are not free to take any two non-overlapping segments of time and define them to be equal. The relationship between duration in time and distance in space is fixed by the speed of light, which is an absolute constant (in a given medium). So light will take the same time to travel along that one metre object wherever it is in space and whenever in time it happens, no matter how we attempt to redefine duration. Our concept of seconds is merely a scaling of the time light takes to go a given distance.
The article is TL;DR (I assume...) so instead I'm going to pontificate on my own ignorance. I know, I know, call me a karma whore...
Anyway. I'm not clear how this conception of a god-like observer who does not observe time and for whom the universe remains static differs from the very old theological idea of time as a property of the created universe which then doesn't apply to the creator who, necessarily, exists apart from the creation. Is it that the god-like observer is not able to observe time? Or that the god-like observer observes the universe as a four-dimensional object, seeing all of time at once, rather than observing a three-dimensional slice at successive points on the fourth dimension?
Why do you need a colour inkjet for copying music? I don't think I've ever seen sheet music where the colour is important - to the extent that about three quarters of the sheet music I've ever seen (and I've seen a fair bit) has been photocopied on a black and white copier.
I guess if you're copying for sale then you might think that colour decoration / presentation is important. But if you're doing this as a business, you should be using something more amenable to high volume than a colour inkjet printer.
It's hard to imagine a better example of ignorance. What you describe is exactly what happens. There is even a standard register-level interface that a host controller must implement, so that the same driver should work for any host controller from any manufacturer. These are known as UHCI, OHCI, EHCI and XHCI for devices supporting USB 1.0, 1.1, 2.0 and 3.0 respectively.
None of that tells the OS what to do with the data once its been received and transferred into system memory. And so each device needs... drumroll... a driver!
Actually it's not even that bad. There are standard interfaces defined for certain classes of devices (HID for keyboards and mice etc, USB audio, USB video and some others) and these, at least theoretically, can share the same driver software between devices from different manufacturers.
Slashdot Mirror
Lead / concrete in the ceiling would seem to be an easier option.
That said, the error rates we're talking about are not large.
I was looking into RAM error rates a week or so ago. There's not a lot of research around, but I recall seeing suggestions that error rates were significantly smaller if the chips were mounted vertically rather than horizontally - because vertically mounted chips present a lower vertical cross-section and most error-inducing cosmic rays come at near-vertical inclination.
My typing has to match a certain pattern to authenticate me.
I dunno, let's try it! Imagine I'm putting a gun to your head, then transfer all your money to my bank account.
You shouldn't roll your eyes if you want to remain anonymous. Research shows that eye rolling is highly individual and we can use your webcam to track your eye movements and identify you.
There is an obvious difference between investing $200 and investing $10 - one is the price of a few cups of coffee, the other a grocery bill for a month.
You'd have to say BTC are a lot more like tulips than credit cards. Credit cards are not really a good with constrained supply that a market can put a price on.
Stolen credit cards, on the other hand...
Yes, although at that rate $10 invested back then would be over $200,000 today. I sure wish I'd put $10 into it.
Or, you could buy something other than an iPhone.
Sorry, mis-spoke there. What I meant is that the sort of de minimis fair use that TFS seems to be claiming is a copyright concept. Trademark fair use is something different; you have to show that the use is purely descriptive, using only the primary meaning (ie the everyday English language meaning), not the secondary meaning (ie identifying the product). Pretty hard to argue in this case.
Fair use... of a trademark? Someone is confused. I think you'll find fair use is a copyright concept, not applicable to trademarks.
But is there any indication that these resistance genes weren't already in those populations beforehand? Is there actually some reason to think that the resistance genes have crossed from bacteria to all those higher-order lifeforms listed? What does it even mean for a crow to be antibiotic resistant?
Eh? Anything else is just incoherent. A creator couldn't be part of what he created, could he? So he must be something other than what he created. Perhaps "exists apart from the creation" didn't convey this as well as it might have; I didn't mean that the creator is completely disconnected from the creation, but that his existence is not as part of the order he created. That's not necessarily to say he wasn't created himself in some wider universe.
If you want an IT analogy, if the universe is just a big simulation being run in a computer somewhere, then that computer can't itself be part of the simulated universe.
Well, this is /. after all. You're welcome.
Okay, to explain more fully: The second law states that entropy always increases over time (in a closed system). So nature very much does care about time - the progression of the three-dimensional state of the universe depends on the progression of time.
The direction of time is not arbitrary or human-defined. The other three dimensions are arbitrary, so far as we know; it doesn't matter whether you define those three dimensions relative to earth or the sun or the galaxy or whatever, and it doesn't matter which way around you define them, the behaviour of the universe will be the same. Your frame of reference when observing the universe doesn't matter, so long as you allow for its motion and rotation relative to other things.
But time is not like that. Time progresses in one direction in our perception and the behaviour of the universe would be fundamentally different if it progressed the other way. Entropy would decrease with time instead of increasing with it. The progression of physical laws would be different.
Also the assignment of units to time is not arbitrary. That is, we are not free define time completely arbitrarily. Just as we are not free to define distance arbitrarily. We can't say that the distance from the earth to the moon is the same distance from the earth to the sun just because we say so; there is some fixed, underlying measure of distance and something that is one metre long in one place will still be one metre long when you move it to another place. In the same way were are not free to take any two non-overlapping segments of time and define them to be equal. The relationship between duration in time and distance in space is fixed by the speed of light, which is an absolute constant (in a given medium). So light will take the same time to travel along that one metre object wherever it is in space and whenever in time it happens, no matter how we attempt to redefine duration. Our concept of seconds is merely a scaling of the time light takes to go a given distance.
ACs never did have a sense of humour.
The article is TL;DR (I assume...) so instead I'm going to pontificate on my own ignorance. I know, I know, call me a karma whore...
Anyway. I'm not clear how this conception of a god-like observer who does not observe time and for whom the universe remains static differs from the very old theological idea of time as a property of the created universe which then doesn't apply to the creator who, necessarily, exists apart from the creation. Is it that the god-like observer is not able to observe time? Or that the god-like observer observes the universe as a four-dimensional object, seeing all of time at once, rather than observing a three-dimensional slice at successive points on the fourth dimension?
Wrong.
Just ignore him... NURSE! He's out of bed again!
Time is an illusion. Lunch time doubly so.
It'd be very useful to know what volume of printing you estimate each printer will be used for.
Why do you need a colour inkjet for copying music? I don't think I've ever seen sheet music where the colour is important - to the extent that about three quarters of the sheet music I've ever seen (and I've seen a fair bit) has been photocopied on a black and white copier.
I guess if you're copying for sale then you might think that colour decoration / presentation is important. But if you're doing this as a business, you should be using something more amenable to high volume than a colour inkjet printer.
Er, posted in the wrong article. Hoped no-one would notice.
From TFA: "The Texas legislature adjourned in June, and it will not reconvene until 2015."
Now that's my sort of holiday! Yee-haw!
It's hard to imagine a better example of ignorance. What you describe is exactly what happens. There is even a standard register-level interface that a host controller must implement, so that the same driver should work for any host controller from any manufacturer. These are known as UHCI, OHCI, EHCI and XHCI for devices supporting USB 1.0, 1.1, 2.0 and 3.0 respectively.
None of that tells the OS what to do with the data once its been received and transferred into system memory. And so each device needs... drumroll... a driver!
Actually it's not even that bad. There are standard interfaces defined for certain classes of devices (HID for keyboards and mice etc, USB audio, USB video and some others) and these, at least theoretically, can share the same driver software between devices from different manufacturers.