I looked for something like that when the Italian demonstration first got passed around, but couldn't find anything. I will retort by saying that it is indeed not "bullshit" after a first pass-through, this paper agrees with what I explained, however, this paper explains that it is not necessarily a new phenomena, but rather a special case. Thanks for the article though, I'll look at this more closely when I get a chance. But for clarification, what claim is the load of bullshit?
Nope, its more than just polarization. The OAM (or whatever they're calling this) is a physical property of a ray of light transmission, and it manifests itself by spreading the energy out spatially away from the 'center.' You can "de-OAM" the transmission by spatial movement of your receiving array, so it is computationally less complex. However, it is _highly_ directional, and I have yet to see a decent analysis that involves multipath or other scattering interference. This is a mode of light that is not commonly discussed in E&M courses, but is a real property. These modes are orthogonal (for integer periods of a carrier cycle) -- much like QAM, but there are many modes (where most articles start getting the infinite or unlimited ideas) as opposed to 2 for QAM.
It is a somewhat interesting experiment, indeed not hokum, but it remains to see how practical or what application areas this could be useful for.
This guy's stance is crazy.
Even if the earth is 6000 old, but the universe is created with apparent age, the ideas of evolution remain equally true as they were since they match all possible observations. It is not weakened at all.
So even though we can't measure the sound of the voice that created the universe 6000 years ago, but can measure the cosmic black-body radiation that is consistent with the big-bang theory, they are still equally valid ideas whereas the elf assumption is not valid because we can measure the ball on its parabolic curve and not the elves muscle strength??
With regard to your statement that evolution is circumstantial because we cannot measure it right now: We can, however, see bones, DNA showing biodiversity over time. We can see mutations occurring in the lab and organisms evolving new traits that previous generations did not have. These are current measurements we can take today. We can predict that mutations from previous generations occur, and that these accumulate over time from our observations and confirm this on small-scale in the laboratory. This is far from circumstantial.
And who's to say the world isn't only 5 seconds old, formed with all appearances of it being old including all "memories?" That is equally plausible, but both ideas are useless and (sorry, but I can't help say this) insane to believe.
Both ideas do not offer any mechanism for how the world appears as it currently does, and even assuming they were absolutely true, it would make no difference -- If all evidence points to the mechanism of evolution to bring about diverse speciation in this planet, and a big bang starting the universe 14 million years ago, and these are able to explain the universe we see today as well as provide predictions about how it will be in the future, then it would not matter if all this data was "faked" 6000 years ago, or 5 seconds ago, we should still hold to these theories (old-universe) as true since they would not be violated.
The 6000 year old earth/universe theory should not be treated with anything other than pity and the response is patient education (not yelling, calling names, or most of the other responses). The scientific method has changed over the years - for many branches, we can not setup a controlled experiment to setup a hypothesis. We can only take data, and analyze it. (Ecology, star formation, development of flight in dinosaurs, and others.) This does not make unfalsifiable ideas equal to all other ideas.
In your time as President of the US, will the US military presence be increased and expanded globally or will expect to see a decrease in deployed armed forces?
This is the only thing i remember about the pyro from old TF. Except repace "room" with "server." Ha, in the quake days we all said he shot the "lag gun" since it just placed candle/flame entities around the map and after a couple minutes of shooting would cause everyone to lag out. When it was an annoying server, it was fun to run around with him for a while before back to the usual of sniping on 2fort.
I seriously cannot tell if you're being sarcastic or not. But, thanks for the info, i guess?
I think this just speaks loudly about my (our, i'm guessing) current generation and the way we've grown up with the web and computers. It's amazing that we can be marveled by techniques that were and still are so common place. Maybe I should consider myself lucky that I grew up with a parent who taught because i spent many a day in the educational resource centers helping create handouts, transparencies, and laminated cards and the like all without a computer. I always took knowing how to do such things as common knowledge. To this day, whenever i have access to a photocopier, i find it easier to print out a couple of things and combine them physically with scissors and tape rather than fool around all day with a word processor moving all my text out of alignment when i try to add a picture. It makes me wonder what they will be saying 15 years from now. Are we going to have to explain what a mousepad is, or why things are called dumb terminals?
You, are not stupid, but ignorant. I am fully aware of the legality of the protocol, and its usefulness. The first torrent I ever used was for a Linux distribution. However, you are being ignorant and ignoring the facts that the vast, VAST majority of bitTorrent traffic is used for illegal file-sharing. I am not in favor at all of shutting down bittorrent traffic, don't read that into me. The article just claims to be able to stop P2P file-sharing, but completely ignores BT, and as any internet-savvy geek would know, the pirate world has moved on and sails the 7-seas of the internet using bittorrent.
And if your comment was simply a way to pedanticaly point out the fact that I interchange the name of the protocol with the name of the company, then excuse me because I also verb google, call tissue-products kleenex, and refer to soft-drinks as cokes.
articulo dice: "..(it) will detect and prohibit illegal P2P traffic while allowing the passage of legal P2P such as BitTorrent."
So wait, it blocks P2P sharing, but not BitTorrent, or it only allows legal torrents? If I'm reading this correctly, it assumes all bitTorrent is legal, so therefore allows it to pass. Isn't BitTorrent that majority of file-sharing anymore? I can't see this tool being extremely useful.
Have you, sir, ever used a mac? Dashboard has a huge honking icon on the bottom. Spotlight is ALL OVER the OS. In the top right of the (almighty) top bar right next to the clock that you look at all the time, in the top of a finder window, in the top of any file open/save dialog. Textedit has a huge honking icon on the bottom that looks like a pen and paper. I'm sorry, but a complete stranger to an OS could sit down and find these things and click them. If someone doesn't click these things, the fault lies completely on the user. I honestly have no idea how apple could make these things easier. With a name like "textedit", one would think its purpose would be known, and with spotlights presence all-over the place, you have have to click it at least once.
I give you that it is hard to find the GNU software and fink is a pain for someone new to open-source packages and the like. However, a google for "open office mac" yields Neo-Office as the 2nd link, and I believe it is still linked to from open-office.org's website as well.
My point: The casual user CAN sit down and be extremely productive and "get their work done."
/soapbox. Sorry for the tone, but I was just responding to you.
The poor, no, they can barely afford to eat. To them, Chavez is demigod. The middle and upper class, yes they can afford computers/internet, or can easily access them at a nearby internet cafe for a small price. It is these same people (middle/upper classes) that are the ones who do not support Chavez. I think for RCTV, this was a great idea, they can still broadcast their message and are not completely shut up.
/Spent last summer in Caracas. Must say that after seeing gas cost less than water and partaking of free medical services, its hard for me to be *completely* anti-Chavez. Albeit, he's still a pompous, dirty-mouthed bruto.
That may be true, one can't even attach an Access database because of "security reasons," but the article doesn't just focus on that aspect of Gmail. He focuses on Gmail helping free email by offering 2GB of storage. In my opinion, that is the very least that Gmail has done. The interface is simplistic and lovely (IMHO, as opposed to his "sleek outlike like" yahoo mail, which I avoid since Outlook bothers me like no other), the conversation threading has made me not use regular email clients, the search features are fast and effecient (faster than Thunderbird), and the labels and filters are easy to setup. Am i a gmail fanboy? Probably, but to call gmail a failure is ludicrous. I'd guess that he used gmail to send a hello world email, then tried attaching something, and then hasn't signed on since.
That is the main complaint I have heard over and over concerning XBox Live. I'm sure it can't be much worse than your run of the mill counter-strike server, but understandbly it would become annoying for EVERY GAME to be like that.
America's Army has a good (imho) system that gives a player a rank, and then subtracts honor points for tk'ing or ta'ing, and grants honor points based on the kills or objectives completed. It works very well and there are honor-only servers for more serious players. It would not be that hard for XBL to host something like this with in-game support to raise / lower the ranking based on how they play. As for the retarded swearing, just sit back and realize how stupid these people sound, cause that's all you can do.
Hahaha, i totally remember that site, my friend got a free cd from CDNow, and i was envious and signed up. I got bored after a few weeks of clicking through monotonous ads though. It was basically the epitome of the dot.com pay-per-click era.
My dad was looking to apply for a patent on something a few years ago. The problem is that it was something like $2000 just to apply! This is why they are mainly granted to big companies, because the have the monetary backing.
From what i've read about this site before (i didn't rtfa today, but what do you expect, its slashdot) they acquired licenses to these songs from the RIAA already and are allowed to sell them as they see fit.
Yeah, i am totally in your shoes. Somebody above posted some way-back links from 96, and it brought back some fond memories of my first searchings. I went to the page now, and couldn't believe it was actually webcrawler! I moved from webcrawler to hotbot to google. I actually thought webcrawler had just sort of dropped off the face of the net, but i guess that never really happens
Slashdot Mirror
I looked for something like that when the Italian demonstration first got passed around, but couldn't find anything. I will retort by saying that it is indeed not "bullshit" after a first pass-through, this paper agrees with what I explained, however, this paper explains that it is not necessarily a new phenomena, but rather a special case. Thanks for the article though, I'll look at this more closely when I get a chance. But for clarification, what claim is the load of bullshit?
Nope, its more than just polarization. The OAM (or whatever they're calling this) is a physical property of a ray of light transmission, and it manifests itself by spreading the energy out spatially away from the 'center.' You can "de-OAM" the transmission by spatial movement of your receiving array, so it is computationally less complex. However, it is _highly_ directional, and I have yet to see a decent analysis that involves multipath or other scattering interference. This is a mode of light that is not commonly discussed in E&M courses, but is a real property. These modes are orthogonal (for integer periods of a carrier cycle) -- much like QAM, but there are many modes (where most articles start getting the infinite or unlimited ideas) as opposed to 2 for QAM. It is a somewhat interesting experiment, indeed not hokum, but it remains to see how practical or what application areas this could be useful for.
This guy's stance is crazy. Even if the earth is 6000 old, but the universe is created with apparent age, the ideas of evolution remain equally true as they were since they match all possible observations. It is not weakened at all.
So even though we can't measure the sound of the voice that created the universe 6000 years ago, but can measure the cosmic black-body radiation that is consistent with the big-bang theory, they are still equally valid ideas whereas the elf assumption is not valid because we can measure the ball on its parabolic curve and not the elves muscle strength?? With regard to your statement that evolution is circumstantial because we cannot measure it right now: We can, however, see bones, DNA showing biodiversity over time. We can see mutations occurring in the lab and organisms evolving new traits that previous generations did not have. These are current measurements we can take today. We can predict that mutations from previous generations occur, and that these accumulate over time from our observations and confirm this on small-scale in the laboratory. This is far from circumstantial.
And who's to say the world isn't only 5 seconds old, formed with all appearances of it being old including all "memories?" That is equally plausible, but both ideas are useless and (sorry, but I can't help say this) insane to believe. Both ideas do not offer any mechanism for how the world appears as it currently does, and even assuming they were absolutely true, it would make no difference -- If all evidence points to the mechanism of evolution to bring about diverse speciation in this planet, and a big bang starting the universe 14 million years ago, and these are able to explain the universe we see today as well as provide predictions about how it will be in the future, then it would not matter if all this data was "faked" 6000 years ago, or 5 seconds ago, we should still hold to these theories (old-universe) as true since they would not be violated. The 6000 year old earth/universe theory should not be treated with anything other than pity and the response is patient education (not yelling, calling names, or most of the other responses). The scientific method has changed over the years - for many branches, we can not setup a controlled experiment to setup a hypothesis. We can only take data, and analyze it. (Ecology, star formation, development of flight in dinosaurs, and others.) This does not make unfalsifiable ideas equal to all other ideas.
In your time as President of the US, will the US military presence be increased and expanded globally or will expect to see a decrease in deployed armed forces?
You mean something like this? It's a 2D game, but you need to maneuver through time as well.
There are scientists with a lower total, but I think they've all got an acting part on strength of their science fame (e.g. Stephen Hawking.)
Yeah, Hawking's portrayal of Jim Thorpe was riveting. Never have I been so enthralled.
Then the Pyro could clear out a room.
This is the only thing i remember about the pyro from old TF. Except repace "room" with "server." Ha, in the quake days we all said he shot the "lag gun" since it just placed candle/flame entities around the map and after a couple minutes of shooting would cause everyone to lag out. When it was an annoying server, it was fun to run around with him for a while before back to the usual of sniping on 2fort.
I seriously cannot tell if you're being sarcastic or not. But, thanks for the info, i guess?
I think this just speaks loudly about my (our, i'm guessing) current generation and the way we've grown up with the web and computers. It's amazing that we can be marveled by techniques that were and still are so common place. Maybe I should consider myself lucky that I grew up with a parent who taught because i spent many a day in the educational resource centers helping create handouts, transparencies, and laminated cards and the like all without a computer. I always took knowing how to do such things as common knowledge. To this day, whenever i have access to a photocopier, i find it easier to print out a couple of things and combine them physically with scissors and tape rather than fool around all day with a word processor moving all my text out of alignment when i try to add a picture. It makes me wonder what they will be saying 15 years from now. Are we going to have to explain what a mousepad is, or why things are called dumb terminals?
You, are not stupid, but ignorant. I am fully aware of the legality of the protocol, and its usefulness. The first torrent I ever used was for a Linux distribution. However, you are being ignorant and ignoring the facts that the vast, VAST majority of bitTorrent traffic is used for illegal file-sharing. I am not in favor at all of shutting down bittorrent traffic, don't read that into me. The article just claims to be able to stop P2P file-sharing, but completely ignores BT, and as any internet-savvy geek would know, the pirate world has moved on and sails the 7-seas of the internet using bittorrent.
And if your comment was simply a way to pedanticaly point out the fact that I interchange the name of the protocol with the name of the company, then excuse me because I also verb google, call tissue-products kleenex, and refer to soft-drinks as cokes.
...also, you meant "pimply"
articulo dice: "..(it) will detect and prohibit illegal P2P traffic while allowing the passage of legal P2P such as BitTorrent."
So wait, it blocks P2P sharing, but not BitTorrent, or it only allows legal torrents? If I'm reading this correctly, it assumes all bitTorrent is legal, so therefore allows it to pass. Isn't BitTorrent that majority of file-sharing anymore? I can't see this tool being extremely useful.
Have you, sir, ever used a mac? Dashboard has a huge honking icon on the bottom. Spotlight is ALL OVER the OS. In the top right of the (almighty) top bar right next to the clock that you look at all the time, in the top of a finder window, in the top of any file open/save dialog. Textedit has a huge honking icon on the bottom that looks like a pen and paper. I'm sorry, but a complete stranger to an OS could sit down and find these things and click them. If someone doesn't click these things, the fault lies completely on the user. I honestly have no idea how apple could make these things easier. With a name like "textedit", one would think its purpose would be known, and with spotlights presence all-over the place, you have have to click it at least once.
I give you that it is hard to find the GNU software and fink is a pain for someone new to open-source packages and the like. However, a google for "open office mac" yields Neo-Office as the 2nd link, and I believe it is still linked to from open-office.org's website as well.
My point: The casual user CAN sit down and be extremely productive and "get their work done."
/soapbox. Sorry for the tone, but I was just responding to you.
The poor, no, they can barely afford to eat. To them, Chavez is demigod. The middle and upper class, yes they can afford computers/internet, or can easily access them at a nearby internet cafe for a small price. It is these same people (middle/upper classes) that are the ones who do not support Chavez. I think for RCTV, this was a great idea, they can still broadcast their message and are not completely shut up.
/Spent last summer in Caracas. Must say that after seeing gas cost less than water and partaking of free medical services, its hard for me to be *completely* anti-Chavez. Albeit, he's still a pompous, dirty-mouthed bruto.
Are you serious?? Link's Awakening? No wonder you posted anonymously.
Didn't the courts settle on this very issue years ago?
Is that why your link goes to an article from a month ago?
I agree, XP search has become essentially useless. Was this just with the SP2 update? Anyways, I use
/s C:\*.*
attrib
Or something like that, and its the fastest way to search I've found.
That may be true, one can't even attach an Access database because of "security reasons," but the article doesn't just focus on that aspect of Gmail. He focuses on Gmail helping free email by offering 2GB of storage. In my opinion, that is the very least that Gmail has done. The interface is simplistic and lovely (IMHO, as opposed to his "sleek outlike like" yahoo mail, which I avoid since Outlook bothers me like no other), the conversation threading has made me not use regular email clients, the search features are fast and effecient (faster than Thunderbird), and the labels and filters are easy to setup. Am i a gmail fanboy? Probably, but to call gmail a failure is ludicrous. I'd guess that he used gmail to send a hello world email, then tried attaching something, and then hasn't signed on since.
Does anybody know which site this was? I'm guessing suprnova, but I couldn't see anything in the article.
That is the main complaint I have heard over and over concerning XBox Live. I'm sure it can't be much worse than your run of the mill counter-strike server, but understandbly it would become annoying for EVERY GAME to be like that.
America's Army has a good (imho) system that gives a player a rank, and then subtracts honor points for tk'ing or ta'ing, and grants honor points based on the kills or objectives completed. It works very well and there are honor-only servers for more serious players. It would not be that hard for XBL to host something like this with in-game support to raise / lower the ranking based on how they play. As for the retarded swearing, just sit back and realize how stupid these people sound, cause that's all you can do.
Hahaha, i totally remember that site, my friend got a free cd from CDNow, and i was envious and signed up. I got bored after a few weeks of clicking through monotonous ads though. It was basically the epitome of the dot.com pay-per-click era.
My dad was looking to apply for a patent on something a few years ago. The problem is that it was something like $2000 just to apply! This is why they are mainly granted to big companies, because the have the monetary backing.
Yes they do, including Rain, which has been SOO hard to find a quality recording of
From what i've read about this site before (i didn't rtfa today, but what do you expect, its slashdot) they acquired licenses to these songs from the RIAA already and are allowed to sell them as they see fit.
Yeah, i am totally in your shoes. Somebody above posted some way-back links from 96, and it brought back some fond memories of my first searchings. I went to the page now, and couldn't believe it was actually webcrawler! I moved from webcrawler to hotbot to google. I actually thought webcrawler had just sort of dropped off the face of the net, but i guess that never really happens