On the JPEG link, AT&T responded, saying that the contract was entered into by a sales rep (surprise!) without authorization. It further states that the agreement was terminated, and the customer disconnected.
So you get 200fps. Big deal, if your vertical refresh is only 85Hz, then you only SEE 85fps, regardless. An earlier poster had it right, the reason you want a 200fps max is so that you don't drop below the critical rate of 72 (60) fps where animation artifacts start to show up.
What is Intel really trying to patent here? Not ideas, that's for sure. They're trying to patent low-level implementation details like how certain instructions impact data flow throughout the IC.
That is EXACTLY what you are supposed to patent. You are not suposed to patent "ideas". You are supposed to patent specific implementations. If you are correct (I haven't read the patent, not being fluent in legalese), then there is absolutely nothing wrong with this patent.
Of course they need to keep it flying...
on
Mir Lives
·
· Score: 2
How else will NBC get to broadcast "Destination Mir"?
Maybe RSC Energia should hit up NBC for some buck$!
and the whole point of the census is to figure out how much the govt. has to spend on you...
BZZZT! And thank you for playing! Here's your lovely partying gift.
The purpose of the census, per the US Constitution is the apportionment of House of Representatives. Period. Congratulations, Lord Omlette, you bought the government's story - hook, line, and sinker.
Bullshit. Goedel says NOTHING about it. Turing, on the other hand says that it is quite possible.
If you want to consider what Goedel's Theorem says about emulating Crusoe on Crusoe, it says it *CAN* be done... that you can use it to make meta-statements about the Crusoe. It does say that you can construct a meta-statement that has no proof, but that is *ALMOST* the Halting Problem (remember, pedantic types, I said almost).
Remember, you can use a TM to make statements or prove/disprove theorems about TMs.
Here's the stock one-size-fits-all answer.
How do you enforce that all "pornographic" content goes into.xxx? What about borderline sites? Who decides what *MUST* be in.xxx?
Deny access to java applets (most of them are either hacking utilities, games, or something that students wouldn't use for educational purposes).
Gee, I always thought that public libraries were for recreational as well as educational purposes. Otherwise we'd better remove all fiction books from the libraries!!!!!
Could someone please translate the following into English for me?
"I've been involved myself in negotiating and helping to move along the negotiations with the Internet service providers to get a parents' protection page every time 95 percent of the pages come up,"
Actually, there was some constitutionality to the 55MPH speed limit, at least on US Highways and Interstate Highways. The interstate commerce clause can come into effect then. However, the feds should not have been able to mandate any limits on state highways.
I see many infringements upon our Constitutional rights promoted and passed "for the Children"(tm).
Given the Supreme Court's ruling in ACLU v. Reno (the first CDA trial), and the Philadelphia Court's ruling in ACLU v. Reno (CDA-II/COPA trial), I ask the following.
Do you support the mandated use of filtering software for institutions that use government money (on any level -- local/state/federal) to provide Internet access for their patrons? Considering that most filtering software is notoriously inaccurate, with many false positives ("safe" material blocked) and false negatives ("unsafe" material passed), plus the fact that some companies are known to filter out their critics (see CyberSitter and Peacefire.org). Consider further that some of these false positives are especially egregious, and politically based, such as NOW being filtered, or funny, such as Rep. Dick Armey's site being filtered.
Now do you support Filtering software, and why? And, please no "for the Children".
If you vote for the lesser of the two evils, because a 3rd party doesn't even have a snowball's chance, even if you prefer a 3rd party candidate, you're part of the problem.
Remember, the 3rd party problem is a vicious circle:
3rd party candidates get little coverage/money/debates because they have small percentage of the vote
3rd party candidates get small percentage of the vote because of no coverage/money/impression that they can't win
Go back to first step
So, if a 3rd party candidate fits, VOTE FOR HIM! Don't believe the Bush/Gore thing that "a 3rd party vote is a vote for my opponent"!!!!
I'd rather have Jesse than some of the mealy-mouthed poll-driven crapheads that I've seen in my state. From what I can see, with Jesse, what you see is what you get. Which has got to be infinitely preferable to the predigested pap you get with the two "main parties".
Someone did. It only got modded up to 4, so it didn't get asked. I had posted a question which was 5 and didn't get asked. Given my druthers, I'd rather have the question about what really will be used (your question) than some of the repetitive "why should we trust you" questions?
IMHO, we probably can trust IIT. On the other hand, we have no reason to trust the DOJ or FBI. IIT could come out with a blistering report, and the FBI/DOJ could hide it or redact it into senselessness. Then, the proposed scenario here, IIT validates Carnivore (call it V1.0) cleanly, FBI/DOJ publishes report, and then deploys Carnivore V1.1, which has all the unconstitutional stuff that they *just happened* to add after the review...
But I definitely agree with this poster, that question SHOULD have been asked!
Wherein one person (Party A) contacts the second person (Party B) by some means of communication, including, but not limited to sound waves, written communication, electronic communication, or any combination thereof (e.g. Voice over IP).
Upon contacting Party B, Party A then communicates the phrase "Wasssaaaap!"
Slashdot Mirror
On the JPEG link, AT&T responded, saying that the contract was entered into by a sales rep (surprise!) without authorization. It further states that the agreement was terminated, and the customer disconnected.
So you get 200fps. Big deal, if your vertical refresh is only 85Hz, then you only SEE 85fps, regardless. An earlier poster had it right, the reason you want a 200fps max is so that you don't drop below the critical rate of 72 (60) fps where animation artifacts start to show up.
What is Intel really trying to patent here? Not ideas, that's for sure. They're trying to patent low-level implementation details like how certain instructions impact data flow throughout the IC.
That is EXACTLY what you are supposed to patent. You are not suposed to patent "ideas". You are supposed to patent specific implementations. If you are correct (I haven't read the patent, not being fluent in legalese), then there is absolutely nothing wrong with this patent.
How else will NBC get to broadcast "Destination Mir"?
Maybe RSC Energia should hit up NBC for some buck$!
and the whole point of the census is to figure out how much the govt. has to spend on you...
BZZZT! And thank you for playing! Here's your lovely partying gift.
The purpose of the census, per the US Constitution is the apportionment of House of Representatives. Period. Congratulations, Lord Omlette, you bought the government's story - hook, line, and sinker.
No, no, no! It was the Twenty-Fourth and a halfth Centuuuuury!
They were claiming Planet X as the only known source of Eludium Phosdex, the shaving cream atom.
The eager young space cadet found out how to get there by following the lettered planets!
Bullshit. Goedel says NOTHING about it. Turing, on the other hand says that it is quite possible.
If you want to consider what Goedel's Theorem says about emulating Crusoe on Crusoe, it says it *CAN* be done... that you can use it to make meta-statements about the Crusoe. It does say that you can construct a meta-statement that has no proof, but that is *ALMOST* the Halting Problem (remember, pedantic types, I said almost).
Remember, you can use a TM to make statements or prove/disprove theorems about TMs.
Stock one-size-fits-all solution.
.xxx? What about borderline sites? Who decides what *MUST* be in .xxx?
Here's the stock one-size-fits-all answer.
How do you enforce that all "pornographic" content goes into
This sounds rather like the anthropic principle to me.
Deny access to java applets (most of them are either hacking utilities, games, or something that students wouldn't use for educational purposes).
Gee, I always thought that public libraries were for recreational as well as educational purposes. Otherwise we'd better remove all fiction books from the libraries!!!!!
Go down to your public library and ask for the latest copy of Penthouse. See what happens.
There is a difference. Your dead-tree example is a result of being forced to decide what to bring in with limited funds.
Filtering is a case of spending MORE of those limited funds to keep stuff out.
Not to mention that I doubt that Joe and Jane Middle-Class-Voter are using either Linux or BSD. They're probably using "Windows to run the Internet"
Yes, I deliberately misphrased it, because (at the risk of sounding like a 1337 h4X0r), that's how the average guys sees it.
Could someone please translate the following into English for me?
"I've been involved myself in negotiating and helping to move along the negotiations with the Internet service providers to get a parents' protection page every time 95 percent of the pages come up,"
A little spacecraft
far away among the stars
rest well, pioneer
It's Ben Franklin, not Jefferson...
See the first reference on this page.
Actually, there was some constitutionality to the 55MPH speed limit, at least on US Highways and Interstate Highways. The interstate commerce clause can come into effect then. However, the feds should not have been able to mandate any limits on state highways.
I see many infringements upon our Constitutional rights promoted and passed "for the Children"(tm).
Given the Supreme Court's ruling in ACLU v. Reno (the first CDA trial), and the Philadelphia Court's ruling in ACLU v. Reno (CDA-II/COPA trial), I ask the following.
Do you support the mandated use of filtering software for institutions that use government money (on any level -- local/state/federal) to provide Internet access for their patrons? Considering that most filtering software is notoriously inaccurate, with many false positives ("safe" material blocked) and false negatives ("unsafe" material passed), plus the fact that some companies are known to filter out their critics (see CyberSitter and Peacefire.org). Consider further that some of these false positives are especially egregious, and politically based, such as NOW being filtered, or funny, such as Rep. Dick Armey's site being filtered.
Now do you support Filtering software, and why? And, please no "for the Children".
That both Lazio and Hilary flunked in the NY senatorial debate...
If bill 602P, providing for a 5 cent tax on email by the USPS is passed by Congress, will you sign it, veto it, or do nothing. Why?
Of course, the correct answer is do nothing, since it's a hoax, but let's see how well these people do...
In the current installment, Reed Hundt makes a thinly veiled argument for the BS that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.
Bullshit. A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader.
Remember, the 3rd party problem is a vicious circle:
3rd party candidates get little coverage/money/debates because they have small percentage of the vote
3rd party candidates get small percentage of the vote because of no coverage/money/impression that they can't win
Go back to first step
So, if a 3rd party candidate fits, VOTE FOR HIM! Don't believe the Bush/Gore thing that "a 3rd party vote is a vote for my opponent"!!!!
Disclaimer: I do not live in Minnesota.
I'd rather have Jesse than some of the mealy-mouthed poll-driven crapheads that I've seen in my state. From what I can see, with Jesse, what you see is what you get. Which has got to be infinitely preferable to the predigested pap you get with the two "main parties".
Someone did. It only got modded up to 4, so it didn't get asked. I had posted a question which was 5 and didn't get asked. Given my druthers, I'd rather have the question about what really will be used (your question) than some of the repetitive "why should we trust you" questions?
IMHO, we probably can trust IIT. On the other hand, we have no reason to trust the DOJ or FBI. IIT could come out with a blistering report, and the FBI/DOJ could hide it or redact it into senselessness. Then, the proposed scenario here, IIT validates Carnivore (call it V1.0) cleanly, FBI/DOJ publishes report, and then deploys Carnivore V1.1, which has all the unconstitutional stuff that they *just happened* to add after the review...
But I definitely agree with this poster, that question SHOULD have been asked!
Wherein one person (Party A) contacts the second person (Party B) by some means of communication, including, but not limited to sound waves, written communication, electronic communication, or any combination thereof (e.g. Voice over IP).
Upon contacting Party B, Party A then communicates the phrase "Wasssaaaap!"
No, AMD licensed EV6 to get around the Intel Slot1 licensing, not the SMP licensing.
Well, maybe they can get them under the RIP bill, if they won't turn over the encryption keys?