Access to the EU single market is a quid pro quo right granted to members in good standing who abide by commonly agreed standards and labour market freedom within the market zone.
It's a pretty straightforward bargain, and you can take it or leave it.
Perhaps the UK will be allowed to continue trading freely in that market just because their Wensleydale and cheddar cheese is so highly sought after in France, and the Germans can't get enough of British sausages.
Rightist: "I have every RIGHT to be a complete asshole and have my private police force shoot you if you disagree." Advanced Rightist: "Oh and that will make things better for everyone, as something something (the blood?) trickles down."
The problem with that as a political philosophy is that it's the default configuration of caveman human nature, implemented by bullies for millenia, if you substitute clubs for guns.
Other political philosophies are evolved social memes attempting to have a slight counterweight to that brutal individualist/autocratic default.
outside of the USA, and if you think there was anti-Americanism before, if Trump is elected, it will be an all-out continuous, and well-deserved shitpost on America.
It's mildly interesting that an apparently technically bright kid can have otherwise no basic common sense, and no common decency about people who aren't white, because let's face it, you pretty much have to be a dumb-ass racist selfish paranoid shit-for-brains to be an ardent Trump supporter.
The shingle ones had to be made of a material that had roofing properties as well as PV properties. Was it thin-film PV I forget. Anywaythat material was just not as efficient at converting photons to electric current.
Also, you face inefficiencies in conducting the current from shingle to shingle in a complex built-in wiring and connector network. Also, that's presumeably prone to failures of various kinds.
Big panels have simpler and more efficient designs for getting the current marshalled together and going to somewhere useful.
I'm guessing this is conventional PV panels with some kind of novel substrate included.
But another factor is PV panels should be offset from the roof several inches to allow air cooling. The cooler the panel, the more efficient. I wonder how they handle that in the to be announced product.
[Excellent] Stable platform for long-running server applications [Excellent] Software development tool chains [Excellent] FOSS software availability and variety [Excellent] Support communities for FOSS software [Excellent] Stable, smallish-footprint OS kernel + core services + APIs on which to build mobile device OS services and GUI [Fail] Simple, Uniform, Highly Functional, Good UX GUI for desktop/laptop computing and entertainment hub [Fail] Best-of-breed desktop productivity applications for everyday business and home computer users
My computer often freezes with the beachball of death or disappearing cursor. Some runaway application, interacting with OS memory managment or UI services and devices, has managed to DOS my computer. Often a reboot is the only solution. But what was the real problem? The fact that someone designed an OS that allows runaway processes and memory managers and what not to completely dominate all other processes, or to completely hijack key devices. Why would an OS not have a more effective segmentation; a hierarchy, which enforces rules like: - Never dominate the pointer movement and rendering, ever, for any reason - Give the process kill user interface (red button, X), and the process termination procedure, absolute highest priority as well. - Have a high-priority command shell process. - Don't let background processing and user-process memory use ever dominate and freeze user interface rendering. Probably requires a separate CPU core just for talking to the graphics subsystem.
Seems like an off-topic aside maybe? But the same principle should be applied to Internet design. - A backchannel allowing sys-admin commands (at low data rates only) to get through the network should have highest priority and not be affected at all by overcapacity on other "channels". - A low data rate channel permitting only low-frequency-of-send email / messaging protocol to get through should be next in line. By design it should not permit flooding. Its functioning should be entirely independent of any DDOSable level. - A level which supports general web-ish and messaging protocols but for trusted authenticated communicators only. - Finally, separated from the other levels at every switch, router, and network card, something akin to the current DDOS-ABLE level where anything goes.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that new automation becomes cheaper and more effective than 70% of the human workforce.
They can't work, but they can still vote.
What kind of government are they going to elect?
a. One that lets the free market (now featuring very low demand for human labor) deprive them of any way of obtaining the necessities of life? Or b. a government that forces re-distribution of a good chunk of the financial proceeds of the automated economy?
And if you try to disempower democratic government before this can happen...
Do we get a small cadre of libertarians, with their automation-fed bank/bitcoin accounts, protected by a robot army, surrounded by a horde of the zombie unemployed?
So this is what happens when you lose your quality-obsessed dictator.
It should be a cardinal rule of companies releasing new hardware/software consumer/business products that the entire senior executive team of the company eats their own dogfood with the product for a month before public (even beta) release.
The end user wants a single system that will work at most of the places they buy things at, regardless of whether they switch back and forth from iPhone to Android, and regardless of which bank and credit card they have.
Until the various industry players swallow their greed and agree to get together in a strong standards definition and implementation process and revenue sharing process that gives users this kind of universality, the momentum will continue to stall.
A good definition of wilderness might be ecosystems whose composition and function has not been significantly altered by human activity.
Canada's vast second-growth tree-farms, and ex-forests that are ranch land, and prairie that has lost its original grasses and beasts, do not count. Also, forested areas which once had large contiguous unroaded areas, providing safe roaming for large prey animals etc, and which now are cut up by road networks, also do not count.
Areas whose climate changes rapidly over the next century or two, and thus whose species mix is reduced and significantly altered, also won't count.
1. If you publish your content on the public World Wide Web with no access control mechanism, you have, some would say implicitly, I would say explicitly, made a copyright grant to all people and machines to reference that content with a link. Further, you've made a copyright grant to persons and machines allowing them to transfer a copy of the content and to possess a copy on their devices and to view it etc.
2. Implicit in our wide shared (universal) acceptance and use of the fundamental (open linking) architecture of the world wide web technology and instance, is the common-sense and common-law assumption that creating and publishing web pages with links to (any) other web-published material is also within the scope of the aforementioned grants of copyright.
3. It would clearly be unreasonable to expect a would-be link publisher to verify the valid copyright of each and every item of content that has been published to the web. Instead, they should be able to rely on the assumption that a grant of copyright (to all and sundry, for whatever use) has been made by virtue of the original publishing-to-web event. Expecting the linker to detect and not link to illegal publishings is clearly impractical and unreasonable.
But what it comes down to is that the context/place in which you are creating your page with links is the context/place known as the "WORLD WIDE WEB (of freely interlinked content)".
The onus is on whoever wants to protect copyright to keep their material off their or any other publicly accessible web server.
Admittedly whoever unauthorizedly publishes the actual material (not its address or identifier) on a web server has violated copyright, but a link creator has not.
Once the material is on a publicly accessible web server, you have made an implicit declaration that it is published to the world, and can be freely referenced (linked) on the frickin' WORLD WIDE WEB.
Right, so whoever uploaded it to imageshare is guilty of copyright violation.
Putting a link on your WEB page to something (anything) on the web is not. Publishing a link is akin to mentioning the ISBN number of a book and the address of the library or bookshop it can be found in. When referencing by linking, I can't be expected to know that the library or bookshop engages in printing and offering identical copyright-infringing copies of the book.
But how can you argue that the rotating space station is rotating, and thus non-inertial. Rotating with respect to what? And the other station (which we'll call stationary) is "not rotating" with respect to what? i.e. Angular momentum with respect to what non-rotating reference?
Given the physical symmetry of the situation, can we only tell it is rotating because of the measurable forces? And then that tells us a historical story that says, something must have accelerated it in the past?
If there were two counter-rotating ring-style space stations, but there was no other matter/energy anywhere else in the universe, would there be any way (assuming you have no knowledge of the past) of telling which was rotating and which was not, or whether both were to some degree?
1. Hard to see how a modular phone could be water-resistant, which is an important if boring feature, given that the most common place people use smartphones, so I read, is in the washroom.
2. The chance that a user can put together a device that works well as a coherent whole out of a collection of parts is pretty low. There are many design trade-offs to be considered in the creation of each new smartphone model.
Maybe the concept can survive in reduced form, like a single end of the phone that has an expansion area for a plug-in component or two.
"With an e-vote, how do you make sure whatever the voter decided is what got into the storing database without, at the same time, losing the voter's anonymity?"
A one-way hash function serving as a checksum for the ballot content combined with the voter identity.
If a person wants to verify that their vote is in the database, they go to a web cafe and enter the hash function that is on their vote receipt and the db reports that it has a ballot-answer-set with that hash.
If this is concerning, because someone might force the person to submit their hash at a specific time and have a collaborator on the inside look at which ballot that is so determine how the person voted, there is another variant of this hash-based verification where all that can be verified is that the vote, as cast, was in fact part of the count. If enough percent of randomly selected voters verify that their vote was counted, via the hash method, the election can statistically be considered sound. I think Chaum's system includes this capability.
See David Chaum's voting methods. As for understandability or trustworthiness of the method, one could get a line up of 100 cryptographic experts who would testify as to the apparent correctness of the algorithm and the implementation. At some point, you'll have to decide whether to trust that. If I could check their credentials and see that it was unanimous, I would believe that, to our present knowledge, it is a valid and unbroken voting method.
Another interesting twist would be to send the vote through three independently designed electronic voting systems, and only if the results from all three agreed perfectly would the election be considered valid.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry it wouldn't be spite.
Access to the EU single market is a quid pro quo right granted to members in good standing who abide by commonly agreed standards and labour market freedom within the market zone.
It's a pretty straightforward bargain, and you can take it or leave it.
Perhaps the UK will be allowed to continue trading freely in that market just because their Wensleydale and cheddar cheese is so highly sought after in France, and the Germans can't get enough of British sausages.
Rightist: "I have every RIGHT to be a complete asshole and have my private police force shoot you if you disagree."
Advanced Rightist: "Oh and that will make things better for everyone, as something something (the blood?) trickles down."
The problem with that as a political philosophy is that it's the default configuration of caveman human nature, implemented by bullies for millenia, if you substitute clubs for guns.
Other political philosophies are evolved social memes attempting to have a slight counterweight to that brutal individualist/autocratic default.
outside of the USA, and if you think there was anti-Americanism before, if Trump is elected, it will be an all-out continuous, and well-deserved shitpost on America.
It's mildly interesting that an apparently technically bright kid can have otherwise no basic common sense, and no common decency about people who aren't white, because let's face it, you pretty much have to be a dumb-ass racist selfish paranoid shit-for-brains to be an ardent Trump supporter.
The shingle ones had to be made of a material that had roofing properties as well as PV properties. Was it thin-film PV I forget. Anywaythat material was just not as efficient at converting photons to electric current.
Also, you face inefficiencies in conducting the current from shingle to shingle in a complex built-in wiring and connector network. Also, that's presumeably prone to failures of various kinds.
Big panels have simpler and more efficient designs for getting the current marshalled together and going to somewhere useful.
I'm guessing this is conventional PV panels with some kind of novel substrate included.
But another factor is PV panels should be offset from the roof several inches to allow air cooling. The cooler the panel, the more efficient. I wonder how they handle that in the to be announced product.
GNU-Linux Evaluation
[Excellent] Stable platform for long-running server applications
[Excellent] Software development tool chains
[Excellent] FOSS software availability and variety
[Excellent] Support communities for FOSS software
[Excellent] Stable, smallish-footprint OS kernel + core services + APIs on which to build mobile device OS services and GUI
[Fail] Simple, Uniform, Highly Functional, Good UX GUI for desktop/laptop computing and entertainment hub
[Fail] Best-of-breed desktop productivity applications for everyday business and home computer users
A Canadian company that's much more advanced in their fusion R&D. They're only always 5 years away.
Getting back on topic
As George Carlin said (paraphrasing from memory here):
God is all powerful, ...but he always needs money.
It seems he always needs money
He can do a lot of things, but he's no good with money.
My computer often freezes with the beachball of death or disappearing cursor. Some runaway application, interacting with OS memory managment or UI services and devices, has managed to DOS my computer. Often a reboot is the only solution.
But what was the real problem? The fact that someone designed an OS that allows runaway processes and memory managers and what not to completely dominate all other processes, or to completely hijack key devices.
Why would an OS not have a more effective segmentation; a hierarchy, which enforces rules like:
- Never dominate the pointer movement and rendering, ever, for any reason
- Give the process kill user interface (red button, X), and the process termination procedure, absolute highest priority as well.
- Have a high-priority command shell process.
- Don't let background processing and user-process memory use ever dominate and freeze user interface rendering. Probably requires a separate CPU core just for talking to the graphics subsystem.
Seems like an off-topic aside maybe?
But the same principle should be applied to Internet design.
- A backchannel allowing sys-admin commands (at low data rates only) to get through the network should have highest priority and not be affected at all by overcapacity on other "channels".
- A low data rate channel permitting only low-frequency-of-send email / messaging protocol to get through should be next in line. By design it should not permit flooding. Its functioning should be entirely independent of any DDOSable level.
- A level which supports general web-ish and messaging protocols but for trusted authenticated communicators only.
- Finally, separated from the other levels at every switch, router, and network card, something akin to the current DDOS-ABLE level where anything goes.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that new automation becomes cheaper and more effective than 70% of the human workforce.
They can't work, but they can still vote.
What kind of government are they going to elect?
a. One that lets the free market (now featuring very low demand for human labor) deprive them of any way of obtaining the necessities of life?
Or
b. a government that forces re-distribution of a good chunk of the financial proceeds of the automated economy?
And if you try to disempower democratic government before this can happen...
Do we get a small cadre of libertarians, with their automation-fed bank/bitcoin accounts, protected by a robot army, surrounded by a horde of the zombie unemployed?
Sounds like a good video game actually.
So isil.org would be blocked, but wearenotterroristsnothingtoseehere.org would not be.
Oh, also, https://142.235.76.22/ would also not be blocked, since it doesn't use DNS
So this is what happens when you lose your quality-obsessed dictator.
It should be a cardinal rule of companies releasing new hardware/software consumer/business products that the entire senior executive team of the company eats their own dogfood with the product for a month before public (even beta) release.
The end user wants a single system that will work at most of the places they buy things at, regardless of whether they switch back and forth from iPhone to Android, and regardless of which bank and credit card they have.
Until the various industry players swallow their greed and agree to get together in a strong standards definition and implementation process and revenue sharing process that gives users this kind of universality, the momentum will continue to stall.
A good definition of wilderness might be ecosystems whose composition and function has not been significantly altered by human activity.
Canada's vast second-growth tree-farms, and ex-forests that are ranch land, and prairie that has lost its original grasses and beasts, do not count. Also, forested areas which once had large contiguous unroaded areas, providing safe roaming for large prey animals etc, and which now are cut up by road networks, also do not count.
Areas whose climate changes rapidly over the next century or two, and thus whose species mix is reduced and significantly altered, also won't count.
of the book of faces.
It's a book of faces after all, not a book of facts.
For that, we have the CIA World Factbook https://www.cia.gov/library/pu...
which interestingly is now confirming what I always suspected: That we have never been at war with Oceania.
To be more explicit:
1. If you publish your content on the public World Wide Web with no access control mechanism, you have, some would say implicitly, I would say explicitly, made a copyright grant to all people and machines to reference that content with a link. Further, you've made a copyright grant to persons and machines allowing them to transfer a copy of the content and to possess a copy on their devices and to view it etc.
2. Implicit in our wide shared (universal) acceptance and use of the fundamental (open linking) architecture of the world wide web technology and instance, is the common-sense and common-law assumption that creating and publishing web pages with links to (any) other web-published material is also within the scope of the aforementioned grants of copyright.
3. It would clearly be unreasonable to expect a would-be link publisher to verify the valid copyright of each and every item of content that has been published to the web. Instead, they should be able to rely on the assumption that a grant of copyright (to all and sundry, for whatever use) has been made by virtue of the original publishing-to-web event. Expecting the linker to detect and not link to illegal publishings is clearly impractical and unreasonable.
But what it comes down to is that the context/place in which you are creating your page with links is the context/place known as the "WORLD WIDE WEB (of freely interlinked content)".
The onus is on whoever wants to protect copyright to keep their material off their or any other publicly accessible web server.
Admittedly whoever unauthorizedly publishes the actual material (not its address or identifier) on a web server has violated copyright, but a link creator has not.
Once the material is on a publicly accessible web server, you have made an implicit declaration that it is published to the world, and can be freely referenced (linked) on the frickin' WORLD WIDE WEB.
Otherwise, Goodbye, World Wide Web
Right, so whoever uploaded it to imageshare is guilty of copyright violation.
Putting a link on your WEB page to something (anything) on the web is not.
Publishing a link is akin to mentioning the ISBN number of a book and the address of the library or bookshop it can be found in. When referencing by linking, I can't be expected to know that the library or bookshop engages in printing and offering identical copyright-infringing copies of the book.
But how can you argue that the rotating space station is rotating, and thus non-inertial. Rotating with respect to what? And the other station (which we'll call stationary) is "not rotating" with respect to what? i.e. Angular momentum with respect to what non-rotating reference?
Given the physical symmetry of the situation, can we only tell it is rotating because of the measurable forces? And then that tells us a historical story that says, something must have accelerated it in the past?
If there were two counter-rotating ring-style space stations, but there was no other matter/energy anywhere else in the universe, would there be any way (assuming you have no knowledge of the past) of telling which was rotating and which was not, or whether both were to some degree?
as a stand for my laptop to watch netflix on.
Some factors why this was doomed:
1. Hard to see how a modular phone could be water-resistant, which is an important if boring feature, given that the most common place people use smartphones, so I read, is in the washroom.
2. The chance that a user can put together a device that works well as a coherent whole out of a collection of parts is pretty low. There are many design trade-offs to be considered in the creation of each new smartphone model.
Maybe the concept can survive in reduced form, like a single end of the phone that has an expansion area for a plug-in component or two.
satellites every time they make one, as a general rule.
I don't think that would double the cost (or if it does, something's very wrong with the engineer and build process),
and you can just launch the duplicate when the original blows up instead of goes up.
After the crash, the rotatable thruster goes from thusting the nose down position to thrust tilted upward.
Looks a bit like a really late flare.
"With an e-vote, how do you make sure whatever the voter decided is what got into the storing database without, at the same time, losing the voter's anonymity?"
A one-way hash function serving as a checksum for the ballot content combined with the voter identity.
If a person wants to verify that their vote is in the database, they go to a web cafe and enter the hash function that is on their vote receipt and the db reports that it has a ballot-answer-set with that hash.
If this is concerning, because someone might force the person to submit their hash at a specific time and have a collaborator on the inside look at which ballot that is so determine how the person voted, there is another variant of this hash-based verification where all that can be verified is that the vote, as cast, was in fact part of the count. If enough percent of randomly selected voters verify that their vote was counted, via the hash method, the election can statistically be considered sound.
I think Chaum's system includes this capability.
See David Chaum's voting methods. As for understandability or trustworthiness of the method, one could get a line up of 100 cryptographic experts who would testify as to the apparent correctness of the algorithm and the implementation. At some point, you'll have to decide whether to trust that. If I could check their credentials and see that it was unanimous, I would believe that, to our present knowledge, it is a valid and unbroken voting method.
Another interesting twist would be to send the vote through three independently designed electronic voting systems, and only if the results from all three agreed perfectly would the election be considered valid.