Consider buying paying for broadband to whoever lives in the last house on the line, getting Linksys WRT54GL, throwing on DDWRT (lets you play with transmit power settings), a couple stew or coffee cans an other bits for the antenna (http://www.seattlewireless.net/DirectionalWavegui de), and shoot a line to your place where you'll have a second 54GL set up. If you can get line of site, this would be nothing.
I have a 400' hop from my pottery studio, but I was saddened to discover it didn't take anything special at all to make that work. Getting it to go a half mile might be a bit more fun.
"The connection between media playback and networking is not immediately obvious. But as you know, the drivers involved in both activities run at extremely high priority. As a result, the network driver can cause media playback to degrade. This shows up to the user as things like popping and crackling during audio playback. Users generally hate this, hence the trade off."
Then they intersperse several other excuses before stating
Second, this trade-off scheme only kicks in on the receive side. Transmit is not affected."
Perhaps they are relying on short attention spans and the inability to think critically because it would seem that low level driver processes involved in receiving would also come into play while sending.
In reference to your "hold 'em back" recommendation based on a couple sensational news stories, I suggest this segment from TFA:
At the University of New South Wales, Gross conducted a longitudinal study of 60 Australians who scored at least 160 on IQ tests beginning in the late '80s. Today most of the 33 students who were not allowed to skip grades have jaded views of education, and at least three are dropouts. "These young people find it very difficult to sustain friendships because, having been to a large extent socially isolated at school, they have had much less practice... in developing and maintaining social relationships," Gross has written. "A number have had counseling. Two have been treated for severe depression." By contrast, the 17 kids who were able to skip at least three grades have mostly received Ph.D.s, and all have good friends.
Perhaps you are in school. That 10 page paper you wrote after spending 10 hours in the library, 5 hours in writing, and 3 in revising, is worth about 0.7 cents per page in paper costs ($3.50/500 page ream) and 1.14 cents in toner per page ($200 cart @ 17.5k pages) for a grand total of 1.84 cents per page. Your paper is worth just over 18 cents. That means your time is worth 1/100th of a cent per hour. In a few years, you might graduate and your work might be worth 2 or even 3 times as much.
Nice summary. It is worth pointing out that judges can also perform the fact finding function juries do. This would happen when no party demands a jury. If however, one party demands a jury, then the facts will be decided by jury.
yeah, but it talks about song lyrics from an episode -- it doesn't specifically reference the musical episode. In the first couple seasons, there were quite a few good bands playing in the background of The Bronze (e.g, Cibo Matto) -- it could have been referring to music in those. And even if it was referring to the musical episode, its still devoid of info. I guess I'm a bit curious what the CIA actually said about the song.
I was fascinated by the CIA's edits... mostly adding details... and this:
"One CIA entry deals with the details of lyrics sung in a Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode."
It would have been awfully nice if the mentioned which song, episode, and the changes made.
ummm.... same design new manufacture. That is I think an "equivalent". My Model M, manufactured Nov. 6, 1989, is showing no signs of wear -- not even worn off letters. I doubt I'll ever have to replace it but just in case I do, it is good to know that equivalents are being made. What would be super cool, would be a bluetooth Model M, that just might convince me to buy a new one.
Going a step back, why were so many able to boil water? Fossil fuels. Coal, then oil, then natural gas. The industrial revolution has its roots in virtually free energy to run machines and generate food. Fossil fuels are amazingly dense energy sources plus a cheap way to produce food (natural gas=fertilizer, oil=pesticides, diesel tractors=more land under cultivation, trains/trucks/planes=more food to market unspoilt... together they add up to expanded food supply and exponentially increasing population).
Anyway, this guy's argument seems to boil down to something like "all the lazy and stupid people died out". How long after the onset of the industrial revolution however, did things change so that those in the upper rungs have began having fewer kids and only the poor and uneducated (or very religious) did the serious breeding? Anyway, this notion sounds far fetched to me.
Actually, I haven't watched broadcast TV since about 1993. I do watch videos sometimes though, consuming on average about 2-3 hours of video content per week.
No -- the driving pattern won't provide an alibi to an obsessed cop -- I obviously had an accomplice.
Of course, let's say there was no disappearing wife, just my deviation to the "Foxy Trot" -- next weekend my friendly neighborhood officer calls with a financial offer I can't refuse.
There is a difference between catching criminals and creating a database of the travel patterns of presumably innocent people.
My initial reaction was "that sounds neat" but by the time I got through even just the summary, it was obvious that creating a database of everyone's travel patterns is not the right way to run the system. Perhaps 10 years hence, you take a different route to work for whatever reason, later that night you get a knock on your door and then: "Sorry to bother you Mr. Jones but we see you deviated from your usual route. Care to explain?" 10 years after that, you have to file travel plans. "Papers please." Yeah, call me a nutter.
What full damage? This sounds like a very reasonable opinion. All it says is that if one party decides to change the terms of a contract, it has to tell the other party (and I would assume without RTFO -- if the other party doesn't like the new terms, the other party can say no). Without this, you could "sign" a contract in July that says "we will keep your info private" and then in October, without notice to you, it could be changed to "you owe us one million dollars". I guess you think that would be fair? Give me your address, I have a harmless little contract I want to send you.
As usual, I don't think this car analogy really works well. An SUV carries/tows more than mini-car. The thing is, most computers built in the last two years will now most of an SUV's work at a mini-car price.
If you put aside the gamer community, just how much power does a person need to surf the web, write documents, and slideshow family photos? I know my experience is purely anecdotal, but for years I was always aching to upgrade because computers used to be so darn slow. I don't feel that kind of pressure anymore because computers can now handle non-gaming tasks really well -- even computers that are a few years old. I'm typing this out on G4 powerbook (1.67gh) and I don't feel compelled to replace it. It does everything I need plenty fast (wrist pain put the kaibosh on my gaming some years back). At home, my Athlon XP 2200+ is still all I need for what I do.
Now, if I was a gamer then yeah, I'd be looking to upgrade, but for everyone else who isn't gamining, doing molecular modeling, or rendering video -- just how much better is some quad-core system going to make the experience of browsing the net or writing a document? Back in the day, even people typing a paper wanted faster systems. I'm willing to bet the current speed of computers has reduced the number of people who really need to move up and as a result, we'll see that market filled with very low cost systems.
If you give a rat a bit of food every time it presses a bar (or on every n presses) -- it'll learn to press the bar the requisite number of times when it is hungry. If you provide a food nugget on a varying number of presses, e.g., 1 press=win, 3 presses=win, 10 presses=win, 4 presses=win -- it'll punch the bar all day.
At least, that's how I recall a psych prof of mine from college explaining why slot machines were so profitable.
I think you missed the point. He said something along the lines of A is easier than B but less secure than B. B is easier than C, but less secure than C. C is easier than D....
Maybe you get the point. The sentence you "corrected" comes right after the sequence in which he says a computer is easier to search than a box of papers, and a box of papers is easier to search than nothing at all. The idea is that if you want true security, you don't keep records.
I'm on Comcast because its my only choice. Seattle is 90 miles away. Speakasy results to and from Seattle: 2768, 362. New York city is farther: 2229, 360. Basically, my network sucks at any distance. Worse, because I don't buy cable TV, I have to pay an extra $5/month for my service. After all is said and done, that's $60/month for internet alone. I long for the days when Comcast has some competition here.
Apple ought to covertly help people hack the phone. Personally, I would consider buying it as pocket computer if third party apps could be installed even if that meant not being able to use it as a cell. As you say, it would make a very interesting VoIP device. And with the ability to behave like a real computer to some degree yet fit in a jacket pocket, it would actually be quite usuable for me. Of course, there's alway the Fic phone and openmoko coming up.
I would assume they have to provide some backup/proof as to what they detected and how they know her stuff is on that laptop. This isn't Russian Roulette of computing.
You are assuming elements of the challenge that aren't there. That is a sure setup to lose.
Imagine you're in a bar with your friends. You ask the waitress for three glasses of water and two shot glasses of water. You say to a friend, "I'll bet you a drink that I can down three 12oz glasses of water before you can down those two shot glasses of water." Your friend looks at you incredulously and says "No Way -- impossible." You respond "to make it fair, give me a headstart so that I get to completely drink a glass of water and then grab my next glass before you can start. Also, no cheating so we can't touch each other's glasses."
If youre friend accepts, he already lost because the rules make it impossible to win if you do certain things. For example, you place your empty glass upside on the table over one of his full shot glasses before you grab your second glass. He can't touch your glass so he can never get to the covered shot. You win because your friend assumed he understood the implications of all the rules. If he had asked for more details, he could see the setup. His reliance on his assumptions means a free beer to you.
Slashdot Mirror
Consider buying paying for broadband to whoever lives in the last house on the line, getting Linksys WRT54GL, throwing on DDWRT (lets you play with transmit power settings), a couple stew or coffee cans an other bits for the antenna (http://www.seattlewireless.net/DirectionalWavegui de), and shoot a line to your place where you'll have a second 54GL set up. If you can get line of site, this would be nothing.
I have a 400' hop from my pottery studio, but I was saddened to discover it didn't take anything special at all to make that work. Getting it to go a half mile might be a bit more fun.
Maine has two seasons. "winter", and "damn poor sledding".
If data receipt is so hard, how come other OSes, both modern and ancient, can handle it just fine?
Then they intersperse several other excuses before stating Perhaps they are relying on short attention spans and the inability to think critically because it would seem that low level driver processes involved in receiving would also come into play while sending.
Perhaps you are in school. That 10 page paper you wrote after spending 10 hours in the library, 5 hours in writing, and 3 in revising, is worth about 0.7 cents per page in paper costs ($3.50/500 page ream) and 1.14 cents in toner per page ($200 cart @ 17.5k pages) for a grand total of 1.84 cents per page. Your paper is worth just over 18 cents. That means your time is worth 1/100th of a cent per hour. In a few years, you might graduate and your work might be worth 2 or even 3 times as much.
Nice summary. It is worth pointing out that judges can also perform the fact finding function juries do. This would happen when no party demands a jury. If however, one party demands a jury, then the facts will be decided by jury.
Lights aimed in a dome shaped pattern skyward. Infrared, visible, and green laser.
narwhal
yeah, but it talks about song lyrics from an episode -- it doesn't specifically reference the musical episode. In the first couple seasons, there were quite a few good bands playing in the background of The Bronze (e.g, Cibo Matto) -- it could have been referring to music in those. And even if it was referring to the musical episode, its still devoid of info. I guess I'm a bit curious what the CIA actually said about the song.
It would have been awfully nice if the mentioned which song, episode, and the changes made.
ummm .... same design new manufacture. That is I think an "equivalent". My Model M, manufactured Nov. 6, 1989, is showing no signs of wear -- not even worn off letters. I doubt I'll ever have to replace it but just in case I do, it is good to know that equivalents are being made. What would be super cool, would be a bluetooth Model M, that just might convince me to buy a new one.
Going a step back, why were so many able to boil water? Fossil fuels. Coal, then oil, then natural gas. The industrial revolution has its roots in virtually free energy to run machines and generate food. Fossil fuels are amazingly dense energy sources plus a cheap way to produce food (natural gas=fertilizer, oil=pesticides, diesel tractors=more land under cultivation, trains/trucks/planes=more food to market unspoilt ... together they add up to expanded food supply and exponentially increasing population).
Anyway, this guy's argument seems to boil down to something like "all the lazy and stupid people died out". How long after the onset of the industrial revolution however, did things change so that those in the upper rungs have began having fewer kids and only the poor and uneducated (or very religious) did the serious breeding? Anyway, this notion sounds far fetched to me.
Actually, I haven't watched broadcast TV since about 1993. I do watch videos sometimes though, consuming on average about 2-3 hours of video content per week.
No -- the driving pattern won't provide an alibi to an obsessed cop -- I obviously had an accomplice.
Of course, let's say there was no disappearing wife, just my deviation to the "Foxy Trot" -- next weekend my friendly neighborhood officer calls with a financial offer I can't refuse.
There is a difference between catching criminals and creating a database of the travel patterns of presumably innocent people.
My initial reaction was "that sounds neat" but by the time I got through even just the summary, it was obvious that creating a database of everyone's travel patterns is not the right way to run the system. Perhaps 10 years hence, you take a different route to work for whatever reason, later that night you get a knock on your door and then: "Sorry to bother you Mr. Jones but we see you deviated from your usual route. Care to explain?" 10 years after that, you have to file travel plans. "Papers please." Yeah, call me a nutter.
What full damage? This sounds like a very reasonable opinion. All it says is that if one party decides to change the terms of a contract, it has to tell the other party (and I would assume without RTFO -- if the other party doesn't like the new terms, the other party can say no). Without this, you could "sign" a contract in July that says "we will keep your info private" and then in October, without notice to you, it could be changed to "you owe us one million dollars". I guess you think that would be fair? Give me your address, I have a harmless little contract I want to send you.
As usual, I don't think this car analogy really works well. An SUV carries/tows more than mini-car. The thing is, most computers built in the last two years will now most of an SUV's work at a mini-car price.
If you put aside the gamer community, just how much power does a person need to surf the web, write documents, and slideshow family photos? I know my experience is purely anecdotal, but for years I was always aching to upgrade because computers used to be so darn slow. I don't feel that kind of pressure anymore because computers can now handle non-gaming tasks really well -- even computers that are a few years old. I'm typing this out on G4 powerbook (1.67gh) and I don't feel compelled to replace it. It does everything I need plenty fast (wrist pain put the kaibosh on my gaming some years back). At home, my Athlon XP 2200+ is still all I need for what I do.
Now, if I was a gamer then yeah, I'd be looking to upgrade, but for everyone else who isn't gamining, doing molecular modeling, or rendering video -- just how much better is some quad-core system going to make the experience of browsing the net or writing a document? Back in the day, even people typing a paper wanted faster systems. I'm willing to bet the current speed of computers has reduced the number of people who really need to move up and as a result, we'll see that market filled with very low cost systems.
If you give a rat a bit of food every time it presses a bar (or on every n presses) -- it'll learn to press the bar the requisite number of times when it is hungry. If you provide a food nugget on a varying number of presses, e.g., 1 press=win, 3 presses=win, 10 presses=win, 4 presses=win -- it'll punch the bar all day.
At least, that's how I recall a psych prof of mine from college explaining why slot machines were so profitable.
I think you missed the point. He said something along the lines of A is easier than B but less secure than B. B is easier than C, but less secure than C. C is easier than D ....
Maybe you get the point. The sentence you "corrected" comes right after the sequence in which he says a computer is easier to search than a box of papers, and a box of papers is easier to search than nothing at all. The idea is that if you want true security, you don't keep records.
I'm on Comcast because its my only choice. Seattle is 90 miles away. Speakasy results to and from Seattle: 2768, 362. New York city is farther: 2229, 360. Basically, my network sucks at any distance. Worse, because I don't buy cable TV, I have to pay an extra $5/month for my service. After all is said and done, that's $60/month for internet alone. I long for the days when Comcast has some competition here.
Apple ought to covertly help people hack the phone. Personally, I would consider buying it as pocket computer if third party apps could be installed even if that meant not being able to use it as a cell. As you say, it would make a very interesting VoIP device. And with the ability to behave like a real computer to some degree yet fit in a jacket pocket, it would actually be quite usuable for me. Of course, there's alway the Fic phone and openmoko coming up.
Or the forger is laughing still.
Put Kubuntu on these people's laptops.
You are assuming elements of the challenge that aren't there. That is a sure setup to lose.
Imagine you're in a bar with your friends. You ask the waitress for three glasses of water and two shot glasses of water. You say to a friend, "I'll bet you a drink that I can down three 12oz glasses of water before you can down those two shot glasses of water." Your friend looks at you incredulously and says "No Way -- impossible." You respond "to make it fair, give me a headstart so that I get to completely drink a glass of water and then grab my next glass before you can start. Also, no cheating so we can't touch each other's glasses."
If youre friend accepts, he already lost because the rules make it impossible to win if you do certain things. For example, you place your empty glass upside on the table over one of his full shot glasses before you grab your second glass. He can't touch your glass so he can never get to the covered shot. You win because your friend assumed he understood the implications of all the rules. If he had asked for more details, he could see the setup. His reliance on his assumptions means a free beer to you.