I reckon it's still possible to have the receive part of the radio gear on enough for the phone to be woken.
Before phones became ubiquitous, they were too expensive for a poor student, so I used to carry a radio pager and a single AA battery would last for months. Now the battery in my phone is only about 1/4 of that capacity, but the power consumption of these things has improved immeasurably since then.
You wouldn't need the transmitter to be on for this application, because the messages would be short and infrequent, so you could broadcast them across entire networks without too much impact.
This doesn't mean it happens, but I think it's entirely possible.
One arm of the BBC makes profits, and all of them are reinvested in the BBC.
No one owns shares in the BBC. When the BBC makes a profit, the people who gain are the British public, through reduced license fees and an improved service. I think the world gains as well - how many BBC shows are rightly regarded as classics?
The BBC is not funded through taxation, but through a license fee. If you don't want to pay it, you do have to divest yourself of all equipment capable of recording their broadcasts.
On the other hand, for less than £12 a month you get a lot of value, not least of which is the knock-on effect of improving the general standard of broadcasting in the UK. We have a mandated maximum average of 12 minutes of commercials an hour here - it's more like 18 elsewhere.
Complaining about the license fee is like complaining that for a measly 1/4 of what the USA spends per head, we get universal health care with no co-pay and fixed prescription costs.
A machine has arrived at my local cinema that does this. I'm not sure if it prints a sleeve though. It even has fairly reasonable prices for new and popular titles, but it can't compete with the new wave of bargain bucket titles that are emerging in our supermarkets for £3-5 ($5-8).
No, just enough of us to provide a supply of Soylent Green for the rest until the population is small enough to support using more sustainable farming techniques.
Alas, the maximal population that the land can support will probably be severely reduced by then, because modern agricultural techniques ruin the land for anything except heavily industrialised agriculture.
Just because a practice or belief is held for religious reasons does not make it right, justified, or even harmless.
Tradition and doctrine do not cut it as tools to manage your civilization in the face a of rapidly changing environmental, sociological and technological landscape. Worse, they get used as a special pass to justify the continuance of practices that would otherwise be considered wasteful, foolish or even barbaric.
My cubicle neighbour tells stories about the time his coworkers discovered a particular radio blackspot was the shadow of the antenna belonging to an enterprising fellow running his washing machine off the local radio station.
The brochure web page for the AP1000 also says much the same thing, 1154MWe.
It also states that this is a Pressurized Water Reactor, so it's probably more about generating by-products (esp. tritium) than it is about generating energy.
From this verdict, we should think that a single individual, with a normal downloading activity, will be never hold responsible for any damage to the music/video industry.
Their offence would be different though ; they would be "making available" not "assisting making available".
There would be a strong argument that the Pirate Bay expended far more effort "assisting" than the average user ever does just "making available", but I'm sure the MAFIAA would do their best to have the distinction ignored.
I disagree ; there are other licenses like BSD that essentially waive copyright. GPL is there for the specific purpose of ensuring that you can change the software as well as use the software.
Without GPL, nothing stops BigSoft from taking your source, compiling it into their own application, and telling you to take a hike. GPL ensures reciprocation.
GPL, in short, takes copyright, and gives it teeth - the teeth to enforce the real reason that copyright exists.
Copyright is a bargain between the state (and the people, by proxy) and the producers of "IP". The bargain states that in exchange for the opportunity to control the copying of the work for a limited period, the work becomes public property when that period expires. Without copyright, you only have technical measures to prevent copying, and they fairly obviously do not work.
It's an inspired idea. The real problem is not that copyright exists, but that it's been twisted. Copyright no longer serves both parties in the bargain equally ; the law favours the producer instead of benefiting the public.
To expand on the sibling poster, this isn't true, because there are a number of accepted ways of cryptographically proving that two parties both know the same information, without ever actually revealing what the information is.
The example the sibling gives of Unix password hashing works as follows ;
* The user sets their password. A 1-way hash is stored in the password file.
* Later, the user attempts login. The password he enters is put through the same 1-way hash and compared to the contents of the password file. If it matches, he logs in.
At no point is the password stored unencrypted, or decrypted from stored information. The most successful way of attacking this particular technique is called the Rainbow table, a precomputed list of all the possible hashes for a given range of values.
For data that was just 4-digit PIN numbers you'd not even need a table, once you'd deduced the hashing used, but there are various tricks to improve this (see article).
He concluded that the most humane method available was hypoxia, after undergoing a hypoxic experience in a barometric chamber used for Air Force training. The experience was not unpleasant, but euphoric.
In terms of equipment, you just need a mask and a cylinder of nitrogen. It's virtually impossible mis-administer. It's cheap. It's fast - it takes around 15 seconds.
Various figures in the US prison system just weren't interested, on the grounds that the prisoner wouldn't suffer enough. Despite the US constitutional prohibition on "cruel" punishment, it wasn't considered fair to the families of victims to end lives using this humane method.
I'm not in favour of the death penalty, but as Mr Portillo said : -
"As long as the state is going to kill people I think it has the obligation to do it in the way that least resembles murder."
Not at all. Besides, growing the network isn't incompatible with surveillance. For example, you can bet it won't be long before they start asking the BBC and other channels to pony up the logs of which IP addresses watch which programmes on their streaming video offerings.
Imagine if all culture was consumed through the network, instead of the majority which is currently broadcast with no means of determining which bits are being consumed? The profiling options would be very enticing to many governmental intelligence people.
Ubiquitous broadband will in no way hamper surveillance. Ubiquitous encryption, on the other hand...
Slashdot Mirror
I reckon it's still possible to have the receive part of the radio gear on enough for the phone to be woken.
Before phones became ubiquitous, they were too expensive for a poor student, so I used to carry a radio pager and a single AA battery would last for months. Now the battery in my phone is only about 1/4 of that capacity, but the power consumption of these things has improved immeasurably since then.
You wouldn't need the transmitter to be on for this application, because the messages would be short and infrequent, so you could broadcast them across entire networks without too much impact.
This doesn't mean it happens, but I think it's entirely possible.
An error on my hard drive was flipping random bits - single bit errors in MP3 files are surprisingly disruptive and annoying.
One arm of the BBC makes profits, and all of them are reinvested in the BBC.
No one owns shares in the BBC. When the BBC makes a profit, the people who gain are the British public, through reduced license fees and an improved service. I think the world gains as well - how many BBC shows are rightly regarded as classics?
The BBC is not funded through taxation, but through a license fee. If you don't want to pay it, you do have to divest yourself of all equipment capable of recording their broadcasts.
On the other hand, for less than £12 a month you get a lot of value, not least of which is the knock-on effect of improving the general standard of broadcasting in the UK. We have a mandated maximum average of 12 minutes of commercials an hour here - it's more like 18 elsewhere.
Complaining about the license fee is like complaining that for a measly 1/4 of what the USA spends per head, we get universal health care with no co-pay and fixed prescription costs.
A machine has arrived at my local cinema that does this. I'm not sure if it prints a sleeve though. It even has fairly reasonable prices for new and popular titles, but it can't compete with the new wave of bargain bucket titles that are emerging in our supermarkets for £3-5 ($5-8).
No, just enough of us to provide a supply of Soylent Green for the rest until the population is small enough to support using more sustainable farming techniques.
Alas, the maximal population that the land can support will probably be severely reduced by then, because modern agricultural techniques ruin the land for anything except heavily industrialised agriculture.
Just because a practice or belief is held for religious reasons does not make it right, justified, or even harmless.
Tradition and doctrine do not cut it as tools to manage your civilization in the face a of rapidly changing environmental, sociological and technological landscape. Worse, they get used as a special pass to justify the continuance of practices that would otherwise be considered wasteful, foolish or even barbaric.
My cubicle neighbour tells stories about the time his coworkers discovered a particular radio blackspot was the shadow of the antenna belonging to an enterprising fellow running his washing machine off the local radio station.
The brochure web page for the AP1000 also says much the same thing, 1154MWe.
It also states that this is a Pressurized Water Reactor, so it's probably more about generating by-products (esp. tritium) than it is about generating energy.
I think he was more miffed about being asked to shell out $2000 for about $300 of components.
It's better than the rates that IBM used to charge to send an engineer to snip a single wire link, but not much better.
From this verdict, we should think that a single individual, with a normal downloading activity, will be never hold responsible for any damage to the music/video industry.
Their offence would be different though ; they would be "making available" not "assisting making available".
There would be a strong argument that the Pirate Bay expended far more effort "assisting" than the average user ever does just "making available", but I'm sure the MAFIAA would do their best to have the distinction ignored.
Fuck the GPL. With no copyright it's unneeded.
I disagree ; there are other licenses like BSD that essentially waive copyright. GPL is there for the specific purpose of ensuring that you can change the software as well as use the software.
Without GPL, nothing stops BigSoft from taking your source, compiling it into their own application, and telling you to take a hike. GPL ensures reciprocation.
GPL, in short, takes copyright, and gives it teeth - the teeth to enforce the real reason that copyright exists.
Copyright is a bargain between the state (and the people, by proxy) and the producers of "IP". The bargain states that in exchange for the opportunity to control the copying of the work for a limited period, the work becomes public property when that period expires. Without copyright, you only have technical measures to prevent copying, and they fairly obviously do not work.
It's an inspired idea. The real problem is not that copyright exists, but that it's been twisted. Copyright no longer serves both parties in the bargain equally ; the law favours the producer instead of benefiting the public.
The BBC is funded directly through the license fee (which it collects for itself), not through taxation and redistribution from the government.
The BBC is not government-owned. It is an independent media corporation, formed by a Royal Charter.
And a dorky-looking helmet at that.
The current doctor would use his "psychic paper", which seems to fool most things, even RFID readers...
Cochlear implants are perceived by some elements of the deaf community as a sinister means of destroying their culture.
Modern kettles do consume 3kW, they have these huge, flat elements that boil very fast.
It's actually more efficient, as less heat will be lost from the body of the kettle during the boil cycle, because it has less time.
They already did this on the iPhone.
Somewhat predictably, it made the developer quite a lot of money.
Most of the UK banks no longer charge for ATM services.
Some of them started charging for using competitors ATMs, but the resulting hoohah quickly stopped that.
One of the few upsides to my current bank is that I can literally use any ATM in the UK to get cash, and as long as it's a bank ATM, for no charge.
About the only ATMs that charge for transactions in the UK now are the non-bank ones that crop up in convenience stores and motorway service stations.
To expand on the sibling poster, this isn't true, because there are a number of accepted ways of cryptographically proving that two parties both know the same information, without ever actually revealing what the information is.
The example the sibling gives of Unix password hashing works as follows ;
* The user sets their password. A 1-way hash is stored in the password file.
* Later, the user attempts login. The password he enters is put through the same 1-way hash and compared to the contents of the password file. If it matches, he logs in.
At no point is the password stored unencrypted, or decrypted from stored information. The most successful way of attacking this particular technique is called the Rainbow table, a precomputed list of all the possible hashes for a given range of values.
For data that was just 4-digit PIN numbers you'd not even need a table, once you'd deduced the hashing used, but there are various tricks to improve this (see article).
I doubt that Joss would have any say in the matter.
Used is much worse for the developer than tail pricing. The developer will not benefit from a second-hand sale.
A small amount, or even just a better reputation for sales with their publisher, is probably better than the zero that a second-hand sale represents.
A British politician, despite the UK having no death penalty, actually did some research into execution methods which was televised as a documentary.
He concluded that the most humane method available was hypoxia, after undergoing a hypoxic experience in a barometric chamber used for Air Force training. The experience was not unpleasant, but euphoric.
In terms of equipment, you just need a mask and a cylinder of nitrogen. It's virtually impossible mis-administer. It's cheap. It's fast - it takes around 15 seconds.
Various figures in the US prison system just weren't interested, on the grounds that the prisoner wouldn't suffer enough. Despite the US constitutional prohibition on "cruel" punishment, it wasn't considered fair to the families of victims to end lives using this humane method.
I'm not in favour of the death penalty, but as Mr Portillo said : -
"As long as the state is going to kill people I think it has the obligation to do it in the way that least resembles murder."
Not at all. Besides, growing the network isn't incompatible with surveillance. For example, you can bet it won't be long before they start asking the BBC and other channels to pony up the logs of which IP addresses watch which programmes on their streaming video offerings.
Imagine if all culture was consumed through the network, instead of the majority which is currently broadcast with no means of determining which bits are being consumed? The profiling options would be very enticing to many governmental intelligence people.
Ubiquitous broadband will in no way hamper surveillance. Ubiquitous encryption, on the other hand...
It's small enough to be negligible.
And if it isn't, they can pay to neuter a few stray cats, and be a positive benefit to the bird population.