Okay, I really fail to see this or the original "proof" in the FTS. Both rely on confusing the reader with decimal places. The example given in the FTS says:
a =.999 so 10 = 9.999; but this fails immediately. If a =.999 then 10a = 9.99 and the rest of the "proof" false apart.
Yours is a similar issue: you claim 1/9 = 0.111111111111111111111111111111.....
I hate to break it to you, but it doesn't. 1/9 is simply one of those cases where a finite decimal representation is always an approximation. 1/9 ~ 0.111111111111111 which if you multiply each side by 9 you get 1 ~.99999999999999999999 -- which is not surprising in the slightest due to decimal approximation.
If you were *serious* about numbers you would know how to account for the limitations of binary representations when doing precise calculations on a computer. The same *should* be true about decimal representations, but apparently not.
Either I fell for a troll article with troll posts, but I actually expected to see a post from *somebody* pointing out the glaringly obvious problem with the FTS.
Unfortunately, "gun-advocates" I know spout this line to me. I think it is self-deception on their part, what they (the nuts I know and am talking about) really want is to secede from the USA and continue to reap all the benefits of being a citizen. Regrettably, the gun control freaks don't need to plant anyone, there are enough nuts who bill themselves as conservative, 2nd amendment supporters to do their work for them.
Much easier. I went from a 3G to the 4 and if there was even the slightest angle in the surface the 4 would slide off of it. It fell or was dropped probably three times in the first day. Immediately bought a bumper for it -- I figured if I waited the six weeks for the Apple provided freebie to ship the display would've already shattered. The bumper provides enough friction that it hasn't been an issue since.
Apple "took one look" at my wife's iPhone 3G with shattered screen and replaced it. No questions asked. You are making an unsubstantiated negative claim about a company, I wonder what your bias is. Actually, I don't have to wonder.
Exactly. But the FBI didn't really want to get involved in pursuing child pornography trafficking charges against a school. Even worse, they did the worst of the worst: they *produced* it. When an underage girl shared some topless photos (via MMS or chat, I forget which) Pennsylvania decided to hit her with "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" (WTF? How can a minor contribute to her own delinquency?). But school officials are another matter entirely and no charges filed by the state, just a civil action brought by one of the aggrieved.
Good post, but your argument that lawyers won't misrepresent the situation to lead the plaintiffs to make a poor choice is that lots of money gets paid out for legal malpractice that is actually successfully sued for? Really?
That information suggests to me that it is common practice...
Combine that with the difficulty in getting disbarred (how long did it take Florida to finally sanction Jack Thompson?) and it starts to look like there is probably a worse problem.
I use the same password on most websites. Why? Because I don't care if someone can post as me on forum foo that requires registration to post a question in the mistaken belief that it will stop spam. 99% of my "website accounts" use the same password. Now, ebay, pay pal, personal email, work account, etc., are an entirely different matter.
Guess what, I also share passwords. That's right, if it is a login that is *intended* to be shared then it is. The question doesn't allow discrimination between intended use/appropriate and inappropriate sharing. For what I hope are obvious reasons I have not only told my wife the password to my personal system, but added it to her password safe (we also share a key to the same safety deposit box, oh the horrors).
Length of a password is nearly as important as the character set from which it is composed. I used to (many moons ago) use randomly generated passwords for important accounts. The problem was I selected them myself (yeah, they qualified as mumbo jumbo, not qwerty-aligned) and they tended to be short (6 or 7 characters). I now spend more time composing passwords I care about, make them long (15+ characters where allowed) *and* stash them somewhere. The throwaway passwords only include numbers/symbols if the site requires it. A good example of a bad password: P@s$w0rd
Much worse than using a significant date or pet name as part of a password is using it for the password reset. And *that* is common, either through user choice or forced by the site. And if you choose to fib for security's sake... better record the lie for that site so if you *do* need a password reset you can get back in.
Just be careful that you don't watch too many movies. What they'll do for the streaming remains to be seen, but the reason I am not a netflix customer any longer is their "smoothing" policy. This policy, which they don't advertise and carefully talk around the meaning of, came about due to losing a law suit for the practice. Now it is official policy.
The gist of it is that if you watch too many movies that are too popular in too short of a time period they will one or both of the following:
- delay sending your next movie
- send a movie from your queue that is not the top available movie
Because they are so secretive about the policy I do not believe it is intended to be an object lesson for the customer. At first you think, "well, the post office must've been slow" or "strange, [the top movie in queue] must've become unavailable since I last saw the queue." But it keeps happening and, in my case, I started googling and found out about the lawsuit.
Naively, I thought I was a "good customer" because I would return a movie the next day (or on unusual occasions the same day) which meant that it was quickly available to be sent to the next customer. I assumed that having a high turnover meant lower inventory and thus lower cost. I'm not so sure any more. Maybe the postal costs eat them up and it costs them too much to actually honor the contract which they advertise as "unlimited". (My wife and I would easily watch 5-7 movies a week back then.) Who knows, netflix isn't saying. (Wikipedia states it is the marginal cost of the mailing, but I've not seen any statement from netflix stating that, nor any indicator of what the real limits are for an "unlimited" account so as to avoid them.)
Akira Kurosawa was a brilliant director and made many movies, despite which they are apparently in low demand. At first I loved netflix because I could watch these older, harder to find movies. But after ~9 months I apparently started hitting higher demand movies, or the number watched in that period crossed a threshold or something because even though our rate had dropped to no more than two movies a week it went to hell in a handbasket very quickly.
The person who originally turned me on to netflix wouldn't believe netflix really practices throttling (despite this being documented, easy citation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix, but really, google for netflix and smoothing should give plenty of results). Until it started happening to him.
If the issue resulting in "smoothing" is the cost of mailing a disk expect a similar experience with streaming: there is in effect a cost for X bandwidth over Y time and as you approach that marginal cost with an "unlimited" account they would find you to be a bad customer and take corrective action. And even though the cost of streaming is less than post it is easier to saturate with on-demand than a limit of X at a time and the latency of the postal service.
So, enjoy netflix while you can. They have an incredible selection of movies (if they deign to mail them to you) and streaming is convenient (though without any where near the selection). Maybe they'll treat you well, I hope so. As for me, I killed my account. Once flagged for "smoothing" apparently it doesn't matter how few movies you watch or how unpopular they might be -- they will persist in sending series out of order, not sending some movies regardless of availability and generally pissing on the customer and the concept of a queue.
I'm not a nook owner, but I started reading ebooks on my iphone. I have never bought an ebook, and as long as the ridiculous pricing scheme stays the same I don't expect to ever purchase one. I've taken public domain works and created ebooks from them and, even better, loaded some from project gutenberg. I've made PDFs of some printed works for my own use, but no novels yet.
The upside to reading on my iphone is that I always have it, and its collection of books, with me. Since starting this I've read the Three Musketeers and a good part of the sequels simply due to opportunity. The paper copy of Three Musketeers is still sitting on my shelf unread.
Its the opportunistic nature of it, the ability to read whenever/wherever I have the time to read, that I like. There are two Walter Jon Williams novels I've not managed to read yet, one of which is available through Apple's iBooks -- for what appears to be full cover price. Which I've already paid for. I could see paying a nominal fee to gain access to an electronic version, but to re-pay full price? No way.
Instead, I'll read from our rich public domain (it may not be getting any richer, but there *is* quite a bit out there, some even from the last century and, new or old, quite a bit that is very good). And Walter Jon Williams' writing will be just as brilliant when I manage to find the time to sit down and read the paper copy.
You are proposing a "war of escalation" where the side you are rooting for is always behind. You say to avoid being passive, but your proposal is entirely based on reacting to yesterday's news.
"I7s can be had pretty cheap these days" is not a comparison to the AMD price, but instead is implicitly indicating that I7 processors don't cost as much as they used to. Few (if any) people are saying AMD out performs intel, they are saying that the *ratio* of price/performance is better for AMD than intel. If true then for *best* performance buy intel. If you want or need to save money, buy AMD.
I don't buy systems very often, but I do watch for a while before I do. What I have seen (which may or may not be the case at the moment) is that at the low end Intel is the buy, mid range AMD gives the best price/performance and for the high end it is Intel. This has led me to buy AMD because I need more than low end performance but, try as I might to justify it, I can't really afford the high end Intel.
As others have pointed out it isn't just the CPU cost, its the motherboard. And the fact that the sockets don't change constantly. Its also the RAM. I had a motherboard go bad on me and because it was an AMD system I was actually able to buy a new motherboard that supported the old CPU I had *and* was compatible with the just released latest and greatest from AMD. If I had had Intel I would've had to spring for new CPU, new motherboard and new RAM. I couldn't have afforded it. And depending on how long it goes before I look at upgrading/replacing the system I may be able to get by with simply buying a new CPU and adding more RAM.
This last spring I noticed a *12* core AMD processor that, on some server class motherboards, you could go dual processor with hideous amounts of RAM. I don't recall the pricing now, but at an approximation I could buy both processors and motherboard for less than the best Intel with plenty left over to get a goodly amount of RAM. I don't recall with certainty how many cores the Intel had, but in some cases hyperthreading decreases performance (even Intel only claims ~10% best case performance boost from hyperthreading so don't bother trying to claim that a 4 core Intel is equivalent to 8 cores).
Where are you getting your information? The OSP is not obligated to "IMMEDIATELY" restore the content. Nor does a counterclaim legal notice that the uploader "take full legal responsibility." If that were the case then such documentation could be filed pre-emptively to avoid a take down, but that is not the case. An OSP is required to take down material claimed to be infringing on receipt of such claim (when properly filed according to the provisions of the DMCA). There is also no statement in the DMCA that an OSP faces "full legal responsibility of any losses" incurred due to the pulling of content.
Why do I know this? Because I process DMCA complaints. Because I've read the DMCA. Because we've received a complaint for original material produced by one of our faculty. The plaintiff stated, under penalty of perjury, that our content was material that belonged to them. Guess what happened? We had to take it down. We referred to general counsel and we had to keep it down for, I forget, at least a month IIRC. For content that was produced by our faculty.
That would likely be very easy to cull. The cookies would be used from a wide range of IP addresses, set a threshold and throw those out. Also, you specify, "safe, non-identifying" so any that *are* identifying are good to go. Raises the bar slightly on the processing required, but probably less hassle than maintaining a plugin, having people install it, etc.
You are apparently unaware of the ridiculous lengths involved.
Are you perhaps aware that there is a physical limitation to blade length of a weapon sheathed at the hip which will be drawn from there? It is a function of arm length. Some scabbards are made to extend this by effectively having a slit from the opening down along the bottom edge, but I'm not aware of any rapier scabbards made this way. A little experimentation will determine the maximum blade length you can draw.
Then consider the fact that the longer the blade the farther out the balance point will move. Yes, you can compensate by embellishing the hilt and using a larger pommel, but doing so increases the overall weight of the blade. A "normal" ~34" blade rapier weighs about three pounds. A "normal" ~33" blade sword weighs about three pounds.
You make the rapier a foot longer and you necessarily increase the weight, or to retain the balance point, increase the weight even more. Either way you are increasing the effort required to wield the blade. Arm-chair "weapon masters" rarely realize how tiring it is to wield a 3 pounds sword, and how much more tiring it is to wield one that weighs four pounds. Many RPGs vastly overstate the weight of weapons which compounds the problem.
The length of a rapier became a point of status and was not an issue of defense (or offense -- reach is actually more important for offense) leading to sumptuary laws in England.
A quick way to find *real* weights and lengths for various historical weapons without leaving your chair is to peruse catalogs of replicas, such as http://www.museumreplicas.com/
Some rapiers were *very* stylized (the ridiculous blade lengths that became popular among courtiers, for example). But "deep bellied" or "broad bladed tip" designs are not the only form for effectual swords and chopping is not very efficient for defeating armor, thrusting is. And for thrusting a triangular blade is desired.
You will notice that Type X "taper toward the tip" rather than becoming broader. Or the Type XII which is improved for thrusting. Or the Type XIII which, while not especially adapted for thrusting, fails to have the "broad toward the tip" design you aver is the only functional sword type. Note when and how common this sword type was.
In fact, you won't find much in the way of sword blade types meeting those limited criteria.
Silly me, I thought the purpose of art was creating something, be it in musical, tangible or visual form, that was aesthetically pleasing. If the purpose of art is the recognition of artists I'm done with it. I honestly don't care about knowing who the artist is, I care about their art. When I watch "Ponyo" I don't think, "Miyazaki is a great director, he needs an award", I think "This is a beautiful movie that I'm enjoying watching." Sure, since I would like to have other enjoyable movie watching expenses I may want to learn who the director was in the hope that it wasn't a one-hit wonder (which of course it isn't).
You laugh, but rebooting is a considerable pain for me. I use my computer to get work done -- that's why I run linux. Even at work, where I relegated windows to a vm so that I could get some stability. A lot of my work is browser based, I often have multiple firefox windows open and at least one will usually have 30+ tabs. Then there are the multiple SSH sessions with remote applications showing the windows on my desktop (Yes, I love X Windows).
Browsers deal with the multiple tabs as best they can, but when I close a browser I can't have it simply remember the tabs and reopen them. I use a variety of web applications and in some cases this causes reposting of actions. Blame the web developer all you want, but it remains a problem for me.
Once I've gotten logged into a dozen systems, each as a different user with decent password I don't want to go through that again if I can help it. Yes, I use certs where I can, but that isn't all of the systems *and* doesn't address the loss of the X sessions on reboot. Obviously I never log out either, except to reboot.
So, yeah, reboots are rather annoying to me. Windows with the "minimum one reboot each month" was a real pain, not to mention that X windows on MS Windows isn't all that stable. I'm not obsessive and don't keep track of my uptimes, but I can say with certainty that the only reboots I get are for kernel updates and power outages (no UPS at work, at home I have better uptime).
Back to the main topic, the only time a reboot should be required is a kernel update, and I seriously doubt IE 9 patches the kernel. Reboot to install a browser? Insane.
I have to slightly disagree on this point. Breaking the law is not automatically immoral - it's just a piece of paper written by people with more hired guns than everyone else and 51% popular support. What is immoral is violating other people's rights.
Those "rights" are just the result of a piece of paper written by people with more hired guns than everyone else, screw the popular support. The original comparison is completely valid. The fact that you aren't comfortable with the obvious conclusion just means you agree with the law granting those rights (imaginary property law).
Feel free to disagree. But it is equivalent and the consequence GP outlined for pretending to take the moral high road is inevitable.
I don't know about "quite often", but they are upfront that it will change. They say so at the beginning and end of the document. And I'm fairly certain I know where at least one of those rules came from -- one that made it through the approval process and was later removed (shake the baby). Like the rules or not (there are a couple I find to be excessive) they *are* consistent with Apple's presented view. I wasn't surprised by a single rule I saw in the list. I think it is fairly easy to predict what will and won't be rejected.
I'm really not sure how you got from "women initiate about 70% of all divorces" to "the average man at a 33% risk". Interesting math behind that somewhere.
You also seem to be mistaken about what a "no fault divorce" is: at least where I got mine (Georgia, divorce laws vary significantly by state) a "no fault" filing was permissible when both parties agreed to the terms and there were no children. Legally, my ex-wife initiated the divorce -- I forget the details why, but it made things simpler/cheaper -- but it was definitely something I was onboard with. So a completely consensual divorce is counted in statistics as being initiated by a woman. We were also represented by the same lawyer (which saved costs). And the judge has to agree that the division of property is equitable. I don't get this hatred of the divorce courts. Perhaps paying child support is onerous? Providing for one's own progeny is an obligation I find it hard to argue with.
Some people seem to have a hard time accepting others who are willing to cut their losses in a failed relationship. What, just because it was voluntary it has to be permanent? That's like saying I have a moral obligation to stay at my first job. Really? Why?
When you start to get over this amount your friendships may begin to change as some friends will start to envy you or get jealous
I think you misjudge poor people. They may be more desperate financially than those with more resources, but they are also often trusting and honest. People who've worked in service positions know that the odds of getting a tip, or a god tip, go down with the wealth of the patron. Not that no rich person will tip or a poor person will, I'm referring to probability using a very generalized indicator (wealth).
What I'm getting at is that just because you are richer than someone else doesn't mean he'll automatically try to figure out a way to take advantage of you.
Probably the greatest economic disparity I've ever experienced was overseas and while there was a certain amount of resentment, and belief in entitlement that the "rich american" would shower his wealth, it was not overwhelming. I got along well with a variety of people in the places I've been to. Of course, I was also open and forthright. While wealth may have some effect, interpersonal skills are more important. I've never been seriously impoverished in my life, but I have known a variety of people less advantaged than I. Trust was never an issue.
What struck me as significant was the summary states they hacked a commercial crypto system. In other words, the implication is that someone could buy this system and think they are secure, but they can still be invisibly and undetectably hacked. Undetectable by this system is what is important -- it doesn't matter to me if some *other* system can detect the hack if the one I'm *using* doesn't.
Or to put it another way, a perfect encryption system has yet to be demonstrated. Vendors will still be happy to sell you their perfect system.
Or to put it a third way, the difference between theory and practice is
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, I really fail to see this or the original "proof" in the FTS. Both rely on confusing the reader with decimal places. The example given in the FTS says:
a = .999 so 10 = 9.999; but this fails immediately. If a = .999 then 10a = 9.99 and the rest of the "proof" false apart.
Yours is a similar issue: you claim 1/9 = 0.111111111111111111111111111111.....
I hate to break it to you, but it doesn't. 1/9 is simply one of those cases where a finite decimal representation is always an approximation. 1/9 ~ 0.111111111111111 which if you multiply each side by 9 you get 1 ~ .99999999999999999999 -- which is not surprising in the slightest due to decimal approximation.
If you were *serious* about numbers you would know how to account for the limitations of binary representations when doing precise calculations on a computer. The same *should* be true about decimal representations, but apparently not.
Either I fell for a troll article with troll posts, but I actually expected to see a post from *somebody* pointing out the glaringly obvious problem with the FTS.
thoromyr
Unfortunately, "gun-advocates" I know spout this line to me. I think it is self-deception on their part, what they (the nuts I know and am talking about) really want is to secede from the USA and continue to reap all the benefits of being a citizen. Regrettably, the gun control freaks don't need to plant anyone, there are enough nuts who bill themselves as conservative, 2nd amendment supporters to do their work for them.
Much easier. I went from a 3G to the 4 and if there was even the slightest angle in the surface the 4 would slide off of it. It fell or was dropped probably three times in the first day. Immediately bought a bumper for it -- I figured if I waited the six weeks for the Apple provided freebie to ship the display would've already shattered. The bumper provides enough friction that it hasn't been an issue since.
Apple "took one look" at my wife's iPhone 3G with shattered screen and replaced it. No questions asked. You are making an unsubstantiated negative claim about a company, I wonder what your bias is. Actually, I don't have to wonder.
Exactly. But the FBI didn't really want to get involved in pursuing child pornography trafficking charges against a school. Even worse, they did the worst of the worst: they *produced* it. When an underage girl shared some topless photos (via MMS or chat, I forget which) Pennsylvania decided to hit her with "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" (WTF? How can a minor contribute to her own delinquency?). But school officials are another matter entirely and no charges filed by the state, just a civil action brought by one of the aggrieved.
Good post, but your argument that lawyers won't misrepresent the situation to lead the plaintiffs to make a poor choice is that lots of money gets paid out for legal malpractice that is actually successfully sued for? Really?
That information suggests to me that it is common practice...
Combine that with the difficulty in getting disbarred (how long did it take Florida to finally sanction Jack Thompson?) and it starts to look like there is probably a worse problem.
I use the same password on most websites. Why? Because I don't care if someone can post as me on forum foo that requires registration to post a question in the mistaken belief that it will stop spam. 99% of my "website accounts" use the same password. Now, ebay, pay pal, personal email, work account, etc., are an entirely different matter.
Guess what, I also share passwords. That's right, if it is a login that is *intended* to be shared then it is. The question doesn't allow discrimination between intended use/appropriate and inappropriate sharing. For what I hope are obvious reasons I have not only told my wife the password to my personal system, but added it to her password safe (we also share a key to the same safety deposit box, oh the horrors).
Length of a password is nearly as important as the character set from which it is composed. I used to (many moons ago) use randomly generated passwords for important accounts. The problem was I selected them myself (yeah, they qualified as mumbo jumbo, not qwerty-aligned) and they tended to be short (6 or 7 characters). I now spend more time composing passwords I care about, make them long (15+ characters where allowed) *and* stash them somewhere. The throwaway passwords only include numbers/symbols if the site requires it. A good example of a bad password: P@s$w0rd
Much worse than using a significant date or pet name as part of a password is using it for the password reset. And *that* is common, either through user choice or forced by the site. And if you choose to fib for security's sake... better record the lie for that site so if you *do* need a password reset you can get back in.
Agreed with your conclusion.
Just be careful that you don't watch too many movies. What they'll do for the streaming remains to be seen, but the reason I am not a netflix customer any longer is their "smoothing" policy. This policy, which they don't advertise and carefully talk around the meaning of, came about due to losing a law suit for the practice. Now it is official policy.
The gist of it is that if you watch too many movies that are too popular in too short of a time period they will one or both of the following:
- delay sending your next movie
- send a movie from your queue that is not the top available movie
Because they are so secretive about the policy I do not believe it is intended to be an object lesson for the customer. At first you think, "well, the post office must've been slow" or "strange, [the top movie in queue] must've become unavailable since I last saw the queue." But it keeps happening and, in my case, I started googling and found out about the lawsuit.
Naively, I thought I was a "good customer" because I would return a movie the next day (or on unusual occasions the same day) which meant that it was quickly available to be sent to the next customer. I assumed that having a high turnover meant lower inventory and thus lower cost. I'm not so sure any more. Maybe the postal costs eat them up and it costs them too much to actually honor the contract which they advertise as "unlimited". (My wife and I would easily watch 5-7 movies a week back then.) Who knows, netflix isn't saying. (Wikipedia states it is the marginal cost of the mailing, but I've not seen any statement from netflix stating that, nor any indicator of what the real limits are for an "unlimited" account so as to avoid them.)
Akira Kurosawa was a brilliant director and made many movies, despite which they are apparently in low demand. At first I loved netflix because I could watch these older, harder to find movies. But after ~9 months I apparently started hitting higher demand movies, or the number watched in that period crossed a threshold or something because even though our rate had dropped to no more than two movies a week it went to hell in a handbasket very quickly.
The person who originally turned me on to netflix wouldn't believe netflix really practices throttling (despite this being documented, easy citation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix, but really, google for netflix and smoothing should give plenty of results). Until it started happening to him.
If the issue resulting in "smoothing" is the cost of mailing a disk expect a similar experience with streaming: there is in effect a cost for X bandwidth over Y time and as you approach that marginal cost with an "unlimited" account they would find you to be a bad customer and take corrective action. And even though the cost of streaming is less than post it is easier to saturate with on-demand than a limit of X at a time and the latency of the postal service.
So, enjoy netflix while you can. They have an incredible selection of movies (if they deign to mail them to you) and streaming is convenient (though without any where near the selection). Maybe they'll treat you well, I hope so. As for me, I killed my account. Once flagged for "smoothing" apparently it doesn't matter how few movies you watch or how unpopular they might be -- they will persist in sending series out of order, not sending some movies regardless of availability and generally pissing on the customer and the concept of a queue.
I'm not a nook owner, but I started reading ebooks on my iphone. I have never bought an ebook, and as long as the ridiculous pricing scheme stays the same I don't expect to ever purchase one. I've taken public domain works and created ebooks from them and, even better, loaded some from project gutenberg. I've made PDFs of some printed works for my own use, but no novels yet.
The upside to reading on my iphone is that I always have it, and its collection of books, with me. Since starting this I've read the Three Musketeers and a good part of the sequels simply due to opportunity. The paper copy of Three Musketeers is still sitting on my shelf unread.
Its the opportunistic nature of it, the ability to read whenever/wherever I have the time to read, that I like. There are two Walter Jon Williams novels I've not managed to read yet, one of which is available through Apple's iBooks -- for what appears to be full cover price. Which I've already paid for. I could see paying a nominal fee to gain access to an electronic version, but to re-pay full price? No way.
Instead, I'll read from our rich public domain (it may not be getting any richer, but there *is* quite a bit out there, some even from the last century and, new or old, quite a bit that is very good). And Walter Jon Williams' writing will be just as brilliant when I manage to find the time to sit down and read the paper copy.
You are proposing a "war of escalation" where the side you are rooting for is always behind. You say to avoid being passive, but your proposal is entirely based on reacting to yesterday's news.
Fight differently.
"I7s can be had pretty cheap these days" is not a comparison to the AMD price, but instead is implicitly indicating that I7 processors don't cost as much as they used to. Few (if any) people are saying AMD out performs intel, they are saying that the *ratio* of price/performance is better for AMD than intel. If true then for *best* performance buy intel. If you want or need to save money, buy AMD.
I don't buy systems very often, but I do watch for a while before I do. What I have seen (which may or may not be the case at the moment) is that at the low end Intel is the buy, mid range AMD gives the best price/performance and for the high end it is Intel. This has led me to buy AMD because I need more than low end performance but, try as I might to justify it, I can't really afford the high end Intel.
As others have pointed out it isn't just the CPU cost, its the motherboard. And the fact that the sockets don't change constantly. Its also the RAM. I had a motherboard go bad on me and because it was an AMD system I was actually able to buy a new motherboard that supported the old CPU I had *and* was compatible with the just released latest and greatest from AMD. If I had had Intel I would've had to spring for new CPU, new motherboard and new RAM. I couldn't have afforded it. And depending on how long it goes before I look at upgrading/replacing the system I may be able to get by with simply buying a new CPU and adding more RAM.
This last spring I noticed a *12* core AMD processor that, on some server class motherboards, you could go dual processor with hideous amounts of RAM. I don't recall the pricing now, but at an approximation I could buy both processors and motherboard for less than the best Intel with plenty left over to get a goodly amount of RAM. I don't recall with certainty how many cores the Intel had, but in some cases hyperthreading decreases performance (even Intel only claims ~10% best case performance boost from hyperthreading so don't bother trying to claim that a 4 core Intel is equivalent to 8 cores).
Where are you getting your information? The OSP is not obligated to "IMMEDIATELY" restore the content. Nor does a counterclaim legal notice that the uploader "take full legal responsibility." If that were the case then such documentation could be filed pre-emptively to avoid a take down, but that is not the case. An OSP is required to take down material claimed to be infringing on receipt of such claim (when properly filed according to the provisions of the DMCA). There is also no statement in the DMCA that an OSP faces "full legal responsibility of any losses" incurred due to the pulling of content.
Why do I know this? Because I process DMCA complaints. Because I've read the DMCA. Because we've received a complaint for original material produced by one of our faculty. The plaintiff stated, under penalty of perjury, that our content was material that belonged to them. Guess what happened? We had to take it down. We referred to general counsel and we had to keep it down for, I forget, at least a month IIRC. For content that was produced by our faculty.
Wikipedia has a reasonable run down of the process http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act
that was my first thought!
That would likely be very easy to cull. The cookies would be used from a wide range of IP addresses, set a threshold and throw those out. Also, you specify, "safe, non-identifying" so any that *are* identifying are good to go. Raises the bar slightly on the processing required, but probably less hassle than maintaining a plugin, having people install it, etc.
You are apparently unaware of the ridiculous lengths involved.
Are you perhaps aware that there is a physical limitation to blade length of a weapon sheathed at the hip which will be drawn from there? It is a function of arm length. Some scabbards are made to extend this by effectively having a slit from the opening down along the bottom edge, but I'm not aware of any rapier scabbards made this way. A little experimentation will determine the maximum blade length you can draw.
Then consider the fact that the longer the blade the farther out the balance point will move. Yes, you can compensate by embellishing the hilt and using a larger pommel, but doing so increases the overall weight of the blade. A "normal" ~34" blade rapier weighs about three pounds. A "normal" ~33" blade sword weighs about three pounds.
You make the rapier a foot longer and you necessarily increase the weight, or to retain the balance point, increase the weight even more. Either way you are increasing the effort required to wield the blade. Arm-chair "weapon masters" rarely realize how tiring it is to wield a 3 pounds sword, and how much more tiring it is to wield one that weighs four pounds. Many RPGs vastly overstate the weight of weapons which compounds the problem.
The length of a rapier became a point of status and was not an issue of defense (or offense -- reach is actually more important for offense) leading to sumptuary laws in England.
A quick way to find *real* weights and lengths for various historical weapons without leaving your chair is to peruse catalogs of replicas, such as http://www.museumreplicas.com/
Some rapiers were *very* stylized (the ridiculous blade lengths that became popular among courtiers, for example). But "deep bellied" or "broad bladed tip" designs are not the only form for effectual swords and chopping is not very efficient for defeating armor, thrusting is. And for thrusting a triangular blade is desired.
One place to start educating yourself about swords and the various types is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakeshott_typology
You will notice that Type X "taper toward the tip" rather than becoming broader. Or the Type XII which is improved for thrusting. Or the Type XIII which, while not especially adapted for thrusting, fails to have the "broad toward the tip" design you aver is the only functional sword type. Note when and how common this sword type was.
In fact, you won't find much in the way of sword blade types meeting those limited criteria.
I'll raise your HTPC a popcorn hour. I originally intended to do a serious HTPC and did some research. Glad I did.
This is exactly why I bought a popcorn hour and a synology nas. The originals are all out of reach and a simple menu system to select and play.
Silly me, I thought the purpose of art was creating something, be it in musical, tangible or visual form, that was aesthetically pleasing. If the purpose of art is the recognition of artists I'm done with it. I honestly don't care about knowing who the artist is, I care about their art. When I watch "Ponyo" I don't think, "Miyazaki is a great director, he needs an award", I think "This is a beautiful movie that I'm enjoying watching." Sure, since I would like to have other enjoyable movie watching expenses I may want to learn who the director was in the hope that it wasn't a one-hit wonder (which of course it isn't).
You laugh, but rebooting is a considerable pain for me. I use my computer to get work done -- that's why I run linux. Even at work, where I relegated windows to a vm so that I could get some stability. A lot of my work is browser based, I often have multiple firefox windows open and at least one will usually have 30+ tabs. Then there are the multiple SSH sessions with remote applications showing the windows on my desktop (Yes, I love X Windows).
Browsers deal with the multiple tabs as best they can, but when I close a browser I can't have it simply remember the tabs and reopen them. I use a variety of web applications and in some cases this causes reposting of actions. Blame the web developer all you want, but it remains a problem for me.
Once I've gotten logged into a dozen systems, each as a different user with decent password I don't want to go through that again if I can help it. Yes, I use certs where I can, but that isn't all of the systems *and* doesn't address the loss of the X sessions on reboot. Obviously I never log out either, except to reboot.
So, yeah, reboots are rather annoying to me. Windows with the "minimum one reboot each month" was a real pain, not to mention that X windows on MS Windows isn't all that stable. I'm not obsessive and don't keep track of my uptimes, but I can say with certainty that the only reboots I get are for kernel updates and power outages (no UPS at work, at home I have better uptime).
Back to the main topic, the only time a reboot should be required is a kernel update, and I seriously doubt IE 9 patches the kernel. Reboot to install a browser? Insane.
I have to slightly disagree on this point. Breaking the law is not automatically immoral - it's just a piece of paper written by people with more hired guns than everyone else and 51% popular support. What is immoral is violating other people's rights.
Those "rights" are just the result of a piece of paper written by people with more hired guns than everyone else, screw the popular support. The original comparison is completely valid. The fact that you aren't comfortable with the obvious conclusion just means you agree with the law granting those rights (imaginary property law).
Feel free to disagree. But it is equivalent and the consequence GP outlined for pretending to take the moral high road is inevitable.
I don't know about "quite often", but they are upfront that it will change. They say so at the beginning and end of the document. And I'm fairly certain I know where at least one of those rules came from -- one that made it through the approval process and was later removed (shake the baby). Like the rules or not (there are a couple I find to be excessive) they *are* consistent with Apple's presented view. I wasn't surprised by a single rule I saw in the list. I think it is fairly easy to predict what will and won't be rejected.
I'm really not sure how you got from "women initiate about 70% of all divorces" to "the average man at a 33% risk". Interesting math behind that somewhere.
You also seem to be mistaken about what a "no fault divorce" is: at least where I got mine (Georgia, divorce laws vary significantly by state) a "no fault" filing was permissible when both parties agreed to the terms and there were no children. Legally, my ex-wife initiated the divorce -- I forget the details why, but it made things simpler/cheaper -- but it was definitely something I was onboard with. So a completely consensual divorce is counted in statistics as being initiated by a woman. We were also represented by the same lawyer (which saved costs). And the judge has to agree that the division of property is equitable. I don't get this hatred of the divorce courts. Perhaps paying child support is onerous? Providing for one's own progeny is an obligation I find it hard to argue with.
Some people seem to have a hard time accepting others who are willing to cut their losses in a failed relationship. What, just because it was voluntary it has to be permanent? That's like saying I have a moral obligation to stay at my first job. Really? Why?
When you start to get over this amount your friendships may begin to change as some friends will start to envy you or get jealous
I think you misjudge poor people. They may be more desperate financially than those with more resources, but they are also often trusting and honest. People who've worked in service positions know that the odds of getting a tip, or a god tip, go down with the wealth of the patron. Not that no rich person will tip or a poor person will, I'm referring to probability using a very generalized indicator (wealth).
What I'm getting at is that just because you are richer than someone else doesn't mean he'll automatically try to figure out a way to take advantage of you.
Probably the greatest economic disparity I've ever experienced was overseas and while there was a certain amount of resentment, and belief in entitlement that the "rich american" would shower his wealth, it was not overwhelming. I got along well with a variety of people in the places I've been to. Of course, I was also open and forthright. While wealth may have some effect, interpersonal skills are more important.
I've never been seriously impoverished in my life, but I have known a variety of people less advantaged than I. Trust was never an issue.
What struck me as significant was the summary states they hacked a commercial crypto system. In other words, the implication is that someone could buy this system and think they are secure, but they can still be invisibly and undetectably hacked. Undetectable by this system is what is important -- it doesn't matter to me if some *other* system can detect the hack if the one I'm *using* doesn't.
Or to put it another way, a perfect encryption system has yet to be demonstrated. Vendors will still be happy to sell you their perfect system.
Or to put it a third way, the difference between theory and practice is