Mu: it does not apply. Or more correctly: The facts do not support a decision on the issue at this time one way or another.
(Well, I'm sure there would have to be 'abortion is legal at least in order to save the life of the mother if the alternative is that both the mother and child die'. Widening the decision scope beyond that would be tricky at the very least.)
On both of these they might be able to form a coherent approach if they were given a specific, defined question about the issue. Part of the current problem on both issues is that the various sides have different questions they are trying to answer with their stance.
If it's like the OLPC screen, that's a semi-difficult question. It depends on the colors in the image you are displaying, and the lighting you are viewing it under.
The OLPC's screen, in pure black-and-white mode while front-lit, has basically four times the resolution it does when in back-lit full-color mode.
On the other hand, if the NSA had broken AES, they'd have to worry that their counterparts in Russia/China/India/Country-of-Interest might have done the same, and therefore worry that all the government agencies that currently use AES as 'secure' aren't secure either. So they'd want it to be known that it was breakable, in order to get replacements in place.
If it were the best available, they might not release that they had already broken it, but even just a few comments about likely weaknesses (maybe even through third-party mouthpieces) would get others looking for holes and other options.
This has very little to do with Bill Gates, per se.
Microsoft managed to get itself into a monopoly position while the PC market exploded. The PC market has since stabalized, and people are realizing there are options.
There was no where for Microsoft to grow to. So they can't grow anymore.
Having grown up overseas, in countries where the 'official' release was likely to never happen at all...
You seriously under-estimate the quality possible with a camcorder in movie theater. Sure, some were dim, unsteady, and with people walking in front of them. Others were absolutely pristine, and in full VHS quality. (DVDs weren't common yet. I assume they could get near-DVD quality these days if they want.) It was often hard to tell if a movie was legit or not.
(Of course, these were the movies rented from the movie rental store in the biggest mall downtown. So it wasn't like they were hiding what they were doing.)
The PR flunkie never contradicted the CSR: They kept saying that if the customer requests it, the CSRs should implement the block, and that the blocks were still available. And the no CSR will be fired for implementing a block that the customer requests. (Of course, they have to make sure the customer knows all the features they will be missing out on by having the block, by listing them all...)
The CSR said that the policy is that they are never to offer to the customer a block.
So, after reading both: If the customer knows about the possible blocks, and asks for one, they are to be given the runnaround and then allowed the block if they keep insisting on it. If the customer doesn't know about the blocks, it is a firable offense to inform them of them. No contradictions with either statement.
Actually, given the number of people who have been sued, the well-known cases of them suing innocents, and the number of people likely to be downloading movies...
I'd say you are just about as likely to be sued if you pirate as if you don't. The average chance of being sued is near-zero, really, and the chances of them making an error are high enough that the difference between the two likelihoods is statistical noise.
As the pressure increases with depth, the volume of the air will decrease as it is squeezed into a smaller space. Buoyancy is determined by density, which is mass per unit volume. Mass is staying the same, but volume is decreasing.
Above a certain depth, they will be be positively buoyant, and rise. Below that depth, they will be negatively buoyant, and sink. They gather enough air to be neutral at a certain depth, and stay there. The more air they gather the lower that depth is. If they can't get deep enough, they will tend to rise back to the surface (unless they vent air).
He's got several points, but the one the second article mangles is a two-parter: (A) A big attack like 9/11 is hard to organize and pull together successfully, without getting caught along the way. (Mostly due to old-fashioned police work, or just the fact that one of you suicide-attackers-in-training might come to the realization that they can actually live this life usefully. And that's assuming you managed to find enough of them in the first place.) (B) No smaller attack is likely to make an impression on the people you need to impress.
So, basically, he's saying is that terrorism has become an all-or-nothing proposition: Either you pull of something spectacular, or you fail. And the more spectacular you try to be, the more likely you are to fail before you get to the point where you pull anything off.
I work for a much larger company. Or more correctly, a large government agency. That's basically their system. (Except there is a specific group who's job is basically to get and hold the passwords (and make sure they are changed on schedule) from all the departments and teams on site...)
Nope, that legal loophole has been closed I believe. (It used to be true...)
However, the manufacturer will send out notices of recalls and similar to all registered owners. The recalls will still apply to people who didn't register, but they might not hear about them.
(Of course, they may send out other things as well...)
Worse than that, in this case: They are being prosecuted for being the subject of what is possibly, technically, child pornography.
There is no evidence that they were active participants in the creation of the photos, and in some cases here I believe there is no evidence that they even knew the photos had been taken.
So we're prosecuting them for pictures which they didn't take, and they may not have even known existed.
And sometimes the analysts aren't even really doing it 'seriously', but are training for some other position or job, and these papers are the equivalent of a class project. (After all, how do you train people to be generals, except by having them make plans and critiquing them?)
Then they are put on file and kept, partly because then you can use them as examples in later courses, and partly since it cost very little to file it for years, and could cost a lot if there were ever a situation where it was needed and we had to come up with a plan on the fly.
Slashdot Mirror
The movie studios don't use the same figures with the IRS: They'd get nailed with tax-evasion and embezzlement if they did.
They reserve this figures for those who can't afford better lawyers than they can.
Mu: it does not apply. Or more correctly: The facts do not support a decision on the issue at this time one way or another.
(Well, I'm sure there would have to be 'abortion is legal at least in order to save the life of the mother if the alternative is that both the mother and child die'. Widening the decision scope beyond that would be tricky at the very least.)
On both of these they might be able to form a coherent approach if they were given a specific, defined question about the issue. Part of the current problem on both issues is that the various sides have different questions they are trying to answer with their stance.
Which leads to the logical conclusion that Nethack is the most immersive game ever written.
If it's like the OLPC screen, that's a semi-difficult question. It depends on the colors in the image you are displaying, and the lighting you are viewing it under.
The OLPC's screen, in pure black-and-white mode while front-lit, has basically four times the resolution it does when in back-lit full-color mode.
On the other hand, if the NSA had broken AES, they'd have to worry that their counterparts in Russia/China/India/Country-of-Interest might have done the same, and therefore worry that all the government agencies that currently use AES as 'secure' aren't secure either. So they'd want it to be known that it was breakable, in order to get replacements in place.
If it were the best available, they might not release that they had already broken it, but even just a few comments about likely weaknesses (maybe even through third-party mouthpieces) would get others looking for holes and other options.
This has very little to do with Bill Gates, per se.
Microsoft managed to get itself into a monopoly position while the PC market exploded. The PC market has since stabalized, and people are realizing there are options.
There was no where for Microsoft to grow to. So they can't grow anymore.
I'd count an infinite loop as a bug...
Having grown up overseas, in countries where the 'official' release was likely to never happen at all...
You seriously under-estimate the quality possible with a camcorder in movie theater. Sure, some were dim, unsteady, and with people walking in front of them. Others were absolutely pristine, and in full VHS quality. (DVDs weren't common yet. I assume they could get near-DVD quality these days if they want.) It was often hard to tell if a movie was legit or not.
(Of course, these were the movies rented from the movie rental store in the biggest mall downtown. So it wasn't like they were hiding what they were doing.)
The PR flunkie never contradicted the CSR: They kept saying that if the customer requests it, the CSRs should implement the block, and that the blocks were still available. And the no CSR will be fired for implementing a block that the customer requests. (Of course, they have to make sure the customer knows all the features they will be missing out on by having the block, by listing them all...)
The CSR said that the policy is that they are never to offer to the customer a block.
So, after reading both: If the customer knows about the possible blocks, and asks for one, they are to be given the runnaround and then allowed the block if they keep insisting on it. If the customer doesn't know about the blocks, it is a firable offense to inform them of them. No contradictions with either statement.
Actually, given the number of people who have been sued, the well-known cases of them suing innocents, and the number of people likely to be downloading movies...
I'd say you are just about as likely to be sued if you pirate as if you don't. The average chance of being sued is near-zero, really, and the chances of them making an error are high enough that the difference between the two likelihoods is statistical noise.
As the pressure increases with depth, the volume of the air will decrease as it is squeezed into a smaller space. Buoyancy is determined by density, which is mass per unit volume. Mass is staying the same, but volume is decreasing.
Above a certain depth, they will be be positively buoyant, and rise. Below that depth, they will be negatively buoyant, and sink. They gather enough air to be neutral at a certain depth, and stay there. The more air they gather the lower that depth is. If they can't get deep enough, they will tend to rise back to the surface (unless they vent air).
The article is right.
Hmm. Holodeck: For every point in a 10m*10m*10m cube, store color, luminosity, hardness, how it's connected to adjacent points...
Actually, no, that's not what he's saying.
He's got several points, but the one the second article mangles is a two-parter: (A) A big attack like 9/11 is hard to organize and pull together successfully, without getting caught along the way. (Mostly due to old-fashioned police work, or just the fact that one of you suicide-attackers-in-training might come to the realization that they can actually live this life usefully. And that's assuming you managed to find enough of them in the first place.) (B) No smaller attack is likely to make an impression on the people you need to impress.
So, basically, he's saying is that terrorism has become an all-or-nothing proposition: Either you pull of something spectacular, or you fail. And the more spectacular you try to be, the more likely you are to fail before you get to the point where you pull anything off.
15 minutes of commercials every hour? Not bad.
I believe the US 'standard' is 17-20...
I'd figure they probably have to have pretty good web servers, just to handle the amount of traffic...
I work for a much larger company. Or more correctly, a large government agency. That's basically their system. (Except there is a specific group who's job is basically to get and hold the passwords (and make sure they are changed on schedule) from all the departments and teams on site...)
I used to work for one. Two years ago, and their systems were still running OS/2.
Heck, they probably are still running them. I just don't work there anymore.
He'd probably like being able to run it on Linux: It'd ease his migration path.
Nope, that legal loophole has been closed I believe. (It used to be true...)
However, the manufacturer will send out notices of recalls and similar to all registered owners. The recalls will still apply to people who didn't register, but they might not hear about them.
(Of course, they may send out other things as well...)
Maybe he flattens it to a two-sided disk and rolls that? (He just said 'unroll', not that it unrolls to any specific shape.)
I thought bind 9 was a rewrite from scratch? They did such a crappy job, they have to do it again for 10?
Yes.
Next question?
How much harder does it make doing standard move cables/switch harddrives/change components maintenance?
One of the advantages of a standard rack to me is that all of that is fairly easy and simple, so you can fix things quickly when something goes wrong.
The government in the USA is a representative democracy. If the government is doing something, 'we the people' of the USA are doing it.
Whether we agree with it or not.
Worse than that, in this case: They are being prosecuted for being the subject of what is possibly, technically, child pornography.
There is no evidence that they were active participants in the creation of the photos, and in some cases here I believe there is no evidence that they even knew the photos had been taken.
So we're prosecuting them for pictures which they didn't take, and they may not have even known existed.
And sometimes the analysts aren't even really doing it 'seriously', but are training for some other position or job, and these papers are the equivalent of a class project. (After all, how do you train people to be generals, except by having them make plans and critiquing them?)
Then they are put on file and kept, partly because then you can use them as examples in later courses, and partly since it cost very little to file it for years, and could cost a lot if there were ever a situation where it was needed and we had to come up with a plan on the fly.
Oh, lots of books have done it, and many have done it better.
Movies though... There are only a very few others that have even tried.