Part of being an effective employee of those companies is not believing them, but stating publicly that you believe them. These companies don't care if it's goodthink or doublespeak, so long as you say the right things.
No one has spoken ex cathedra about it. Ex cathedra statements are exceedingly rare. One pope has written in an encyclical (that's like, the best thing a pope can do on his own without being declared infallible) that there is nothing preventing belief in evolution, one has written official statements in praise of evolution, and one has made an ad hoc statement about it. Nothing infallible, which is as it should be. What if the pope declared ex cathedra and infallibly that it is the eternal and unchanging truth that Darwinian evolution was true. Does Stephen Jay Gould get burned at the stake, then?
How about the books that people write and spread around to friends or books published by small in-house printshops, often as promotional material? Books written before ISBN that are still in libraries but no longer published (Bodoni's type specimens come to mind, though it looks like some of these are indeed catalogued by WorldCat)? Books that were printed years ago that we know we lost to the ages (the lost Gospel of Barnabas--not the forged Gospel of Barnabas--comes to mind). What about the books that we never knew existed?
This estimate isn't bad for published works, but it does not adequately answer the question posed, ``Just how many books are out there?''
Yes, but eight minutes they spend with you are eight minutes they don't spend with half a dozen other people. Plus, I lower their call volume, making the company less profitable, and hopefully sending it into a decline. If enough people torment, these companies will have no choice but to disappear.
I forgot to put myself on the do not call list when I moved, and thus far, I have found it preferable to remain off the list. I can stay on the line for quite some time, refusing to give the TM any basic info.
One recent call ended after eight minutes of questioning whether she had dialed the right number, whether I was the person on the screen, whether I lived at the address suggested, and whether I had diabetes (I don't). I did find it mildly ironic that I can find out someone's name, address, phone number and health conditions from a telemarketer just by claiming that she called a wrong number.
My record was the half hour call from the satellite company that wanted to sign me up for the Indian service (presumably because Gill is an Indian name). I got transferred to a supervisor for that one. I just kept playing Beneath a Steel Sky while talking to them.
I hear it works faster if you add --funroll-all-loops to CFLAGS in your make.conf.
But for most people, the slight difference in speed is probably unnoticeable, and worth the increase in privacy. If you really care about the slight difference in speed, there are probably better things to fix before you start working on your encryption settings.
``This Firefox extension was inspired by the launch of Google's encrypted search option.''
Unfortunately, Google still has a way to go before it can do that. Google still has not secured Google Products, Images, Maps, Finance, Translate (now, there's something that should be secure), Scholar, Custom Search, Earth, Directory, Patent Search, iGoogle, GOOG-411, Alerts, Knol, Sketchup, and I don't know about Talk.
Still, it's only been a few days. I'm sure they'll have those up in no time.
If you want to make it a little more accessible, why not something like ``Google-discovered HCP vulnerability exploited?'' Maybe ``Google-found flaw seen in the wild?''
This is not correct. Whenever you use H.264 in an application, you are supposed to use a license. It's just that for internet streaming video, you don't have to pay any royalty fees for the license.
As MPEG-LA puts it, "AVC Patent Portfolio License will continue not to charge royalties for Internet Video that is free to end users"
First, that they need to know what MPEG-LA claims is infringing and that MPEG-LA actually owns it, and this probably needs to be communicated to Google in some official manner.
Second, MPEG-LA cannot simply wait while YouTube implements WebM in beta, then makes it optional, and finally only sue when it becomes mandatory. That's acting in bad faith and the very definition of estoppel by laches, "knowing the correct property line, Oliver Owner fails to bring a lawsuit to establish title to a portion of real estate until Nat Neighbor has built a house which encroaches on the property in which Owner has title"
And here's a new third point. If MPEG-LA were to bring suit against Canonical now, it would not be estoppel by laches, since Canonical cannot claim MPEG-LA has been lax in enforcing their rights. Estoppel would most certainly not prevent from claiming damages, though other things might.
IANAL, but I think you have to do more than beat your chest and say, "I have here in my hand a list of fifty-seven card-carrying patents now in the WebM codec!"
Otherwise, there's no way to tell the difference between an actual claim and some hobo with a spoon in his ear taking out a legal ad in a newspaper of record.
If you grew up watching the educational shows on PBS (especially the ones that they imported from TV-Ontario), you get the same things. I still remember "It Figures!"
Now I don't feel so bad about watching Look Around You on YouTube. Which reminds me, I should go buy that from Amazon.
For the record, the powerful have the least protection from libel laws. Powerful people are usually public figures (e.g. congresscritters, corporate executives), and they have no protection under libel laws.
I have to say that out of all of PKD's books I've read, the one I thought was most adaptable to film was Ubik. Dick apparently thought the same, since he wrote a screenplay version of it.
I've actually had to increase my sodium intake to get to the recommended amount. My diet (lost 80 lbs so far!) has been moving me away from processed foods, which means that on some days, I'm consuming as little as 600mg of sodium. The present USDA recommendations (available at http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/DRI//DRI_Water/water_full_report.pdf ) for people my age (9-50) are between 1500 and 2300, unless they're in an at-risk group. This means that some days, I have to add a teaspoon of kosher salt to my food (which can be trouble if you're trying to salt raspberries). The WHO recommends less than 1700mg ( http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_916.pdf ), so I've been trying to keep my intake between 1500 and 1700.
In all cases, the WHO recommends keeping your sodium and potassium levels equivalent (70mmol of sodium, 70-80mmol of potassium, or 2800-3200mg of K). Too little potassium/too much sodium results in too much muscle activity and hypertension, too little sodium/too much potassium results in too little muscle activity, heart arrhythmia, respiratory collapse, coma... The FDA recommends a bizarre amount of potassium (120mmol or 4700mg) based on the sodium sensitivity of African Americans and something about kidney stones. For most people who do not have a sodium sensitivity, this will just be eliminated by the body, which may cause problems with the kidneys and liver. Also note that while sodium is mentioned on food labels, potassium is usually not, and some foods are very high in potassium but don't bother to mention it.
Each of the documents I linked has a long list of studies that they used to determine those levels, but I'd really like to see something more concrete and which doesn't simply vilify sodium. Alas, that's far too common in the diet advice I see online.
Take the example of teosinte (originally Zea mays parviglumis), a grass that has since evolved from a very fit organism to a biological freak: its reproductive organs are encased in a husk and located in a place that makes reproduction less probable unless it's mediated by another organism with opposable thumbs. Why did it evolve this way? Because humans really liked to kill the plant and eat its embryos, and thus wanted to ensure the survival of the species.
And while Zea mays parviglumis is still around, you're probably less likely to run into that plant than the more common mutant subspecies that humans evolved: corn.
And that submission actually explains what happened, unlike this one.
US inadvertently enabled Chinese Google hackers - It turns out that the US may have inadvertently enabled the Chinese Google hackers. How? As CNN is reporting, the US enabled the Chinese Google hackers, but inadvertently.
OK. To recap, if you don't have more than 4GB of RAM, PAE is not going to give you more than 4GB of RAM.
TFA is saying that users are maxing out their physical RAM and have to use swap. Quoting:
On average, 86% of Windows 7 machines in the XPnet pool are regularly consuming 90%-95% of their available RAM, resulting in slow-downs as the systems were forced to increasingly turn to disk-based virtual memory to handle tasks.
My point was that even if you have a processor that supports PAE and even if your motherboard supports PAE, you can't use it unless you have more than 4GB of memory, and even then, if you don't have 4GB of RAM, PAE will not affect the problem that TFA is reporting on.
Slashdot Mirror
Part of being an effective employee of those companies is not believing them, but stating publicly that you believe them. These companies don't care if it's goodthink or doublespeak, so long as you say the right things.
So...the placebo effect has a 60 percent success rate (in the case of Marburg)? I still see your point, and await further studies.
No one has spoken ex cathedra about it. Ex cathedra statements are exceedingly rare. One pope has written in an encyclical (that's like, the best thing a pope can do on his own without being declared infallible) that there is nothing preventing belief in evolution, one has written official statements in praise of evolution, and one has made an ad hoc statement about it. Nothing infallible, which is as it should be. What if the pope declared ex cathedra and infallibly that it is the eternal and unchanging truth that Darwinian evolution was true. Does Stephen Jay Gould get burned at the stake, then?
How about the books that people write and spread around to friends or books published by small in-house printshops, often as promotional material? Books written before ISBN that are still in libraries but no longer published (Bodoni's type specimens come to mind, though it looks like some of these are indeed catalogued by WorldCat)? Books that were printed years ago that we know we lost to the ages (the lost Gospel of Barnabas--not the forged Gospel of Barnabas--comes to mind). What about the books that we never knew existed?
This estimate isn't bad for published works, but it does not adequately answer the question posed, ``Just how many books are out there?''
I was reminded of a similar story, the one where a guy wanted his drawing of the spider back.
Yes, but eight minutes they spend with you are eight minutes they don't spend with half a dozen other people. Plus, I lower their call volume, making the company less profitable, and hopefully sending it into a decline. If enough people torment, these companies will have no choice but to disappear.
I forgot to put myself on the do not call list when I moved, and thus far, I have found it preferable to remain off the list. I can stay on the line for quite some time, refusing to give the TM any basic info.
One recent call ended after eight minutes of questioning whether she had dialed the right number, whether I was the person on the screen, whether I lived at the address suggested, and whether I had diabetes (I don't). I did find it mildly ironic that I can find out someone's name, address, phone number and health conditions from a telemarketer just by claiming that she called a wrong number.
My record was the half hour call from the satellite company that wanted to sign me up for the Indian service (presumably because Gill is an Indian name). I got transferred to a supervisor for that one. I just kept playing Beneath a Steel Sky while talking to them.
No, I don't value my time very highly.
I hear it works faster if you add --funroll-all-loops to CFLAGS in your make.conf.
But for most people, the slight difference in speed is probably unnoticeable, and worth the increase in privacy. If you really care about the slight difference in speed, there are probably better things to fix before you start working on your encryption settings.
``This Firefox extension was inspired by the launch of Google's encrypted search option.''
Unfortunately, Google still has a way to go before it can do that. Google still has not secured Google Products, Images, Maps, Finance, Translate (now, there's something that should be secure), Scholar, Custom Search, Earth, Directory, Patent Search, iGoogle, GOOG-411, Alerts, Knol, Sketchup, and I don't know about Talk.
Still, it's only been a few days. I'm sure they'll have those up in no time.
That renders the definition useless. By that logic, unpatched flaws that have existed for years could be called zero day.
I hope the term zero day does away, or at least that someone defines the word day in this context.
If you want to make it a little more accessible, why not something like ``Google-discovered HCP vulnerability exploited?'' Maybe ``Google-found flaw seen in the wild?''
What you have for the headline now sounds about as intelligible as the mock-Slashdot headline that Penny Arcade came up with, ``Linux crypto hackers open-sourced the BSD Microsoft monopoly''
I'm frankly horrified that this would seem to outlaw an artificial (non-living) uterus that could save the life of an embryo.
SCO is a very different case. IBM is not claiming laches in that case, as far as I know. Also, SCO will lose.
H.264 streaming is currently license free too
This is not correct. Whenever you use H.264 in an application, you are supposed to use a license. It's just that for internet streaming video, you don't have to pay any royalty fees for the license.
As MPEG-LA puts it, "AVC Patent Portfolio License will continue not to charge royalties for Internet Video that is free to end users"
My point was twofold.
First, that they need to know what MPEG-LA claims is infringing and that MPEG-LA actually owns it, and this probably needs to be communicated to Google in some official manner.
Second, MPEG-LA cannot simply wait while YouTube implements WebM in beta, then makes it optional, and finally only sue when it becomes mandatory. That's acting in bad faith and the very definition of estoppel by laches, "knowing the correct property line, Oliver Owner fails to bring a lawsuit to establish title to a portion of real estate until Nat Neighbor has built a house which encroaches on the property in which Owner has title"
And here's a new third point. If MPEG-LA were to bring suit against Canonical now, it would not be estoppel by laches, since Canonical cannot claim MPEG-LA has been lax in enforcing their rights. Estoppel would most certainly not prevent from claiming damages, though other things might.
IANAL, but I think you have to do more than beat your chest and say, "I have here in my hand a list of fifty-seven card-carrying patents now in the WebM codec!" Otherwise, there's no way to tell the difference between an actual claim and some hobo with a spoon in his ear taking out a legal ad in a newspaper of record.
If you grew up watching the educational shows on PBS (especially the ones that they imported from TV-Ontario), you get the same things. I still remember "It Figures!" Now I don't feel so bad about watching Look Around You on YouTube. Which reminds me, I should go buy that from Amazon.
For the record, the powerful have the least protection from libel laws. Powerful people are usually public figures (e.g. congresscritters, corporate executives), and they have no protection under libel laws.
PLATFORM=linux32
Seriously? It's 2010, and they're making it 32-bit? I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth, but 32-bit is rather limited these days.
I have to say that out of all of PKD's books I've read, the one I thought was most adaptable to film was Ubik. Dick apparently thought the same, since he wrote a screenplay version of it.
I've actually had to increase my sodium intake to get to the recommended amount. My diet (lost 80 lbs so far!) has been moving me away from processed foods, which means that on some days, I'm consuming as little as 600mg of sodium. The present USDA recommendations (available at http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/DRI//DRI_Water/water_full_report.pdf ) for people my age (9-50) are between 1500 and 2300, unless they're in an at-risk group. This means that some days, I have to add a teaspoon of kosher salt to my food (which can be trouble if you're trying to salt raspberries). The WHO recommends less than 1700mg ( http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_916.pdf ), so I've been trying to keep my intake between 1500 and 1700.
In all cases, the WHO recommends keeping your sodium and potassium levels equivalent (70mmol of sodium, 70-80mmol of potassium, or 2800-3200mg of K). Too little potassium/too much sodium results in too much muscle activity and hypertension, too little sodium/too much potassium results in too little muscle activity, heart arrhythmia, respiratory collapse, coma... The FDA recommends a bizarre amount of potassium (120mmol or 4700mg) based on the sodium sensitivity of African Americans and something about kidney stones. For most people who do not have a sodium sensitivity, this will just be eliminated by the body, which may cause problems with the kidneys and liver. Also note that while sodium is mentioned on food labels, potassium is usually not, and some foods are very high in potassium but don't bother to mention it.
Each of the documents I linked has a long list of studies that they used to determine those levels, but I'd really like to see something more concrete and which doesn't simply vilify sodium. Alas, that's far too common in the diet advice I see online.
Take the example of teosinte (originally Zea mays parviglumis), a grass that has since evolved from a very fit organism to a biological freak: its reproductive organs are encased in a husk and located in a place that makes reproduction less probable unless it's mediated by another organism with opposable thumbs. Why did it evolve this way? Because humans really liked to kill the plant and eat its embryos, and thus wanted to ensure the survival of the species.
And while Zea mays parviglumis is still around, you're probably less likely to run into that plant than the more common mutant subspecies that humans evolved: corn.
TFA is saying that users are maxing out their physical RAM and have to use swap. Quoting:
My point was that even if you have a processor that supports PAE and even if your motherboard supports PAE, you can't use it unless you have more than 4GB of memory, and even then, if you don't have 4GB of RAM, PAE will not affect the problem that TFA is reporting on.
All motherboards since the late 90s support more than 4GB of RAM?