Hats off to the dude who chipped in an extra $1,200 for the low UID...
and hopefully he got a two-digit (rather than three digit) UID for his
extra $$$...;-)
Since Usenet just publishes other people's stuff, don't they (at least somewhat) qualify for common carrier classification (similar to phone companies) in that the the content is someone else's?
Along these lines, what about Google/other search engines that show "copyrighted" content - either in the snippet or in their cache?
Perhaps even more important is that AIR applications are platform-agnostic. They operate almost exactly the same on both Windows and Mac platforms with only small differences, keyboard shortcuts being the most obvious. Adobe expects a Linux version of the AIR runtime to be completed in the coming months.
Phone companies and ISP's claim that since they are "Common Carriers" just carrying content from other people without any knowledge/filtering of the content, that they can't be sued if naughty/illegal stuff is carried on their wires. If Google has pro-active measures in place to filter submissions, then won't they lose that protection and can then be sued for anything that slips through?
Cray Supercomputer and others were doing all sorts of
parallel processing back in the 70's and 80's.
Per their history page
, the Cray-1 came out in 1976 and various quotes from that page include
"first multiprocessor supercomputer (1982)...
multiple 333 MFLOPS processors (1988)...
massively parallel processing (MPP) system (1993)"
You assume the submitter and/or editor actually reads the articles... not only is this Slashdot, but they were probably too busy looking at Elvira's... uhhhh... Pumpkins.
Ditto what parent said that Google doesn't (directly) profit from Google News. However, what happens is that the newspapers lose eyeballs... which translates to $$$. Guess the Tribune guy didn't want to word it quite that way!
Here is the printable version...
as noted at the bottom,
this this is an excerpt from an upcoming book The Pentagon: a History by Stephan Vogel. Newspapers tend to do these reprints over 3-day weekends since
not a lotta news happening -
here's something... uhhhhh... exciting happening today...;-)
YEP... although my guess is that censorship at the country borders (as has been done to YouTube a couple of times) and/or blocking by large organization (US military is doing so now) might curtail this slightly if they get really, really popular.
But yea, the content providers who have to "operate by the rules" will be handicapped... so perhaps I Too Welcome our new Video Site Overlords!
First, given enough light, yes, small sensors can generate pretty darn decent pictures. I own both a compact camera and a DSLR - actually the Canon 400D tested.
But sure looks to me like in the "medium" light pictures that the Rebel 400D had white-balance issues and provided a yellow cast over the shot. In fairness, s*it happens and it's an interesting side-by-side test.
In the low-light (with flash) examples, note how the shadows move quite a bit - they didn't make sure the camera was at the same spot each time - bummer. Put an external strobe on that 400D and you'll get a picture that rocks compared to the compact camera with the flash next to the lens. And obviously bigger sensors have much, much better low light/high ISO performance... but there is something to be said for being able to carry a camera in your pocket.
A not-so-perfect picture is better than no picture at all!
The article is a bit light on details, but my guess is a significant factor is they are driving on fairly flat terrain, they really minimize accelerations, and probably stay below typical highway speeds since air drag becomes significant. I.e. I'd like to see 'em get 100+ MPG driving over some Colorado mountain passes. Article also doesn't talk about this, but I bet for long trips, the savings in gas that is offset by the extended driving times ends up valueing their time at a pretty darn low $$$/hour.
Sure, I'm all for more fuel efficient cars and less fossil fuel burning, but there is a tradeoff.
Re:So if the this is completely free of charge....
on
1-800-Google Launches
·
· Score: 1
My guess is that the monetization will be... (surprise!)... advertising!
This is what an existing service does (1-800-FREE-411) where after you give 'em all the information, you hear a short ad, and then are given the option of connection to that advertiser... or who you wanted in the first place.
P.S. Bummer Google didn't release this on April 1st...;-)
Ditto what parent and others have said. In fact, engine/thrust requirements are sized by the need to continue take-off with an engine failure after V1. So all else being equal, for a four-engine plane, there is 33% "extra" thrust... whereas in a twin-engine plane, there is 100% "extra" power. So put the Popular Mechanics dude on a light twin, make sure the takeoff-thrust is NOT de-rated, and you'll really see a fast liftoff.
A more interesting parameter that relates to all of this is the balanced field length at max gross weight (which varies with temperature and altitude)... which basically sizes how long the runway needs to be.
Yet another nifty page-1 article by the WSJ. When this first came out, I thought it would make a great Slashdot submission, but they had it behind the pay/subscriber-only wall, so I didn't submit it.
Interesting that a few days later, they have made it readable by the masses (under the "Today's Free Features" section) and Carl from the WSJ then submitted to Slashdot. My guess is the URL may not work tomorrow, but this is smart marketing on the WSJ's part to give people a taste of their excellent.
Slashdot Mirror
Hats off to the dude who chipped in an extra $1,200 for the low UID ...
and hopefully he got a two-digit (rather than three digit) UID for his
extra $$$ ... ;-)
Google recently "Page Rank Slapped" a number of major sites ... maybe Comcast was one of 'em and this is how they have decided to respond ... ;-)
Research page at Blanchard Lab (part of the AE college of medicine) and the ACS paper about their research.
Can't say I understand this stuff, but for those who do, these probably should have been in the story snippet.
Since Usenet just publishes other people's stuff, don't they (at least somewhat) qualify for common carrier classification (similar to phone companies) in that the the content is someone else's?
Along these lines, what about Google/other search engines that show "copyrighted" content - either in the snippet or in their cache?
+0xFFFFFFFF Funny
GAWD ... an ad page for each hop - ridiculous!
Is it April 1st?
Perhaps even more important is that AIR applications are platform-agnostic. They operate almost exactly the same on both Windows and Mac platforms with only small differences, keyboard shortcuts being the most obvious. Adobe expects a Linux version of the AIR runtime to be completed in the coming months.
Phone companies and ISP's claim that since they are "Common Carriers" just carrying content from other people without any knowledge/filtering of the content, that they can't be sued if naughty/illegal stuff is carried on their wires. If Google has pro-active measures in place to filter submissions, then won't they lose that protection and can then be sued for anything that slips through?
Cray Supercomputer and others were doing all sorts of parallel processing back in the 70's and 80's. Per their history page , the Cray-1 came out in 1976 and various quotes from that page include "first multiprocessor supercomputer (1982) ...
multiple 333 MFLOPS processors (1988) ...
massively parallel processing (MPP) system (1993)"
What are Sony's lawyers going to patent next - using MPP (multiple parallel painters) to paint a house?
Then how about a Painter Appreciation Day?!? ;-)
You assume the submitter and/or editor actually reads the articles ... not only is this Slashdot, but they were probably too busy looking at Elvira's ... uhhhh ... Pumpkins.
Sounds like a lotta restrictions/lock-ins ... how hard are they after The Mighty Buck?
Ditto what parent said that Google doesn't (directly) profit from Google News. However, what happens is that the newspapers lose eyeballs ... which translates to $$$. Guess the Tribune guy didn't want to word it quite that way!
Here is the printable version ...
as noted at the bottom,
this this is an excerpt from an upcoming book The Pentagon: a History by Stephan Vogel. Newspapers tend to do these reprints over 3-day weekends since
not a lotta news happening -
here's something ... uhhhhh ... exciting happening today ... ;-)
But yea, the content providers who have to "operate by the rules" will be handicapped ... so perhaps I Too Welcome our new Video Site Overlords!
But sure looks to me like in the "medium" light pictures that the Rebel 400D had white-balance issues and provided a yellow cast over the shot. In fairness, s*it happens and it's an interesting side-by-side test.
In the low-light (with flash) examples, note how the shadows move quite a bit - they didn't make sure the camera was at the same spot each time - bummer. Put an external strobe on that 400D and you'll get a picture that rocks compared to the compact camera with the flash next to the lens. And obviously bigger sensors have much, much better low light/high ISO performance ... but there is something to be said for being able to carry a camera in your pocket.
A not-so-perfect picture is better than no picture at all!
Sure, I'm all for more fuel efficient cars and less fossil fuel burning, but there is a tradeoff.
This is what an existing service does (1-800-FREE-411) where after you give 'em all the information, you hear a short ad, and then are given the option of connection to that advertiser
P.S. Bummer Google didn't release this on April 1st ... ;-)
Ditto what parent and others have said. In fact, engine/thrust requirements are sized by the need to continue take-off with an engine failure after V1. So all else being equal, for a four-engine plane, there is 33% "extra" thrust ... whereas in a twin-engine plane, there is 100% "extra" power. So put the Popular Mechanics dude on a light twin, make sure the takeoff-thrust is NOT de-rated, and you'll really see a fast liftoff.
... which basically sizes how long the runway needs to be.
A more interesting parameter that relates to all of this is the balanced field length at max gross weight (which varies with temperature and altitude)
Appears it wouldn't have made too much of a difference here, but perhaps something useful to know.
... watching grass grow!
A few years ago, there was a recent big-deal about HillaryClinton.com - read more here.
.COM ... amd then retire 'em! ;-)
P.S. My guess is the respective party would pay a lot for Ugly Democrats and Ugly Republicans
US District Court Filing
Yet another nifty page-1 article by the WSJ. When this first came out, I thought it would make a great Slashdot submission, but they had it behind the pay/subscriber-only wall, so I didn't submit it.
Interesting that a few days later, they have made it readable by the masses (under the "Today's Free Features" section) and Carl from the WSJ then submitted to Slashdot. My guess is the URL may not work tomorrow, but this is smart marketing on the WSJ's part to give people a taste of their excellent.