Actually, this is old news. There's a month old discussion thread on RWT Discussion forum. Berkeley proposes the "thirteen dwarfs" - 13 kinds of test algorithms they consider valuable to parallelize. Linus doesn't think the 13 dwarfs correspond well to everyday computing loads. My 2 cents: Intel & others are spending hundreds of millions of bucks per year trying to speed up single-thread style computing, so it's not a bad idea to put a few more million/year into thousand thread computing.
Here's an abstract that contains a little more info:
The EPR (European Pressurised Water Reactor) developed by AREVA is a new nuclear reactor designed to achieve greater output (1600 MW) and longer plant life (60 years) than conventional nuclear reactors. The first one is currently under construction in Finland at Olkiluoto. For this new design, an integrated forging was applied for the nozzle shell, including an integral flange (Fig. 1). A 500 t ingot is necessary to manufacture this part, which was the first large part manufactured on a new 14 kt press installed at JSW in 2003. The part was completed 11 months after pouring. The technologies of each manufacturing step and the properties of the part are described.
The full text costs $48 to purchase.
According to this, Russia can produce two reactor pressure vessel forgings per year, with plans to double by 2011.
But all this delay in "evolutionary" boiling water reactors could be good news for pebble bed reactors. This Blog has a handy summary of the advantages and disadvantages of pebble beds. Last November, Westinghouse bought a pebble bed company called IST Nuclear. Some nice diagrams.
Absolutely! When I look at the difference between windows 2000 (which offers real improvements over win98) and windows vista, I see alot of change purely for the sake of change. Win XP is kind of a big bug fix on Win2K. I would have preferred it if they had just fixed Win2K, but I'll accept a bug fix. Vista isn't even a bug fix - just change for the sake of change. I'm avoiding it and all the people I advise are avoiding it too.
This diary entry at dailykos sheds some light. It says NH has no touchscreen voting. NH uses the Diebold AccuVote OS. This is an optical scanner -- as in voter uses a pen to mark the bubble on a sheet of paper, then feeds the sheet into the AccuVote OS. Here are some instructions and a small pic. Another small pic. So the paper trail here is sheets marked by hand by the voter. If you assume fraudulent ballot sheets, any scanner can be hacked that way, so every election is suspect. Again, to repeat myself, the paper trail is hand marked ballot sheets from each and every voter.
According the the above mentioned dailykos diary entry,
... voters in every town in New Hampshire cast their vote on a paper ballot, and in more than half of the towns in New Hampshire, the paper ballots are counted by hand.
Fewer than half the towns in New Hampshire tabulate votes with optical scanners. More than half the votes cast are counted by optical scanners, as most of the bigger cities and towns--including Manchester, Nashua, Portsmouth, Concord, Claremont, Hanover, Keene and Plymouth--use the scanners. But more municipalities count by hand. And as someone relatively well-versed in the voting patterns of New Hampshire, let me tell you there appear to be no discrepancies in the Clinton/Obama/Edwards votes between the towns that tabulate votes by scanning and those that count by hand. Obama won many of the larger towns--Keene, Hanover, Concord, Portsmouth, Lebanon, Plymouth, Durham. Clinton won others--Manchester, Nashua, Berlin, Gorham, Claremont.
It might also be worth recalling that Clinton led almost every NH poll for the whole year before Jan 8. And that anecdotally, a number of indepentdents say they were going choose democrat and vote for Obama, but since he had it in the bag they instead chose republican and voted for McCain. And that exit polling says Hillary got a big chunk of women's votes. In other words there are enough other explanations that the instant assumption of a stolen election is rather absurd. Can we mod the whole story down as a troll?
According to Variety, under the headline "Blu-ray could win high-def battle"
Daily Variety has confirmed that Universal's commitment to backing HD DVD exclusively has ended. And Paramount has an escape clause in its HD DVD contract allowing it to release pics on Blu-ray after Warner Bros.' decision to back that format exclusively.
Neither studio is ready to throw in the towel immediately, however. Universal is committed to a series of promotions for the high-def format in coming months, and Par has said its current plans are to keep supporting HD DVD, which it backed exclusively in August.
Variety also notes that "Warner will continue to release HD DVD discs for the next few months to honor its previous commitment to Toshiba, which extends through May 31."
Some folks such as Seagate CEO Bill Watkins claim that the Blu-ray HD-DVD format war dragged on long enough to make network transfer of movies the preferred format. Personally I have my doubts. If I own a physical disc DVD, I can loan it to my neighbor, bring it on the road and let my kids watch it on a hotel DVD player, and generally treat it as if I own it outright. Blu-ray will be the same. If I electronically download a movie, DRM greatly limits the hardware on which it will play: either my desktop or my laptop or maybe my Tivo, but probably not all of the above. And if I replace my media PC in two years time, how many hoops do I jump through to re-license my collection on new hardware? Nope, the DRM on network movies is worse than the DRM on the disks.
It's all about the momentum! Sure, NTSC DVD is still President, but it's flaws are well known and everybody scorns it even while we're stuck with it. But of the new guys, HD-DVD offers stability: compatibility with existing DVD players and big money (Microsoft) backing. Blu-Ray has higher peak bandwidth and potentially more room on the disk; i.e. more hope for a better future.
Voters, um, I mean buyers, seem to be moved by that message of hope! Obama, um, I mean Blu-Ray, seems to be surging unexpectedly ahead! Change is in the air! The big mony gang is frustrated -- they've been causing change for 25 or more years -- why aren't more people listening? Iowa was a shock; Blu-Ray is 10 points ahead in the latest NH polls; south Carolina won't save HD-DVD; they've gotta re-group and start pointing out Blu-Ray's flaws from now until Super Tuesday!
Only thing I can't figure out is where is Ron Paul in all this? I think he represents 3D holographic TV. It's the darling of the techno-cognoscenti, but nobody really expects it to see the light of day.
I hope the war ends quickly, and I hope blu-ray wins because blu-ray has a higher data rate (something like peak 48Mb/sec vs 32Mb/sec). Not to mention that blu-ray dual layer holds a whopping 50 gigs. But I'm not going to buy any kind of player until the war is clearly over.
Mod parent up!! Sure, mistakes were made in Iraq, and I'll get to that. But we all know now that we never should have been there in the first place. Containment was working well. As Richard Clarke said regarding Bush's 'Vulcans' in 2004 "... they used the tragedy of 9/11 as an excuse to test their theories." So, as the Parent points out, don't be stupid enough to frame the issue in a way that hides the fact that we should never have been fighting there in the first place. How many media organizations and pundits have admitted their error in either uncritically boosting the war in the first place, or standing silently by while others did? Not very many. I wondered about the author of the Wired article, Noah Shachtman but his tech-focused blog conveniently starts in Jan 2003 when the decision for war was already made. So I can't tell how much of an Iraq war cheerleader he was in the early days.
Cheney and Rumsfeld were so convinced that they believed the invasion could be done on the cheap. The generals wanted an invasion and follow-on force of nearly 300,000 troops. Rumsfeld thought it could be done, a la Afghanistan, with fewer than 50,000. After all, there would be no need for an occupation force or any nation rebuilding.
So Rumsfeld hammered the head of the U.S. Central Command, Gen. Tommy Franks, to reduce the force to just over 200,000, cut two divisions out of the follow-on force, and reduce the total U.S. force to 138,000 to deal with occupying and keeping the peace in a fractious country the size of California with a population of 25 million, divided into ethnic and religious groups.
When the whole deal went south on them in the summer of 2003, Cheney and Rumsfeld stuck with the idea of fighting this war on the cheap. American armored divisions, the deadliest in the world, were ordered to leave most of their armor at home, because it cost too much to run them. Tank crews dismounted and became infantry patrolling the deadly roads and streets in Humvees, slightly heavier versions of the old Jeep. Ditto artillery crews.
Although only Rumsfeld and Cheney are named, none of this could have been done without Bush's backing (the fact that Rumsfeld wasn't fired until late 2006 speaks volumes). In essense, the Bushies believed that they could set the budget in dollars and troops low. Why did they believe that? Check out the Rumsfeld Doctrine. One of Rumsfeld's three pillars of faith is a reliance on high tech (the others are air power and nimble troops).
That bears repeating: the Rumsfeld Doctrine depended on high technology. So now, in 2007 in Wired, Noah Shachtman tells us that the geeks implementing the high tech are responsible for the mess. Shachtman frames the issue in a way that assumes the Rumsfeld Doctrine is correct and blames the geeks! Gosh, other than Noah Shachtman, how many supporters of the Rumsfeld Doctrine do you think you can find in the punditocracy? Does this framing tell us where Shachtman was cheerleading in the run-up to the Iraq war? I do believe it does. Shachtman appears to be one of the last true believers in the discredited Rumsfeld Doctrine, and the Wired article that sparked this story is his declaration of faith.
Gosh, I guess I completely misunderstood the song! Given that traditional big band swing music involves lots of horns, I thought the "trumpet playing band" was the "crowd of young boys" derogatory name for the Sultans of Swing. I thought "trumpet playing band" was put in to indicate that the Sultans didn't care whether their music appealed to young boys trying to act cool. Clearly "Harry" -- He can play honky tonk just like anything / Saving it up for Friday night / With the Sultans with the Sultans of Swing -- is piano player for the Sultans. But you're telling me the "trumpet playing band" is not the Sultans. So the "trumpet playing band" is somebody else. How interesting!
Dire straits, Sultans of swing.
Listen to the song and hear what it is about.
There are countless musicians who got a day time job to support their hobby, at best they recoup a bit of their costs at times but mainly it is a hobby AKA a moneysink.
I'm a big fan of Dire Straits. In the story of the song, I don't believe Harry and that "trumpet playing band" were doing any recording. Remember, I said "won't record" not "won't play." And we won't be able to get Harry's music on thepiratebay; we'll have to go hear them live and leave our ipods home. Not necessarily a bad thing. But if the RIAA based music business dies, will thepiratebay eventually fade and die too?
Whoa, hold your horses there fella! I said "won't record" not "won't play." And last I looked, filesharing was mostly about music that's umm... uhh... recorded. Now I know there's a certain amount of traffic in jam band concert tapes.
But most listeners don't really have a taste for the FOB-AUD stuff. Most listeners prefer multitrack recorded, post session mixed, with any flubs patched. Thats the vast majority of the music that gets traded on thepiratebay and demonoid (RIP). That's the business that's circling the drain as we watch.
With the death of the RIAA music business, I do sorta wonder how bands will rise to national and international prominence. I'm not saying there will never be rock stars again, but I do wonder what the mechanism will be. I'm well awasre that the RIAA music business ripped off Janice Ian and Roger McGuinn (scroll past Lars) and most other not-quite-superstar musicians. But I honestly wonder: without the RIAA based music business, would we ever have heard of Buddy Holly or the Byrds? Would there have been a national pool where talent could rise to the top?
Now I'm not saying that still happens. According to David Crosby the tides in the talent pool have been pulling all wrong for a long time. I'm not even saying that the RIAA based dinosaurs don't deserve to die. What I am saying is that for 60 or more years, the music industry has maintained a sort of cultural commons -- has provided a meaningful soundtrack for each generation from WWII on -- so that people from far away could join together with shared music. And I'm not trying to be snarky; I truly wonder, when (not if) the RIAA based music industry dies, what will fill in this cultural commons?
Ah, it occurs to me that different nations and states have different laws, so not all claims about legalities are universal.
In particular, in some places such as the USA it is a crime to provide a service that abets illegal file sharing. In other places, though the filesharing might be illegal, providing metadata about shared files is legal. In those places, you have to go after the sharers because running the tracker is legal see footnote 9 . Sharers are like roaches: there's a million born every day and they're coming out of the woodwork. There's little evidence that suing a few hundred sharers alters the behavior of the unsued millions. So for Prince, going after trackers is the only sensible option, even if trackers are located where trackers are legal (one wonders when or if the RIAA will ever come to this conclusion). So Prince is desparate. Suing fans, the only legal remedy, may be counter productive. He's left with trying to intimidate the tracker operators.
The bigger picture here is we're watching the collapse of a business model, and there's no replacement in sight. If musicians can't make money, they won't record. On the other hand, the record labels have earned the ire and disrepect of many fans, and the labels are practically impotent. We're watching dinosaurs die, and we have no idea what will replace them.
What google gives you that the Cook County Assor's Database doesn't is the "fly through" visualization and the interface to control it. The Aspen Movie Map had a cruder version; it was a "drive through" visualization and interface; i.e. your point of view was limited to the paths on the street grid. Lemme know when Cook County gets their 3D fly-through visualization working.
For those of you too lazy to follow the links, the Aspen Movie Map was a project done in 1978-81 by the MIT Architecture Machine Group (precursor to the Media Lab) to create an interactive map of the town of Aspen Colorado. Similar to Google, they mounted sideways facing cameras on a car, drove around the town collecting "street-view" imagery and loaded it all into an interactive map. They built an interactive videodisk and interface that allowed you to "drive around" the town.
Video clip Here. I don't know if they patented any of the ideas, but I expect any patents would have expired by 2007.
Actually, most of the plutonium on earth was manufactured in breeder reactors, in the form of Pu239 (half life 24100 years). The longest lived isotope of plutonium, Pu244 has a half life of 80 million years http://http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium. That means all but an unmeasurable amount of original Pu244 has decayed naturally over the 5 billion years (60+ half lives!) of earth's existence. Some miniscule amounts are created during the decay of naturally occuring U235, and that's the main source of natural Pu.
As for the toxicity of plutonium, reports are all over the map depending on whether they're talking about immediate chemical toxicity or long term cancer. The body tends to treat it like lead or other heavy metals, and concentrates it in the liver and bone where its radioactivity can slowly raise your risk for cancer. Noboby wants to inhale more than a microgram or so. As for the naturally ocurring U235 on earth, if it weren't safely buried in the ground, if it were a finely divided aerosol distributed by the wind, life on earth might well be very different.
In summary, radium and carbon14 are not retained by the body like heavy metals, and it's unfair to compare uranium in the ground with a potential cloud of plutonium dust in the air.
Yah, I'm rootin' Blu-ray, both for the bigger disks (very useful as data disks when I'm backing up my system) and for the higher data rate. Regarding data rate, one addtional thing you should know about HD-DVD is that each disk contains two copies of the movie; one in standard def and the second in hi-def. The idea was that you could buy the disks now and play them on your standard def TV, and later when you buy hi-def, the same disk can play its hi-def copy. Only problem with this is that the standard def copy uses up a significant chunk of the disk. That means the hi-def version of the movie has to be compressed even more than 15 or 30 GB would suggest. The only advantage I see for HD-DVD is that it got cheaper faster. But I'm still not gonna buy either until the war ends.
That said, both sides may be hoping for a conclusion similar to the DVD+/- battle. In that war, there were two competing formats for writable disks: DVD+R and DVD-R. The war ended when all drives could handle both kinds of disk. This is really a win for both sides because every DVD drive you by pays licensing fees on the patents for both DVD+ and DVD-. It ends up costing the consumer slightly more for zero benefit. As I said, a win for both sides.
Post is 100% right. The definition of privacy is control of personal information. Secrecy is one means of control, but not the only one. Things like the "do not call" list are implementations of privacy by other means; i.e. they have your personal information, but you can still prevent them from using it by calling. Credit card and bank account info are also private: you give your CC# to a vendor and the vendor is only allowed to use it for the purpose of that transaction. Facebook apparently fails to appreciate the distiction between privacy and secrecy. They need to understand the magnitude of their error.
Lower weight or lower BMI correlates with higher death rate but that doesn't necessarily mean lower weight causes death. What's going on is there are a number of diseases whose common final path includes "wasting away." AIDS and some cancers fall into that category. So even if you started out in the "healthier" 25-30 BMI group, a disease may push you into the low BMI group before you die. In those cases, the low BMI is an effect, not a cause. They call this the "J-curve" because if you graph BMI on the X-axis and death rate on the Y-axis you'll see a small ramp on the left and a big ramp on the right.
I believe in 2004 I read about a large longitudinal study that looked at the life expectancy of healthy people and found that less fat was healthier, even at the bottom end; i.e. no J-curve for healthy people. But I can't for the life of me remember the name of the study. And anyway I've gotta go lose some weight!
Sure, they look OK. but I far prefer Palatino to Constantia. And I prefer Times New Roman to Cambria. All the sans serif fonts are eyesores to me, so I don't care what they recommend there (why the heck would you ever make the digit 1, lower case l, and capital I look identical?). In short, I see no reason to change.
The only reliable way to test matters of subtle perception (be it food or sound or whatever) is the ABX test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABX_test. It works like this: present two known different samples -- call them A and B. Then present an unknown sample -- call it X that's either identical to A or to B. Can the listener or taster or whatever reliably classify X? If so, you have evidence of a perceptible difference. If no one beats chance over a reasonable number of trials, you have evidence that there is no perceptible difference between A and B.
According to the article, exploint uses Cross-site scripting, also known as XSS. There is a firefox plugin called NoScript that limits cross site scripts. The article points you to http://noscript.net/features#xss which describes the anti-XSS protection of noscript. The noscript pages suggests that you only load firefox plugins from addons.mozilla.org and sends you to https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/722 where you can download noscript.
"Seventy percent of all criminal activity can be tied to a vehicle," says Mark Windover, president of Remington ELSAG Law Enforcement Systems, which is marketing its product to 250 U.S. police agencies.
Funny, Remington ELSAG didn't offer statistics on what percent of crimes can be tied to a gun...
Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that the sole reason for development was as stated above. The US used teargas in Viet Nam, and non-lethal weapons such as rubber bullets were used by the British in Northern Ireland, and I think by the Israelis against Palestinians. But there may be a problem with this sort of weapon. According to http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/3/214326.shtml The US was unable to use teargas due to a chemical weapons treaty. It wouldn't surprise me if some treaty some where disallowed this thing on the battlefield, but not at home...
The commit message gives a little bit of pcc's history:
. ..
The intention is to write a C99 compiler while still keeping it small, simple, fast and understandable. I think of it as if it shall be able to compile and run on PDP11 (even if it may not happen in reality). But with this in mind it becomes important to think twice about what algorithms are used.
OK, the onchip cache on my core 2 duo is many times larger than the full RAM on any PDP-11 I've ever heard of. So why should I be interested in a buggy compiler that wants to fit into tiny PDP-11 constraints? Maybe this compiler would be exciting if it were ported to an iPhone, but I fail to see why it's interesting in a linux environment.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, this is old news. There's a month old discussion thread on RWT Discussion forum. Berkeley proposes the "thirteen dwarfs" - 13 kinds of test algorithms they consider valuable to parallelize. Linus doesn't think the 13 dwarfs correspond well to everyday computing loads. My 2 cents: Intel & others are spending hundreds of millions of bucks per year trying to speed up single-thread style computing, so it's not a bad idea to put a few more million/year into thousand thread computing.
According to this, Russia can produce two reactor pressure vessel forgings per year, with plans to double by 2011.
But all this delay in "evolutionary" boiling water reactors could be good news for pebble bed reactors. This Blog has a handy summary of the advantages and disadvantages of pebble beds. Last November, Westinghouse bought a pebble bed company called IST Nuclear. Some nice diagrams.
Absolutely! When I look at the difference between windows 2000 (which offers real improvements over win98) and windows vista, I see alot of change purely for the sake of change. Win XP is kind of a big bug fix on Win2K. I would have preferred it if they had just fixed Win2K, but I'll accept a bug fix. Vista isn't even a bug fix - just change for the sake of change. I'm avoiding it and all the people I advise are avoiding it too.
According the the above mentioned dailykos diary entry,
He's got more detailed regional analysis here.It might also be worth recalling that Clinton led almost every NH poll for the whole year before Jan 8. And that anecdotally, a number of indepentdents say they were going choose democrat and vote for Obama, but since he had it in the bag they instead chose republican and voted for McCain. And that exit polling says Hillary got a big chunk of women's votes. In other words there are enough other explanations that the instant assumption of a stolen election is rather absurd. Can we mod the whole story down as a troll?
Some folks such as Seagate CEO Bill Watkins claim that the Blu-ray HD-DVD format war dragged on long enough to make network transfer of movies the preferred format. Personally I have my doubts. If I own a physical disc DVD, I can loan it to my neighbor, bring it on the road and let my kids watch it on a hotel DVD player, and generally treat it as if I own it outright. Blu-ray will be the same. If I electronically download a movie, DRM greatly limits the hardware on which it will play: either my desktop or my laptop or maybe my Tivo, but probably not all of the above. And if I replace my media PC in two years time, how many hoops do I jump through to re-license my collection on new hardware? Nope, the DRM on network movies is worse than the DRM on the disks.
Voters, um, I mean buyers, seem to be moved by that message of hope! Obama, um, I mean Blu-Ray, seems to be surging unexpectedly ahead! Change is in the air! The big mony gang is frustrated -- they've been causing change for 25 or more years -- why aren't more people listening? Iowa was a shock; Blu-Ray is 10 points ahead in the latest NH polls; south Carolina won't save HD-DVD; they've gotta re-group and start pointing out Blu-Ray's flaws from now until Super Tuesday!
Only thing I can't figure out is where is Ron Paul in all this? I think he represents 3D holographic TV. It's the darling of the techno-cognoscenti, but nobody really expects it to see the light of day.
I hope the war ends quickly, and I hope blu-ray wins because blu-ray has a higher data rate (something like peak 48Mb/sec vs 32Mb/sec). Not to mention that blu-ray dual layer holds a whopping 50 gigs. But I'm not going to buy any kind of player until the war is clearly over.
Now about those "mistakes were made" issues? According to Knight-Ridder's senior military correspondent
Although only Rumsfeld and Cheney are named, none of this could have been done without Bush's backing (the fact that Rumsfeld wasn't fired until late 2006 speaks volumes). In essense, the Bushies believed that they could set the budget in dollars and troops low. Why did they believe that? Check out the Rumsfeld Doctrine. One of Rumsfeld's three pillars of faith is a reliance on high tech (the others are air power and nimble troops).
That bears repeating: the Rumsfeld Doctrine depended on high technology. So now, in 2007 in Wired, Noah Shachtman tells us that the geeks implementing the high tech are responsible for the mess. Shachtman frames the issue in a way that assumes the Rumsfeld Doctrine is correct and blames the geeks! Gosh, other than Noah Shachtman, how many supporters of the Rumsfeld Doctrine do you think you can find in the punditocracy? Does this framing tell us where Shachtman was cheerleading in the run-up to the Iraq war? I do believe it does. Shachtman appears to be one of the last true believers in the discredited Rumsfeld Doctrine, and the Wired article that sparked this story is his declaration of faith.
Gosh, I guess I completely misunderstood the song! Given that traditional big band swing music involves lots of horns, I thought the "trumpet playing band" was the "crowd of young boys" derogatory name for the Sultans of Swing. I thought "trumpet playing band" was put in to indicate that the Sultans didn't care whether their music appealed to young boys trying to act cool. Clearly "Harry" -- He can play honky tonk just like anything / Saving it up for Friday night / With the Sultans with the Sultans of Swing -- is piano player for the Sultans. But you're telling me the "trumpet playing band" is not the Sultans. So the "trumpet playing band" is somebody else. How interesting!
But most listeners don't really have a taste for the FOB-AUD stuff. Most listeners prefer multitrack recorded, post session mixed, with any flubs patched. Thats the vast majority of the music that gets traded on thepiratebay and demonoid (RIP). That's the business that's circling the drain as we watch.
With the death of the RIAA music business, I do sorta wonder how bands will rise to national and international prominence. I'm not saying there will never be rock stars again, but I do wonder what the mechanism will be. I'm well awasre that the RIAA music business ripped off Janice Ian and Roger McGuinn (scroll past Lars) and most other not-quite-superstar musicians. But I honestly wonder: without the RIAA based music business, would we ever have heard of Buddy Holly or the Byrds? Would there have been a national pool where talent could rise to the top?
Now I'm not saying that still happens. According to David Crosby the tides in the talent pool have been pulling all wrong for a long time. I'm not even saying that the RIAA based dinosaurs don't deserve to die. What I am saying is that for 60 or more years, the music industry has maintained a sort of cultural commons -- has provided a meaningful soundtrack for each generation from WWII on -- so that people from far away could join together with shared music. And I'm not trying to be snarky; I truly wonder, when (not if) the RIAA based music industry dies, what will fill in this cultural commons?
In particular, in some places such as the USA it is a crime to provide a service that abets illegal file sharing. In other places, though the filesharing might be illegal, providing metadata about shared files is legal. In those places, you have to go after the sharers because running the tracker is legal see footnote 9 . Sharers are like roaches: there's a million born every day and they're coming out of the woodwork. There's little evidence that suing a few hundred sharers alters the behavior of the unsued millions. So for Prince, going after trackers is the only sensible option, even if trackers are located where trackers are legal (one wonders when or if the RIAA will ever come to this conclusion). So Prince is desparate. Suing fans, the only legal remedy, may be counter productive. He's left with trying to intimidate the tracker operators.
The bigger picture here is we're watching the collapse of a business model, and there's no replacement in sight. If musicians can't make money, they won't record. On the other hand, the record labels have earned the ire and disrepect of many fans, and the labels are practically impotent. We're watching dinosaurs die, and we have no idea what will replace them.
What google gives you that the Cook County Assor's Database doesn't is the "fly through" visualization and the interface to control it. The Aspen Movie Map had a cruder version; it was a "drive through" visualization and interface; i.e. your point of view was limited to the paths on the street grid. Lemme know when Cook County gets their 3D fly-through visualization working.
For those of you too lazy to follow the links, the Aspen Movie Map was a project done in 1978-81 by the MIT Architecture Machine Group (precursor to the Media Lab) to create an interactive map of the town of Aspen Colorado. Similar to Google, they mounted sideways facing cameras on a car, drove around the town collecting "street-view" imagery and loaded it all into an interactive map. They built an interactive videodisk and interface that allowed you to "drive around" the town. Video clip Here. I don't know if they patented any of the ideas, but I expect any patents would have expired by 2007.
As for the toxicity of plutonium, reports are all over the map depending on whether they're talking about immediate chemical toxicity or long term cancer. The body tends to treat it like lead or other heavy metals, and concentrates it in the liver and bone where its radioactivity can slowly raise your risk for cancer. Noboby wants to inhale more than a microgram or so. As for the naturally ocurring U235 on earth, if it weren't safely buried in the ground, if it were a finely divided aerosol distributed by the wind, life on earth might well be very different.
In summary, radium and carbon14 are not retained by the body like heavy metals, and it's unfair to compare uranium in the ground with a potential cloud of plutonium dust in the air.
That said, both sides may be hoping for a conclusion similar to the DVD+/- battle. In that war, there were two competing formats for writable disks: DVD+R and DVD-R. The war ended when all drives could handle both kinds of disk. This is really a win for both sides because every DVD drive you by pays licensing fees on the patents for both DVD+ and DVD-. It ends up costing the consumer slightly more for zero benefit. As I said, a win for both sides.
Post is 100% right. The definition of privacy is control of personal information. Secrecy is one means of control, but not the only one. Things like the "do not call" list are implementations of privacy by other means; i.e. they have your personal information, but you can still prevent them from using it by calling. Credit card and bank account info are also private: you give your CC# to a vendor and the vendor is only allowed to use it for the purpose of that transaction. Facebook apparently fails to appreciate the distiction between privacy and secrecy. They need to understand the magnitude of their error.
I believe in 2004 I read about a large longitudinal study that looked at the life expectancy of healthy people and found that less fat was healthier, even at the bottom end; i.e. no J-curve for healthy people. But I can't for the life of me remember the name of the study. And anyway I've gotta go lose some weight!
Sure, they look OK. but I far prefer Palatino to Constantia. And I prefer Times New Roman to Cambria. All the sans serif fonts are eyesores to me, so I don't care what they recommend there (why the heck would you ever make the digit 1, lower case l, and capital I look identical?). In short, I see no reason to change.
The only reliable way to test matters of subtle perception (be it food or sound or whatever) is the ABX test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABX_test. It works like this: present two known different samples -- call them A and B. Then present an unknown sample -- call it X that's either identical to A or to B. Can the listener or taster or whatever reliably classify X? If so, you have evidence of a perceptible difference. If no one beats chance over a reasonable number of trials, you have evidence that there is no perceptible difference between A and B.
Check ebay for a used thinkpad. IBM still made them in 2005, though they were made in a Chinese factory.
According to the article, exploint uses Cross-site scripting, also known as XSS. There is a firefox plugin called NoScript that limits cross site scripts. The article points you to http://noscript.net/features#xss which describes the anti-XSS protection of noscript. The noscript pages suggests that you only load firefox plugins from addons.mozilla.org and sends you to https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/722 where you can download noscript.
Funny, Remington ELSAG didn't offer statistics on what percent of crimes can be tied to a gun...
Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that the sole reason for development was as stated above. The US used teargas in Viet Nam, and non-lethal weapons such as rubber bullets were used by the British in Northern Ireland, and I think by the Israelis against Palestinians. But there may be a problem with this sort of weapon. According to http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/3/214326.shtml The US was unable to use teargas due to a chemical weapons treaty. It wouldn't surprise me if some treaty some where disallowed this thing on the battlefield, but not at home...