The broadcaster owns copyright over the broadcast, but the broadcast is in itself a derived work. The original copyright holder still holds the rights to their original work. The broadcaster does *not* gain ownership over the original work, only over their broadcast of it.
So the original copyright owner can redistribute their work (or rebroadcast it, if those rights were not sold) and not worry about the broadcaster. They can't record the broadcaster's transmission then rebroadcast *that* however, which is currently an option.
Where this treaty becomes an issue is not because it transfers rights to the original work to a broadcaster (it doesn't) but because the broadcast itself is protected - reproducing a broadcast *from the broadcast* requires the permission of both the copyright holder and the broadcaster. Currently only the permission of the original copyright holder is required.
Point ten is not about the broadcaster gaining rights over the original work, but about them gaining *greater* rights over the derived work than the original copyright holder had over the original - the broadcaster can forbid things that the original copyright holder cannot.
Nuclear (fission) is better than coal... but it's not much better.
Firstly, carbon cost. Nuclear fission *does* have a carbon cost; this is chiefly the cost of fabricating the plants (which is substantial) but also includes the cost of mining and safely transporting the uranium used (and disposing of wastes safely). Once all this is factored in, the carbon cost isn't all that much better than coal. It is better, but the margin isn't much. (I wish I had the study to back this up, but it's something I read years and years ago).
Secondly, sustainability. Uranium supplies are limited. If all power generation switched to nuclear, uranium supplies would last 50 years or so: Global Uranium reserves
says existing reserves are sufficient to cover existing reactors for "several decades". Coal will outlast fission by something like a century.
The third problem with nuclear is that the uranium and plutonium used for fuel *can* be used to fabricate nuclear weapons. Care in transport has so far prevented this, so far as we know, but there are other legs in the ABC trilogy that are much more cost-effective for terrorist purposes. The actual risk represented here is very difficult to assess; personally I suspect that warheads from the former Soviet bloc are a much bigger risk.
Pollution doesn't enter the picture IMO. Coal is *very* bad for pollution. If pollution is a factor, don't use coal. As others have said, recent studies indicate that *low-level* radiation may have beneficial effects, although there isn't enough evidence yet to be certain.
Nuclear *Fusion*, if we can get it going, would be great of course, and the technology is almost there - there have been test fusion plants with positive energy output. There have also been some promising developments in solar technology recently, almost doubling the efficiency of previous designs. A combination of solar and other renewable resources is pretty much the only way to go in the long term.
I agree that Sterling comes across poorly in this article. The sheep-like chorus of "Nuclear baaa-d!" without presenting a viable alternative (and continually referring to nuclear weapons as if a device designed to explode is the same as a plant designed *not* to explode) does not impress.
There are entirely legitimate reasons to avoid nuclear; it's not the panacea that other respondents here have represented it as, but neither is it the bogeyman that Sterling would have us think. Personally I think it's better than coal but worse than genuinely renewable sources such as wind and solar....Ronny
May be a requirement but if so it's very shoddily enforced. When.ca was initially opened up I received a couple of offers to register.ca domains, even though I am in the wrong hemisphere, and on investigation there were no particular requirements on place of residence.
I didn't wind up registering because I already had an OK domain name and didn't like the thought of some poor Canuck missing out.
From what I can tell it's still pretty easy to do. A bunch of registrars list.ca up there with.org and.tv for domain checks and registration.
Just pray that you never need to log in via a system that does not approximate VT100 terminal emulation.
When you hit function or cursor keys, the system actually receives a key sequence (usually escape-something) depending on the key pressed and terminal emulation used. The Linux console approximates VT100 emulation, as do most modern terminal programs by default, but if you get stuck using an incompatible terminal or terminal client your password will not work. (This is also why it doesn't work under X, by the way.)
cat standard input to a file, type a few keys, then edit the file using the text editor of your choice to see the actual characters used for those keys. Just keep in mind that the terminal emulation also cooks the characters a bit on input.
Now for WINDOWS, this was a huge problem, because you couldn't install the drivers without the original cd, don't ask me why. Couldn't download them from the site, couldn't do crap.
The article gives a very basic counterexample. A brand new sound card required only the drivers on the *Windows 95* installation disc, i.e. it did not require any additional drivers beyond those shipped with the original OS.
The lack of Linux driver support *is* basically due to the hardware vendors, although frankly I don't blame them; the work required to build and support Linux sound drivers would be difficult to justify from the market size. For servers, sound cards rarely matter, and the Linux desktop market is still tiny. However in this case that's no excuse - the new hardware was supported by a range of legacy (Windows) operating systems, with no new drivers required, but didn't work under Linux.
I'm guessing that the card he was using had legacy SB16 support which Windows noticed while Linux tried to support the card "properly" and failed. In essence, Linux was smart and Windows was stupid - and sometimes being stupid with hardware can be an advantage.
This is probably dating me, but the last albums I recall that had a meaningful sequence were 'Pink Floyd The Wall', and maybe 'STYX Mr. Roboto'. Any more recent examples, please?
Most musicals (and sound tracks).
For sound tracks in particular, usually the final song is chosen to round off the movie and having it also round off the sound track is usually a Good Thing.
Basically there's some music that works well sequentially and other music that works well randomly. And there's some that fits one category but not the other.
Personally most of the music I listen to is on shuffle, but I don't put it on my shuffled playlists unless it suits random play. For sequential music, I pick the album out and play it sequentially.
The brain-damage thing is such obvious self-serving idiocy that I don't think it needs to be answered. The reduction in attention span of the "MTV generation" is something you will only believe *before* watching someone play a computer or video game for hours straight, when a moment of inattention can be "fatal".
The 1755 reference on the page I quoted makes some reference: "Any robber; particularly a bookfeller who feizes the copies op other men."
I read that as "seizes the copies" = "copies without permission [the works of]." If it were simply stealing *books* there would be no reason to refer to *copies*. Also note there's a huge gap in the history on that page, between 1755 and 1966. The 1966 reference on that page also mentions "literary or other plundering".
Another reference I found indicated that this use of "piracy" dates to 1700 or so, in connection with William Defoe (presumably in reference to the copying of his books) - although I can't find that reference now I'm afraid.
In any case, my basic point was that the objection to "piracy" as a term for copyright violation is silly. It's not a modern innovation. The word "piracy" in the sense of copyright violation predates computer science as a discipline. People hate being called a pirate because the term carries such negative connotations, but in context if you think there's nothing wrong with violating copyright it should carry no more negative weight than calling a female dog a bitch.
(BTW, I agree "innovating" is an ugly term, "inventing" or "creating" usually being better, but "innovation" as a noun is quite sensible; "innovation" = "something newly introduced" and I can't think of another word with that exact meaning, the similar terms failing to carry the implication of being a *new* creation. Admittedly "recent innovation" is somewhat redundant.)
English is *the* foreign language learned by most Japanese students, through (at least) to the end of High School. As a result there are an astounding number of native Japanese who know enough English to pass a test marked by somebody else who is also not a native English speaker. (So for a mark of 90%, presumably they can get away with a 10% miss rate.)
Have such people write documentation. Hilarity ensues.
I have at home an anime with English and Chinese subs (may be bootleg, though I didn't think it was when I bought it). As such the subtitles were probably translated from Japanese to English by somebody whose native language is Chinese. The wording is pretty bizarre at times.
It is not piracy. Piracy involves boarding and stealing ships in the sea with the casual murder of people.
It's piracy. Piracy also covers "The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material" (ref: dictionary.com). I checked 3-4 modern dictionaries and all had a similar definition listed. Use of the term in reference to unauthorised copying apparently dates back to 1701, so it's hardly a recent innovation. Link to site discussing etymology of the word "pirate".
It's as if I were to say "this writing instrument on my desk is not a pen. A pen is something you keep submarines in." Two definitions, both valid. That writing instrument *is* a pen, and unauthorised duplication of copyright material *is* piracy.
What it *isn't* is stealing. The definition of stealing (or theft) does not cover copyright violation.
(If you want a word with some real ambiguity, look up the word "set".:-) )
Apologies, my chemistry is pretty weak... I was relying on a page that came up when I did a Google search for "sodium compounds" which listed NaH as one such compound.
Still, the basic point of my post remains - 165kg is a drop in the bucket. Of course, the global environmental problems occurring recently have been due to the addition of an awful lot of drops. But IMO environmental concerns should focus on issues where there's a reasonable chance of taking effective action.
The article says 165kg (360 pounds) of NaK, which decays into radioactive forms of Sodium and Argon. They seem most worried about the argon, with a half-life of 270 years.
However, argon is a noble gas that does not combine chemically with anything, so long-term exposure from absorption into the human body is not exactly a big issue. It also forms a small but detectable proportion (about 1%) of the Earth's atmosphere, so it will be diluted by a factor of billions or trillions to one.
Sodium of course is highly reactive. I assume that it's the K (potassium?) that decays into the sodium as Na = sodium already... nuclear science is not my strong suit unfortunately. Upon hitting the high atmosphere, sodium will combine rapidly, probably with hydrogen (NaH) or Oxygen (NaO2/Na2O/Na2O2) none of which are used by the human body... may be a problem if it recombines, but again we're talking minute quantities relatively speaking.
The coolant is all in the form of liquid droplets which will be showering down over the earth over a period of hundreds of years. To be honest I can't see what the big deal is here. Yes, there's radiation showering down, but these are *droplets*, they're not going to smack you in the eye - they will break up probably before they hit the stratosphere, let alone the troposphere.
The net effect will be an increase in background radiation levels too small to measure.
The original article focuses on the hazards of the droplets as space junk... which to me seems sensible. As an earthbound radiation source these don't figure. As space junk they present not only a collision hazard but a radioactive one.
This apparently contrasts with MS Office, where if bugs go unresolved, users do not have any options.
Even if a bug is fixed by a service pack, you need the exact same version of Office as was used for the original installation if you want to install a service pack or patch.
In a corporate environment, where there may be several versions of Office installed and the installation CDs are frequently locked away. Then you try to install a patch and discover that this system was installed with the Professional edition and you need the Premium edition...
I've worked at at least three companies where this sort of headache resulted in what amounted to an indefinite hold on patching of Office.
Not only would it provide an easy-to-filter TLD for those people who don't want anything to do with porn (or whatever), but it would also provide an easy place to look for those who do want to see porn
You're missing one point. Not everybody viewing adult sites *wants* to be filtered, or to have the fact that they are viewing adult content to be obvious to those able to see the sites they are visiting.
Forcing "adult" content onto one domain will lose that industry two groups of customers: those who happen onto adult content when browsing other material (and given the number of popups with such material I can't think that number is small), and those who either think their interest in prurient material is either shameful or nobody else's business. Ads I've seen for adult videos advertise shipping in plain brown paper wrapping with an innocuous credit card charge, not startlingly loud paper emblazoned with XXXes.
The number of additional customers gained will be small (if you want adult content, most people will presumably guess a URL and probably get it right). The number lost may be substantial.
A simple redirect may solve the basic filtering problem (if a workable definition of "adult" can be found, which seems doubtful), but I don't think it would be in the interest of those peddling such material.
Given the existence of cicadas with 13- and 17-year lifespans, a third species of cicada is better off with a 13- or 17-year lifespan.
If the years are in sync (but with different breeding years), two 17-year species will never "clash" in their breeding year. Similarly, two 13-year species will also never clash. If you add a species with an 11-year span, you increase the frequency of clashes with the other species: a chance of 29/221 (about 13%) per breeding cycle for *some* sort of clash, and every 2431 years all three species will have the same breeding year, stretching resources enormously.
On the other hand, a 13-year species clashes every 17 cycles (about 6% chance) and a 17-year species clashes every 13 cycles (about 7.6% chance).
That's one possible reason.
Another possible reason is that not all cicadas have 13- or 17-year breeding seasons.:-P
SCO Reponse: Damn... now they're using free speech against us! What shall we do?
SCO to Bush: This Free Speech thing is a real pain. Can't we do something about it?
Bush to SCO: Y'know, yer right... these Terrorists, Drug Dealers and other Unpatriotic Anti-American Scum are getting a Free Ride thanks to the rights of Free Speech which our Loyal Citizens hold.
(Bush calls Constitutional Convention. The Free Speech clauses are re-amended to exclude lawbreakers, terrorists and drug dealers, thereby rendering it completely toothless. Anybody disagreeing with the changes is labelled a terrorist and kicked out. Alternatively: it's made clear that Free speech is Free as in beer, not free as in, well, *formerly* speech).
Bush to SCO: Thanks for the idea.
SCO to Bush: No problem, glad to help. (SCO proceed to sue everybody in the US for licence violation, since all that software uses the letters "a" or "e" that are CLEARLY PRESENT in SCO source code.)
I'm an Aussie BTW, so I have no idea whether something like this could work. Not that we would want it to.
Actually the degree of depth you'll get from a research library vs. from Google is highly dependent on the subject matter.
Classic Computer Science. Literature. Criticism. Mathematics. Ninety percent of subject matter in fact - the research library is your friend.
Up-to-the-minute technical data such as bugs databases or parts catalogues. Movie reviews. Pop culture. Basically anything where information will be outdated after one to two years - for such subject matter the Internet is probably your best reference.
And then or course there's the sort of topics which your library won't carry because it's either censored or politically hazardous - porn foremost... I would say topics such as explosives except that a really *good* research library *will* cover such topics...
Not necessarily. I can think of several cases where the ISP I used to work for needed to find out somebody's IP address (for spamming or other abuse violations) and we could not.
(1) RADIUS uses UDP, and as such is a datagram protocol that does not guarantee delivery. This only matters in 0.1% of cases however.
(2) As others have mentioned, logs are not usually kept indefinitely; they're just too big. We would keep them for around 2 accounting cycles. This was for a smallish ISP (around 90 dialup lines).
(3) Roaming users. For these the RADIUS server would simply pass the authentication/accounting packets through to a secondary server, which would then pass packets to another ISP. The RADIUS server did not log these entries by default; neither did the passthrough server. (I wound up turning on debugging on the passthrough server to track these.)
In my opinion global roaming is by far the easiest way to spam and not get caught. Thankfully, roaming is not typically an option for broadband.:-) Unfortunately wireless global roaming looks like changing this.
At the risk of redundancy: There is a useful site (and mailing list) run by Randy Cassingham (who writes the This is True column, called The Stella Awards. It describes what actually happened in the Stella Liebeck case, and in general provides a fairly balanced view of some of the more outrageous excesses of the American legal system.
The site also includes some reports of cases where the result of a case is quite reasonable despite initial outrageous claims.
If you want an example of outrageous legal claims, look into the asbestos law suits.
What if the bugger steals you computer with 400 CD's worth on your hard drive?
That's what backups are for. (You do make backups, right?)
400 CDs at about a 10% compression ratio can be burned onto 40 CD-Rs at a fixed cost of under $20. I doubt that your insurance premiums are that cheap.
The registering organisation must be a company, within a *very* loose definition - for example owning a registered trade mark qualifies you. The domain name must then either be derived from your organisation name (in a couple of obvious ways) *OR*:
c) be otherwise closely and substantially connected to the registrant, because the domain name refers to.
(i) a product that the registrant manufactures or sells; or
(ii) a service that the registrant provides; or
(iii) an event that the registrant organises or sponsors; or
(iv) an activity that the registrant facilitates, teaches or trains; or
(v) a venue that the registrant operates; or
(vi) a profession that the registrant's employees practise.
The rules were loosened about a year and a half ago, at about the same time as auDA took over management of the.AU domain.
Originally the requirement for org.au was that the domain not fit any of the other categories. The new (auDA) requirement is that the organisation be a charity or non-profit organisation.
I can't predict how this will end up, but it's going to be a trip finding out. What do you all think? I want to see I Am An Economist in the replies.:)
I have a B.Ec., though it's rusty around the edges.
Basically this sort of thing is supposed to even out in currency fluctuations.
US firms pay Indian firms for workers. The demand for rupee goes up, demand for USD goes down. The USD declines in value, increasing the relative costs of Indian employees. At some point the USD is low enough that the difference in wages ceases to matter much.
Of course, the price of imports has skyrocketed, not to mention the cost of servicing foreign debt, in this scenario. On the other hand, the cost the US gets for exports has increased. So imports go down and exports go up. (Note that "imports" and "exports" here covers services, such as IT support, as well as goods.)
In the end the whole thing stabilises with the USD at a lower level, some increase in pricing reflecting the increased price of imports and increased overseas consumption of local goods (i.e. exports) and outsourcing of jobs at some sort of compromise level.
At the same time, US industries will shift to producing goods at which the US is relatively better at producing.
All this assumes that the USD is allowed to drop. Chances are that the politicians will try pretty hard to stop this from happening.
The other side of this is that this sort of free market analysis ignores the reality that sometimes the free market trends towards a result that is socially unacceptable. Items that the US is "relatively better at producing" are likely to be so because of high availability of capital resources, i.e. production will shift towards industries with a relatively low (or relatively cheap) labour requirement. The market result may be stable at a point where wages are below "minimum wage". In this case government intervention may be necessary (AKA a welfare state). However old-school economists would generally not like to admit that governemnt intervention is ever necessary.:-)
The need to watch your spellbook while meditating was removed well over a year ago. (Two years? Three? Before I started playing, anyway).
They've been busy stea-... er, borrowing many of the better UI ideas from other games recently.
But I agree it's the community that keeps people there. Everquest's problems these days are dealing with the mudflation that has resulted from years of expansions having to be better than the last one.
Slashdot Mirror
So the original copyright owner can redistribute their work (or rebroadcast it, if those rights were not sold) and not worry about the broadcaster. They can't record the broadcaster's transmission then rebroadcast *that* however, which is currently an option.
Where this treaty becomes an issue is not because it transfers rights to the original work to a broadcaster (it doesn't) but because the broadcast itself is protected - reproducing a broadcast *from the broadcast* requires the permission of both the copyright holder and the broadcaster. Currently only the permission of the original copyright holder is required.
Point ten is not about the broadcaster gaining rights over the original work, but about them gaining *greater* rights over the derived work than the original copyright holder had over the original - the broadcaster can forbid things that the original copyright holder cannot.
Firstly, carbon cost. Nuclear fission *does* have a carbon cost; this is chiefly the cost of fabricating the plants (which is substantial) but also includes the cost of mining and safely transporting the uranium used (and disposing of wastes safely). Once all this is factored in, the carbon cost isn't all that much better than coal. It is better, but the margin isn't much. (I wish I had the study to back this up, but it's something I read years and years ago).
Secondly, sustainability. Uranium supplies are limited. If all power generation switched to nuclear, uranium supplies would last 50 years or so: Global Uranium reserves says existing reserves are sufficient to cover existing reactors for "several decades". Coal will outlast fission by something like a century.
The third problem with nuclear is that the uranium and plutonium used for fuel *can* be used to fabricate nuclear weapons. Care in transport has so far prevented this, so far as we know, but there are other legs in the ABC trilogy that are much more cost-effective for terrorist purposes. The actual risk represented here is very difficult to assess; personally I suspect that warheads from the former Soviet bloc are a much bigger risk.
Pollution doesn't enter the picture IMO. Coal is *very* bad for pollution. If pollution is a factor, don't use coal. As others have said, recent studies indicate that *low-level* radiation may have beneficial effects, although there isn't enough evidence yet to be certain.
Nuclear *Fusion*, if we can get it going, would be great of course, and the technology is almost there - there have been test fusion plants with positive energy output. There have also been some promising developments in solar technology recently, almost doubling the efficiency of previous designs. A combination of solar and other renewable resources is pretty much the only way to go in the long term.
I agree that Sterling comes across poorly in this article. The sheep-like chorus of "Nuclear baaa-d!" without presenting a viable alternative (and continually referring to nuclear weapons as if a device designed to explode is the same as a plant designed *not* to explode) does not impress.
There are entirely legitimate reasons to avoid nuclear; it's not the panacea that other respondents here have represented it as, but neither is it the bogeyman that Sterling would have us think. Personally I think it's better than coal but worse than genuinely renewable sources such as wind and solar. ...Ronny
I didn't wind up registering because I already had an OK domain name and didn't like the thought of some poor Canuck missing out.
From what I can tell it's still pretty easy to do. A bunch of registrars list .ca up there with .org and .tv for domain checks and registration.
When you hit function or cursor keys, the system actually receives a key sequence (usually escape-something) depending on the key pressed and terminal emulation used. The Linux console approximates VT100 emulation, as do most modern terminal programs by default, but if you get stuck using an incompatible terminal or terminal client your password will not work. (This is also why it doesn't work under X, by the way.)
cat standard input to a file, type a few keys, then edit the file using the text editor of your choice to see the actual characters used for those keys. Just keep in mind that the terminal emulation also cooks the characters a bit on input.
The article gives a very basic counterexample. A brand new sound card required only the drivers on the *Windows 95* installation disc, i.e. it did not require any additional drivers beyond those shipped with the original OS.
The lack of Linux driver support *is* basically due to the hardware vendors, although frankly I don't blame them; the work required to build and support Linux sound drivers would be difficult to justify from the market size. For servers, sound cards rarely matter, and the Linux desktop market is still tiny. However in this case that's no excuse - the new hardware was supported by a range of legacy (Windows) operating systems, with no new drivers required, but didn't work under Linux.
I'm guessing that the card he was using had legacy SB16 support which Windows noticed while Linux tried to support the card "properly" and failed. In essence, Linux was smart and Windows was stupid - and sometimes being stupid with hardware can be an advantage.
Most musicals (and sound tracks).
For sound tracks in particular, usually the final song is chosen to round off the movie and having it also round off the sound track is usually a Good Thing.
Basically there's some music that works well sequentially and other music that works well randomly. And there's some that fits one category but not the other.
Personally most of the music I listen to is on shuffle, but I don't put it on my shuffled playlists unless it suits random play. For sequential music, I pick the album out and play it sequentially.
The brain-damage thing is such obvious self-serving idiocy that I don't think it needs to be answered. The reduction in attention span of the "MTV generation" is something you will only believe *before* watching someone play a computer or video game for hours straight, when a moment of inattention can be "fatal".
I read that as "seizes the copies" = "copies without permission [the works of]." If it were simply stealing *books* there would be no reason to refer to *copies*. Also note there's a huge gap in the history on that page, between 1755 and 1966. The 1966 reference on that page also mentions "literary or other plundering".
Another reference I found indicated that this use of "piracy" dates to 1700 or so, in connection with William Defoe (presumably in reference to the copying of his books) - although I can't find that reference now I'm afraid.
In any case, my basic point was that the objection to "piracy" as a term for copyright violation is silly. It's not a modern innovation. The word "piracy" in the sense of copyright violation predates computer science as a discipline. People hate being called a pirate because the term carries such negative connotations, but in context if you think there's nothing wrong with violating copyright it should carry no more negative weight than calling a female dog a bitch.
(BTW, I agree "innovating" is an ugly term, "inventing" or "creating" usually being better, but "innovation" as a noun is quite sensible; "innovation" = "something newly introduced" and I can't think of another word with that exact meaning, the similar terms failing to carry the implication of being a *new* creation. Admittedly "recent innovation" is somewhat redundant.)
Have such people write documentation. Hilarity ensues.
I have at home an anime with English and Chinese subs (may be bootleg, though I didn't think it was when I bought it). As such the subtitles were probably translated from Japanese to English by somebody whose native language is Chinese. The wording is pretty bizarre at times.
"Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of magnetic tape." -- Andrew Tanenbaum
It's piracy. Piracy also covers "The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material" (ref: dictionary.com). I checked 3-4 modern dictionaries and all had a similar definition listed. Use of the term in reference to unauthorised copying apparently dates back to 1701, so it's hardly a recent innovation. Link to site discussing etymology of the word "pirate".
It's as if I were to say "this writing instrument on my desk is not a pen. A pen is something you keep submarines in." Two definitions, both valid. That writing instrument *is* a pen, and unauthorised duplication of copyright material *is* piracy.
What it *isn't* is stealing. The definition of stealing (or theft) does not cover copyright violation.
(If you want a word with some real ambiguity, look up the word "set". :-) )
Still, the basic point of my post remains - 165kg is a drop in the bucket. Of course, the global environmental problems occurring recently have been due to the addition of an awful lot of drops. But IMO environmental concerns should focus on issues where there's a reasonable chance of taking effective action.
However, argon is a noble gas that does not combine chemically with anything, so long-term exposure from absorption into the human body is not exactly a big issue. It also forms a small but detectable proportion (about 1%) of the Earth's atmosphere, so it will be diluted by a factor of billions or trillions to one.
Sodium of course is highly reactive. I assume that it's the K (potassium?) that decays into the sodium as Na = sodium already... nuclear science is not my strong suit unfortunately. Upon hitting the high atmosphere, sodium will combine rapidly, probably with hydrogen (NaH) or Oxygen (NaO2/Na2O/Na2O2) none of which are used by the human body... may be a problem if it recombines, but again we're talking minute quantities relatively speaking.
The coolant is all in the form of liquid droplets which will be showering down over the earth over a period of hundreds of years. To be honest I can't see what the big deal is here. Yes, there's radiation showering down, but these are *droplets*, they're not going to smack you in the eye - they will break up probably before they hit the stratosphere, let alone the troposphere.
The net effect will be an increase in background radiation levels too small to measure.
The original article focuses on the hazards of the droplets as space junk... which to me seems sensible. As an earthbound radiation source these don't figure. As space junk they present not only a collision hazard but a radioactive one.
Even if a bug is fixed by a service pack, you need the exact same version of Office as was used for the original installation if you want to install a service pack or patch.
In a corporate environment, where there may be several versions of Office installed and the installation CDs are frequently locked away. Then you try to install a patch and discover that this system was installed with the Professional edition and you need the Premium edition...
I've worked at at least three companies where this sort of headache resulted in what amounted to an indefinite hold on patching of Office.
You're missing one point. Not everybody viewing adult sites *wants* to be filtered, or to have the fact that they are viewing adult content to be obvious to those able to see the sites they are visiting.
Forcing "adult" content onto one domain will lose that industry two groups of customers: those who happen onto adult content when browsing other material (and given the number of popups with such material I can't think that number is small), and those who either think their interest in prurient material is either shameful or nobody else's business. Ads I've seen for adult videos advertise shipping in plain brown paper wrapping with an innocuous credit card charge, not startlingly loud paper emblazoned with XXXes.
The number of additional customers gained will be small (if you want adult content, most people will presumably guess a URL and probably get it right). The number lost may be substantial.
A simple redirect may solve the basic filtering problem (if a workable definition of "adult" can be found, which seems doubtful), but I don't think it would be in the interest of those peddling such material.
Our company uses Outlook and it's perfectly sa%&^S#^M^?NO CARRIER
If the years are in sync (but with different breeding years), two 17-year species will never "clash" in their breeding year. Similarly, two 13-year species will also never clash. If you add a species with an 11-year span, you increase the frequency of clashes with the other species: a chance of 29/221 (about 13%) per breeding cycle for *some* sort of clash, and every 2431 years all three species will have the same breeding year, stretching resources enormously.
On the other hand, a 13-year species clashes every 17 cycles (about 6% chance) and a 17-year species clashes every 13 cycles (about 7.6% chance).
That's one possible reason.
Another possible reason is that not all cicadas have 13- or 17-year breeding seasons. :-P
SCO to Bush: This Free Speech thing is a real pain. Can't we do something about it?
Bush to SCO: Y'know, yer right... these Terrorists, Drug Dealers and other Unpatriotic Anti-American Scum are getting a Free Ride thanks to the rights of Free Speech which our Loyal Citizens hold.
(Bush calls Constitutional Convention. The Free Speech clauses are re-amended to exclude lawbreakers, terrorists and drug dealers, thereby rendering it completely toothless. Anybody disagreeing with the changes is labelled a terrorist and kicked out. Alternatively: it's made clear that Free speech is Free as in beer, not free as in, well, *formerly* speech).
Bush to SCO: Thanks for the idea.
SCO to Bush: No problem, glad to help. (SCO proceed to sue everybody in the US for licence violation, since all that software uses the letters "a" or "e" that are CLEARLY PRESENT in SCO source code.)
I'm an Aussie BTW, so I have no idea whether something like this could work. Not that we would want it to.
Classic Computer Science. Literature. Criticism. Mathematics. Ninety percent of subject matter in fact - the research library is your friend.
Up-to-the-minute technical data such as bugs databases or parts catalogues. Movie reviews. Pop culture. Basically anything where information will be outdated after one to two years - for such subject matter the Internet is probably your best reference.
And then or course there's the sort of topics which your library won't carry because it's either censored or politically hazardous - porn foremost... I would say topics such as explosives except that a really *good* research library *will* cover such topics...
He has a habit of taking a concept and running with it... and the concepts he chooses to run with tend to be on the edges of modern physics.
You may not *like* his work, which is deeply weird sometimes, but you'll get a workout reading it.
(1) RADIUS uses UDP, and as such is a datagram protocol that does not guarantee delivery. This only matters in 0.1% of cases however.
(2) As others have mentioned, logs are not usually kept indefinitely; they're just too big. We would keep them for around 2 accounting cycles. This was for a smallish ISP (around 90 dialup lines).
(3) Roaming users. For these the RADIUS server would simply pass the authentication/accounting packets through to a secondary server, which would then pass packets to another ISP. The RADIUS server did not log these entries by default; neither did the passthrough server. (I wound up turning on debugging on the passthrough server to track these.)
In my opinion global roaming is by far the easiest way to spam and not get caught. Thankfully, roaming is not typically an option for broadband. :-) Unfortunately wireless global roaming looks like changing this.
The site also includes some reports of cases where the result of a case is quite reasonable despite initial outrageous claims.
If you want an example of outrageous legal claims, look into the asbestos law suits.
That's what backups are for. (You do make backups, right?)
400 CDs at about a 10% compression ratio can be burned onto 40 CD-Rs at a fixed cost of under $20. I doubt that your insurance premiums are that cheap.
Sadly no longer true: AU domain policies
The registering organisation must be a company, within a *very* loose definition - for example owning a registered trade mark qualifies you. The domain name must then either be derived from your organisation name (in a couple of obvious ways) *OR*:
The rules were loosened about a year and a half ago, at about the same time as auDA took over management of the .AU domain.
Originally the requirement for org.au was that the domain not fit any of the other categories. The new (auDA) requirement is that the organisation be a charity or non-profit organisation.
I have a B.Ec., though it's rusty around the edges.
Basically this sort of thing is supposed to even out in currency fluctuations.
US firms pay Indian firms for workers. The demand for rupee goes up, demand for USD goes down. The USD declines in value, increasing the relative costs of Indian employees. At some point the USD is low enough that the difference in wages ceases to matter much.
Of course, the price of imports has skyrocketed, not to mention the cost of servicing foreign debt, in this scenario. On the other hand, the cost the US gets for exports has increased. So imports go down and exports go up. (Note that "imports" and "exports" here covers services, such as IT support, as well as goods.)
In the end the whole thing stabilises with the USD at a lower level, some increase in pricing reflecting the increased price of imports and increased overseas consumption of local goods (i.e. exports) and outsourcing of jobs at some sort of compromise level.
At the same time, US industries will shift to producing goods at which the US is relatively better at producing.
All this assumes that the USD is allowed to drop. Chances are that the politicians will try pretty hard to stop this from happening.
The other side of this is that this sort of free market analysis ignores the reality that sometimes the free market trends towards a result that is socially unacceptable. Items that the US is "relatively better at producing" are likely to be so because of high availability of capital resources, i.e. production will shift towards industries with a relatively low (or relatively cheap) labour requirement. The market result may be stable at a point where wages are below "minimum wage". In this case government intervention may be necessary (AKA a welfare state). However old-school economists would generally not like to admit that governemnt intervention is ever necessary. :-)
They've been busy stea-... er, borrowing many of the better UI ideas from other games recently.
But I agree it's the community that keeps people there. Everquest's problems these days are dealing with the mudflation that has resulted from years of expansions having to be better than the last one.