They're not making something illegal that was previously legal. They bill basically affirms that what they did was indeed illegal in the first place and the action to prevent prosecution was not legal.
That doesn't necessarily refute what he had said. Your sources basically say at least one person in the conversation must be aware of the recording. The first emphasized quote doesn't go against what he said, either. It explains in the very next sentence that the term "eavesdrop" in Michigan refers to listening to a conversation you are not a part of, nothing to do with one you are engaged in.
Plus, you can cite every law book available and it won't change the fact that he legally used a recording a conversation with only one party aware in a court. Obviously the judge in his case allowed it for a reason.
The idea of saving an animal based on its appearance is one of the reasons why many animals receive a disproportionate amount of funding. There are some species of animals that have more money diverted to them than hundreds of other species combined for no other reason than they are more marketable.
If pandas go extinct, what effect would it have on the ecosystem? Almost none. It eats bamboo for 99% of its diet and I doubt it eats enough to be a source of control on the growth of bamboo. However, pandas are one of the most iconic and most fiercely protected animals. Why? Because they're cute. Not because they're useful to the ecosystem.
Screw plumage, I'm tired of hearing from bleeding hearts over cute, useless animals. I want to see protection of animals that mean a damn to the ecosystem, not for animals that look good on kid's folders and as plush toys.
The model helps determine if a species is important. That's the whole point. Previously, we didn't have an easy way to determine a particular species impact on an ecosystem until it was almost extinct or already gone. Now by using "PageRank" to determine their importance, we can model what will happen if specific species are no longer part of the food web.
No, you're right. It's not notable. Whenever one area of knowledge is improved, every other area is instantly aware of this discovery and can utilize it with 100% efficiency right away.
Less sarcastically, I am not surprised a biologist is unaware of such mathematical models. It's notable for the fact that they're applying a rather simple method to a rather old problem and it's extremely effective.
No, that's not fair. Most customers are unaware of these practices. Just because they let people opt-out when they get caught doesn't mean they're justified to any degree.
But fabs are incredibly expensive. Fab 1 in Dresden has cost something like $6 billion dollars to date, from construction to current upgrades. Plus, you have to account for research and development costs of moving to smaller manufacturing sizes, which according to Intel was something like $600 million to $900 million to move from 45nm to 32nm. For a company like AMD that still has a lot of debt from the purchase of ATI, that's a lot of money. Add to that that the New York fab is estimated to cost $4.2 billion and it's easy to see why they spun this off. The productive coordination process isn't THAT much smoother to warrant all that overhead.
Yes. $1.4 billion dollars in tax incentives to build a $4.2 billion fab. How could anyone miss this obvious scam of New York? I'm glad we have you here to reveal the clouded truth.
I think the biggest problem is that all these devices are advertised as smart first, appliances second. They focus so much on the benefits of being able to access the "smart grid" or whatever, they don't do enough to tell the consumer that the appliances are good in their own right. I think if they make quality appliances with these features, market them as quality that also has "smart capabilities," they would probably sell better.
I mean, sure, it's awesome that when my local power company rolls out peak and off-peak rates that my appliances can tell me when it's more expensive to use them, but I want them to be good appliances first. I want them to be efficient in the first place so I don't have to manage my usage by the hour. I already do enough to keep my appliance usage to a minimum to save money; I don't want to also manage when that minimum occurs.
They help develop phones. They work very close with manufacturers to remove any features they deem useful or that may use more then 8 bits per second of bandwidth. It's a very labor intensive process and I think it earns them the right to keep their crappy, er, customized phones exclusive to their network.
Who needs to guess when it's so easy to get someone to just give you their social security number if you just present a vaguely legitimate reason? For instance, I could pretend to be hiring people for a new business I am opening. Pretty much every application I've ever filled out has asked for a social security number.
I could also see this technique being combined for some nasty phishing methods. Set up a fake credit check website, ask for their date of birth, the security question is their place of birth, and the last four digits of their social security number is their pin number. Using the technique of these researchers, you can guess a significant portion of people's SS numbers. 40% is probably a huge number for phishing, where most people avoid them, but by shear volume enough get caught to make money off it.
If you've ever seen the connections made by an online game of Starcraft, you'd quickly realize that beyond the lobby, the game itself is connected to each player. And why is everyone thinking there is somehow a ton of data to move between the players? Has anyone forgot about games like Supreme Commander with gawd-awful huge maps and thousands of units at once? It plays just fine over the internet with even the government definition of broadband. I seriously doubt that Blizzard would have trouble optimizing the data flow between players.
If you're having trouble with Carrier Storms and Zerg Rushes, it has nothing to do with your connection; It's your PC. Starcraft never used that much bandwidth, even on a LAN, and I imagine Starcraft 2 will be even more efficient, especially if Blizzard is looking to make EVERY player connect to them to do multiplayer.
Slashdot Mirror
They're not making something illegal that was previously legal. They bill basically affirms that what they did was indeed illegal in the first place and the action to prevent prosecution was not legal.
We're talking about a very cheap phone here. Something that is lucky to get signal at sea level, let alone 2500 feet up.
The GPS cell phone we used to track the location of our vehicle lost reception soon after launch (at an elevation of ~2500 feet).
So I'm guessing it gave it's location up to 2500 feet, disappeared, then reappeared when it went below about 2500 feet.
Wait... Is that .2 cents or .2 dollars?
Your $200+ netbook?
That doesn't necessarily refute what he had said. Your sources basically say at least one person in the conversation must be aware of the recording. The first emphasized quote doesn't go against what he said, either. It explains in the very next sentence that the term "eavesdrop" in Michigan refers to listening to a conversation you are not a part of, nothing to do with one you are engaged in.
Plus, you can cite every law book available and it won't change the fact that he legally used a recording a conversation with only one party aware in a court. Obviously the judge in his case allowed it for a reason.
The idea of saving an animal based on its appearance is one of the reasons why many animals receive a disproportionate amount of funding. There are some species of animals that have more money diverted to them than hundreds of other species combined for no other reason than they are more marketable.
If pandas go extinct, what effect would it have on the ecosystem? Almost none. It eats bamboo for 99% of its diet and I doubt it eats enough to be a source of control on the growth of bamboo. However, pandas are one of the most iconic and most fiercely protected animals. Why? Because they're cute. Not because they're useful to the ecosystem.
Screw plumage, I'm tired of hearing from bleeding hearts over cute, useless animals. I want to see protection of animals that mean a damn to the ecosystem, not for animals that look good on kid's folders and as plush toys.
The model helps determine if a species is important. That's the whole point. Previously, we didn't have an easy way to determine a particular species impact on an ecosystem until it was almost extinct or already gone. Now by using "PageRank" to determine their importance, we can model what will happen if specific species are no longer part of the food web.
No, you're right. It's not notable. Whenever one area of knowledge is improved, every other area is instantly aware of this discovery and can utilize it with 100% efficiency right away.
Less sarcastically, I am not surprised a biologist is unaware of such mathematical models. It's notable for the fact that they're applying a rather simple method to a rather old problem and it's extremely effective.
No, that's not fair. Most customers are unaware of these practices. Just because they let people opt-out when they get caught doesn't mean they're justified to any degree.
The games cost $50. The ads come free.
But fabs are incredibly expensive. Fab 1 in Dresden has cost something like $6 billion dollars to date, from construction to current upgrades. Plus, you have to account for research and development costs of moving to smaller manufacturing sizes, which according to Intel was something like $600 million to $900 million to move from 45nm to 32nm. For a company like AMD that still has a lot of debt from the purchase of ATI, that's a lot of money. Add to that that the New York fab is estimated to cost $4.2 billion and it's easy to see why they spun this off. The productive coordination process isn't THAT much smoother to warrant all that overhead.
Yes. $1.4 billion dollars in tax incentives to build a $4.2 billion fab. How could anyone miss this obvious scam of New York? I'm glad we have you here to reveal the clouded truth.
Do LCDs with faster response times improve the speed of the medical applications too?
I think the biggest problem is that all these devices are advertised as smart first, appliances second. They focus so much on the benefits of being able to access the "smart grid" or whatever, they don't do enough to tell the consumer that the appliances are good in their own right. I think if they make quality appliances with these features, market them as quality that also has "smart capabilities," they would probably sell better.
I mean, sure, it's awesome that when my local power company rolls out peak and off-peak rates that my appliances can tell me when it's more expensive to use them, but I want them to be good appliances first. I want them to be efficient in the first place so I don't have to manage my usage by the hour. I already do enough to keep my appliance usage to a minimum to save money; I don't want to also manage when that minimum occurs.
They help develop phones. They work very close with manufacturers to remove any features they deem useful or that may use more then 8 bits per second of bandwidth. It's a very labor intensive process and I think it earns them the right to keep their crappy, er, customized phones exclusive to their network.
Disney World.
That's why this is newsworthy.
Europe is not a country. It is a continent. Even more so; The US uses Imperial while most of the world uses Metric, not just another country.
Who needs to guess when it's so easy to get someone to just give you their social security number if you just present a vaguely legitimate reason? For instance, I could pretend to be hiring people for a new business I am opening. Pretty much every application I've ever filled out has asked for a social security number.
I could also see this technique being combined for some nasty phishing methods. Set up a fake credit check website, ask for their date of birth, the security question is their place of birth, and the last four digits of their social security number is their pin number. Using the technique of these researchers, you can guess a significant portion of people's SS numbers. 40% is probably a huge number for phishing, where most people avoid them, but by shear volume enough get caught to make money off it.
Kind of like... CLucene?
A relative of mine puts 100,0000 miles on a car in a year. That's a lot of fuel.
I hope they don't lease.
What school is that?
If you've ever seen the connections made by an online game of Starcraft, you'd quickly realize that beyond the lobby, the game itself is connected to each player. And why is everyone thinking there is somehow a ton of data to move between the players? Has anyone forgot about games like Supreme Commander with gawd-awful huge maps and thousands of units at once? It plays just fine over the internet with even the government definition of broadband. I seriously doubt that Blizzard would have trouble optimizing the data flow between players.
If you're having trouble with Carrier Storms and Zerg Rushes, it has nothing to do with your connection; It's your PC. Starcraft never used that much bandwidth, even on a LAN, and I imagine Starcraft 2 will be even more efficient, especially if Blizzard is looking to make EVERY player connect to them to do multiplayer.