"Smidge" would have to be a trademark, not a copyright, since there is precedence for trademarking common English vocabulary. (See: Microsoft "Windows," "Apple," etc)
However, my bit string holds no other pre-established meaning in any known language. I fact, trying to convert it to ASCII text yields an unprintable character (0xE9 0x28).
The entire *point* of this discussion is that copyrights in the digital age don't work like they're supposed to. I'm glad we at least agree on that... but if I had the money to waste I probably (and sadly) could get my "1110100100101000 copyright" enforced in a court. Especially if I strong-arm the defendant like the RIAA does. =Smidge=
Shortly after posting I remembered a site that claimed copyright on each of 10,000,000 "melodies" generated by the DTMF tones when dialing 7-digit phone numbers. In other words, if you consider a phone to be an instrument, you technically violated their copyright every time you called someone in the US with a touchtone phone.
Why 1000 bits? I wasn't aware copyright has any restrictions on length. Why does it have to be "meaningful" in any human context? In the digital world, every single bit is "meaningful."
I hereby copyright "1110100100101000." In the music word, even a sample of a work is considered infringement so any file that has that binary sequence in it is infringing.
I can guarantee it appears in every single GIF image ever made.
Therefore, all GIF images - or at the very least all images created or copied after this moment - are violating my copyright. Pay me. =Smidge=
It appears we were referring to two different pictures. The first link compares the device to a US dime, the second link compares it to a US quarter. I didn't read the first link because it went to a blog (which are typically useless when more direct sources are available.)
The US is already "ahead" of Iceland in terms of raw power produced by Geothermal - about 15 billion kilowatt hours per year, compared to Iceland's roughly 4 billion.
Don't forget that Iceland has 1/1000th the population of the US, and is small/compact enough to make things like district heating practical and efficient. 1% of a billion is more than 100% of a million. =Smidge=
Only because they cool below the dew point - which, in turn, is dependent on the humidity levels.
People who build active cooling into their computers (for overclocking) typically insulate the chip(s) and cooling block to keep air-exposed surfaces at or above ambient temperatures for just that reason.
Also, even if it does produce condensation I'd say there's little reason to worry... just recycle the condensate to provide evaporative cooling on the (much hotter) heat sink side of the system. =Smidge=
Let's assume that one mole of calcium hydroxide would counteract one mole of carbon dioxide.
You have just failed the test. Turn in your geek badge on your way out.
If the effect of calcium on CO2 solubility were only the result of calcium carbonate formation, then you would be correct and we wouldn't be having this conversation. However it also has a lot to do with the pH of the water, which calcium increases. The net result is that your assumption quoted above is simply wrong - one mole of calcium carbonate produces one mole of lime and one mole of CO2, but adding that lime to seawater in the right proportion results in TWO moles of CO2 being dissolved.
Two other things of note: Both air and water move across the planet. It should not be necessary to create these carbon sinks directly adjacent to the source of CO2 since, given appropriate timescales (years) it all balances out in the end. =Smidge=
Lye is Sodium Hydroxide. Lime is Calcium Hydroxide.
It will still burn you since it's caustic, but it's very mild compared to Lye. Lime is used in cement and concrete mixes, lye is used in drain and oven cleaners.
Both, however, would be totally harmless in the dilution quantities discussed in the article. =Smidge=
Unfortunately that's one thing a lot of Linux advocates fail to get: Not everyone has the ability to alter the code to "fix" things.
This is especially important for the types of Linux advocates that are pushing for "Linux on the Desktop" and other non-specialized applications. You are trying to push Linux onto people who can barely turn a computer on without electrocuting themselves - do not expect them to "scratch their own itch."
What we need are fewer self-righteous asshats who can actually put themselves in the position of a novice and try to understand their needs - or at least listen to them without condescending retorts. Windows, for all it's shortcomings, tailors specifically to novice users (ie the vast majority of computer users) and that's why it's so popular. Cry monopoly all you want but until you fix your usability issues you are not going to make much progress. =Smidge=
Weather notwithstanding, combination battery/solar would probably work. It's not like they use THAT much power. Still talking a few grand *per relay* plus permission to use the land.
You should probably just bite the bullet and have a cable run. How far is it, exactly, to the nearest whatever? =Smidge=
Unless, of course, you're waking a computer out of hibernate mode... then it's pretty much all about disk I/O throughput.
If this were possible, it could basically become unnecessary to actually *shut down* your computer.
More importantly, if you suddenly lose (or switch off) power it might be possible to simply pick up where you left off - with some minor firmware tweaks to get the hardware running again without wiping RAM. =Smidge=
As someone said earlier, the EeePM has gotten into the same price bracket as traditional low-end laptops. In fact, you get more performance for the money with a "regular" laptop.
For $690 for get an EeePC with 1GB RAM, 40GB HDD, 10" screen and 1.6GHz Intel Atom processor.
For about 10% more cost you can get something with twice the RAM, at least five times the HDD, dual-core processor and larger display.
There are only valid two reasons I can see how the EeePC is not pricing itself out of the market: First is weight, since they are somewhat lighter than the competition. Second is the SSD which, honestly, doesn't compensate enough for the smaller battery (which is also a big part of why its lighter) =Smidge=
A court order is not the same as a warrant, but that's another story.
Perhaps I'm approaching this the wrong way. Do you believe the wiretapping the Bush administration allegedly conducted was warrantless and/or otherwise illegal?
Keep in mind that under the laws at the time it was illegal to intercept private communications without a warrant, so a warrantless wiretap is by definition illegal... but I phrase the question this way just in case you might think there was some other reason. =Smidge=
3: It is not the telecom's job to "comb over every [request?]" - it's the court's. Show the telecom a warrant and everything is good to go. The whole issue exists because there were no warrants. The government was spying on its own citizens and there was zero oversight.
Also, this is RETROACTIVE immunity, not FUTURE immunity... that means he wants to protect them investigation regarding things they've already done. No part of the immunity clause would protect telecoms in the future.
4: You'll have to clarify that point, assuming there is a point, because I don't think this part is English. Are you suggesting the president should be able to do whatever he wants just because he labels something "secret?" Are you saying that the real purpose of suing the telecoms is to reveal classified information?
Please adjust your tinfoil and try again. =Smidge=
Bush is unwilling to sign FISA without telecom immunity and has actually pocket-vetoed the same bill before because it lacked that immunity.
And yet Bush and most Republicans cry out that FISA is absolutely vital to protecting our country.
This leads us to one of two possibilities:
1) Bush feels that protecting the telecoms are more important than protecting the country, since he is willing to let us go without a revised FISA bill unless we give the telecoms what thy want.
2) The FISA bill is not actually that important for national security, but is more or less a trojan horse for covering their collective asses.
I suppose both are possible, and not mutually exclusive, but faced with this choice I find it far to unsettling that Bush would literally put our whole country at risk (as he himself claims FISA is that important) for the sake of a few dozen CEOs. =Smidge=
Legality is not the ultimate arbiter of my behavior. My ideas of right and wrong are not based on what is or is not legal.
This is true. Unfortunately the ISP probably cares even if you don't... and guess who's conditions your service contract are under?
You have misunderstood the fundamental nature of the internet. You are under the common misconception that the internet was meant to be client-server.
And that was a brilliant attempt to sidestep the question posed.
You said it yourself: "If you really do need more upstream than that, you really should get hosting. It's not unreasonable."
So I'll ask again... what would you be uploading, and to who, that would amount to over 900GB in a month on a domestic connection? If there was a real legitimate use for that much bandwidth you should have no trouble identifying it. If all you have are ideals then it comes down to those ideals versus the ISP's want to not get sued - guess who wins that argument. =Smidge=
However, there are lots of people in japan downloading or uploading stuff (after all, that's where fansubbing groups get high-quality RAWs).
Which is illegal (even if you try to hid behind that half-assed argument that it's not licensed in your country/region yet, let's not kid ourselves...)
And I think that is exactly the kind of behavior they're targeting with this kind of cap. A legit home user would have a tough time reaching 900GB - speed is ultimately irrelevant as long as it's fast enough to actually reach the limit. It's all about volume, and what would you be uploading, and to who, that would amount to over 900GB in a month on a domestic connection? =Smidge=
To hit the 900GB limit you'd have to upload at (if I did the math right) 364KB/sec nonstop every day for an entire month.
I don't know what the hell you're doing but that's a pretty generous cap, and something a typical family is unlikely to reach... even uploading 30GB HD home movies. =Smidge=
Slashdot Mirror
"Smidge" would have to be a trademark, not a copyright, since there is precedence for trademarking common English vocabulary. (See: Microsoft "Windows," "Apple," etc)
However, my bit string holds no other pre-established meaning in any known language. I fact, trying to convert it to ASCII text yields an unprintable character (0xE9 0x28).
The entire *point* of this discussion is that copyrights in the digital age don't work like they're supposed to. I'm glad we at least agree on that... but if I had the money to waste I probably (and sadly) could get my "1110100100101000 copyright" enforced in a court. Especially if I strong-arm the defendant like the RIAA does.
=Smidge=
Shortly after posting I remembered a site that claimed copyright on each of 10,000,000 "melodies" generated by the DTMF tones when dialing 7-digit phone numbers. In other words, if you consider a phone to be an instrument, you technically violated their copyright every time you called someone in the US with a touchtone phone.
Hilarious.
=Smidge=
Why 1000 bits? I wasn't aware copyright has any restrictions on length. Why does it have to be "meaningful" in any human context? In the digital world, every single bit is "meaningful."
I hereby copyright "1110100100101000." In the music word, even a sample of a work is considered infringement so any file that has that binary sequence in it is infringing.
I can guarantee it appears in every single GIF image ever made.
Therefore, all GIF images - or at the very least all images created or copied after this moment - are violating my copyright. Pay me.
=Smidge=
It appears we were referring to two different pictures. The first link compares the device to a US dime, the second link compares it to a US quarter. I didn't read the first link because it went to a blog (which are typically useless when more direct sources are available.)
=Smidge=
No, it's one of the newer US quarters. About 7/8" (22.2mm) in diameter.
=Smidge=
The US is already "ahead" of Iceland in terms of raw power produced by Geothermal - about 15 billion kilowatt hours per year, compared to Iceland's roughly 4 billion.
Don't forget that Iceland has 1/1000th the population of the US, and is small/compact enough to make things like district heating practical and efficient. 1% of a billion is more than 100% of a million.
=Smidge=
Judging from the overall effectiveness of Cuil search, I get the feeling she's the one that worked on the original PigeonRank(tm) system.
=Smidge=
Sure would make the morning commute easier...
=Smidge=
Only because they cool below the dew point - which, in turn, is dependent on the humidity levels.
People who build active cooling into their computers (for overclocking) typically insulate the chip(s) and cooling block to keep air-exposed surfaces at or above ambient temperatures for just that reason.
Also, even if it does produce condensation I'd say there's little reason to worry... just recycle the condensate to provide evaporative cooling on the (much hotter) heat sink side of the system.
=Smidge=
Let's assume that one mole of calcium hydroxide would counteract one mole of carbon dioxide.
You have just failed the test. Turn in your geek badge on your way out.
If the effect of calcium on CO2 solubility were only the result of calcium carbonate formation, then you would be correct and we wouldn't be having this conversation. However it also has a lot to do with the pH of the water, which calcium increases. The net result is that your assumption quoted above is simply wrong - one mole of calcium carbonate produces one mole of lime and one mole of CO2, but adding that lime to seawater in the right proportion results in TWO moles of CO2 being dissolved.
Two other things of note: Both air and water move across the planet. It should not be necessary to create these carbon sinks directly adjacent to the source of CO2 since, given appropriate timescales (years) it all balances out in the end.
=Smidge=
Lye is Sodium Hydroxide. Lime is Calcium Hydroxide.
It will still burn you since it's caustic, but it's very mild compared to Lye. Lime is used in cement and concrete mixes, lye is used in drain and oven cleaners.
Both, however, would be totally harmless in the dilution quantities discussed in the article.
=Smidge=
They're not fairing too well because the sea is actually too acidic as it is.
=Smidge=
Unfortunately that's one thing a lot of Linux advocates fail to get: Not everyone has the ability to alter the code to "fix" things.
This is especially important for the types of Linux advocates that are pushing for "Linux on the Desktop" and other non-specialized applications. You are trying to push Linux onto people who can barely turn a computer on without electrocuting themselves - do not expect them to "scratch their own itch."
What we need are fewer self-righteous asshats who can actually put themselves in the position of a novice and try to understand their needs - or at least listen to them without condescending retorts. Windows, for all it's shortcomings, tailors specifically to novice users (ie the vast majority of computer users) and that's why it's so popular. Cry monopoly all you want but until you fix your usability issues you are not going to make much progress.
=Smidge=
Weather notwithstanding, combination battery/solar would probably work. It's not like they use THAT much power. Still talking a few grand *per relay* plus permission to use the land.
You should probably just bite the bullet and have a cable run. How far is it, exactly, to the nearest whatever?
=Smidge=
IANAL but isn't there some recent laws/legal precedence that would actually expose them to MORE trouble if they didn't keep those records?
A story of a certain torrent site comes to mind...
=Smidge=
The difference is current RAM needs to be maintained. Suspend to RAM doesn't help in a power outage and/or dead battery condition.
Otherwise yes, they're pretty much the same thing.
=Smidge=
Unless, of course, you're waking a computer out of hibernate mode... then it's pretty much all about disk I/O throughput.
If this were possible, it could basically become unnecessary to actually *shut down* your computer.
More importantly, if you suddenly lose (or switch off) power it might be possible to simply pick up where you left off - with some minor firmware tweaks to get the hardware running again without wiping RAM.
=Smidge=
FYI: http://www.xe.com/ucc/ (Bookmark it now!)
As someone said earlier, the EeePM has gotten into the same price bracket as traditional low-end laptops. In fact, you get more performance for the money with a "regular" laptop.
For $690 for get an EeePC with 1GB RAM, 40GB HDD, 10" screen and 1.6GHz Intel Atom processor.
For about 10% more cost you can get something with twice the RAM, at least five times the HDD, dual-core processor and larger display.
There are only valid two reasons I can see how the EeePC is not pricing itself out of the market: First is weight, since they are somewhat lighter than the competition. Second is the SSD which, honestly, doesn't compensate enough for the smaller battery (which is also a big part of why its lighter)
=Smidge=
Who buys stuff they don't need?
A wise man once said: "It's amazing the things people would rather have than money."
=Smidge=
A court order is not the same as a warrant, but that's another story.
Perhaps I'm approaching this the wrong way. Do you believe the wiretapping the Bush administration allegedly conducted was warrantless and/or otherwise illegal?
Keep in mind that under the laws at the time it was illegal to intercept private communications without a warrant, so a warrantless wiretap is by definition illegal... but I phrase the question this way just in case you might think there was some other reason.
=Smidge=
3: It is not the telecom's job to "comb over every [request?]" - it's the court's. Show the telecom a warrant and everything is good to go. The whole issue exists because there were no warrants. The government was spying on its own citizens and there was zero oversight.
Also, this is RETROACTIVE immunity, not FUTURE immunity... that means he wants to protect them investigation regarding things they've already done. No part of the immunity clause would protect telecoms in the future.
4: You'll have to clarify that point, assuming there is a point, because I don't think this part is English. Are you suggesting the president should be able to do whatever he wants just because he labels something "secret?" Are you saying that the real purpose of suing the telecoms is to reveal classified information?
Please adjust your tinfoil and try again.
=Smidge=
Bush is unwilling to sign FISA without telecom immunity and has actually pocket-vetoed the same bill before because it lacked that immunity.
And yet Bush and most Republicans cry out that FISA is absolutely vital to protecting our country.
This leads us to one of two possibilities:
1) Bush feels that protecting the telecoms are more important than protecting the country, since he is willing to let us go without a revised FISA bill unless we give the telecoms what thy want.
2) The FISA bill is not actually that important for national security, but is more or less a trojan horse for covering their collective asses.
I suppose both are possible, and not mutually exclusive, but faced with this choice I find it far to unsettling that Bush would literally put our whole country at risk (as he himself claims FISA is that important) for the sake of a few dozen CEOs.
=Smidge=
Legality is not the ultimate arbiter of my behavior. My ideas of right and wrong are not based on what is or is not legal.
This is true. Unfortunately the ISP probably cares even if you don't... and guess who's conditions your service contract are under?
You have misunderstood the fundamental nature of the internet. You are under the common misconception that the internet was meant to be client-server.
And that was a brilliant attempt to sidestep the question posed.
You said it yourself: "If you really do need more upstream than that, you really should get hosting. It's not unreasonable."
So I'll ask again... what would you be uploading, and to who, that would amount to over 900GB in a month on a domestic connection? If there was a real legitimate use for that much bandwidth you should have no trouble identifying it. If all you have are ideals then it comes down to those ideals versus the ISP's want to not get sued - guess who wins that argument.
=Smidge=
However, there are lots of people in japan downloading or uploading stuff (after all, that's where fansubbing groups get high-quality RAWs).
Which is illegal (even if you try to hid behind that half-assed argument that it's not licensed in your country/region yet, let's not kid ourselves...)
And I think that is exactly the kind of behavior they're targeting with this kind of cap. A legit home user would have a tough time reaching 900GB - speed is ultimately irrelevant as long as it's fast enough to actually reach the limit. It's all about volume, and what would you be uploading, and to who, that would amount to over 900GB in a month on a domestic connection?
=Smidge=
To hit the 900GB limit you'd have to upload at (if I did the math right) 364KB/sec nonstop every day for an entire month.
I don't know what the hell you're doing but that's a pretty generous cap, and something a typical family is unlikely to reach... even uploading 30GB HD home movies.
=Smidge=