You know that you can turn off the PS2 from the front by holding down the green LED button (until it turns red), right? That's what the symbol on the button means (it's in the manual, too). This puts it in a very low-power stand-by state.
The switch in the back is only for turning off the machine for an extended period, or before you unplug it.
Since we are talking about the US definition of terrorism, it might be better to use the official US definition of terrorism. From
http://www.cia.gov/terrorism/faqs.html :
How do you define terrorism?
The Intelligence Community is guided by the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):
--The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.
--The term "international terrorism" means terrorism involving the territory or the citizens of more than one country.
--The term "terrorist group" means any group that practices, or has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.
Thus, US forces in Iraq are not terrorists, since they are not a subnational group attacking noncombantants. At the same time, the Iraqi guerillas only become terrorists when they regularly attack noncombatants.
> When you are pursuing an ethnic state you have > to make some sacrifices. Germany made them, and > Israel makes them today.
Israel is not an ethnic state. It contains many ethnicities, including Africans and Arabs. In fact, it is worth pointing out that Israel is the only country in the region where Arabs can vote, and the only country in the region where Arab women have any significant rights.
> Except your doorknob doesn't manipulate data, thus, not a computer.
A doorknob manipulates data in the most general sense, because it has to transform a rotational measurement into a decision about unlatching the door.
My point was that when we talk about computers, we don't mean manipulating data in the most general sense. We mean "special" manipulations. The Turing Machine abstraction allows us to define exactly what a "special" manipulation is.
> V1 used fixed wings for lift, yet it was a jet-powered missile.
The V1 was more of an early cruise missile, which is a separate category that combines some characteristics of missiles and airplanes.
> But maybe the "jet" requirement wasn't so good. How about "pressurized cabin."
Again, you are picking things which are not part of the definition of an airplane to claim that the Wright Flyer is not an airplane. That would be like saying that the Z3 is not a computer because it doesn't have a mouse.
I am trying to show that the term "computer" is more specific than "calculator", at least in the context of computer science/engineering. Of course, I would agree that people might informally use the term computer under a much more general definition. But, we are being specific and technical here. This is Slashdot!
I recommend "The First Computers -- History and Architectures", ed. Raul Rojas and Ulf Hashagen. It covers most of the early American, British, German, and Japanese computers, in very technical detail. It also gets into why the stored-program concept is so important.
> A computer is anything that can recieve data, > manipulate data, and then output the result.
This definition is so broad that it is useless. A doorknob is a computer by that definition: It takes rotational input. Then a mechanism determines whether the rotation is a sufficient number of degrees. Finally, it outputs the result of the test using the latch, conditionally allowing you to open the door.
In fact, there is a specific technical definition of a computer. Not everything that can do computations is a computer. As other posters have said, you need a stored program and conditional branching. The output has to be redirectable as input. This makes it equivlent to a Turing Machine, which is the most abstract computer that can be imagined.
> Your definition is a bit like saying the Wright > flyer isn't an airplane because it didn't have > a jet engine.
That's not a good analogy. An airplane is defined as an aircraft that uses fixed wings (airfoils) for lift. As a counter-example, we can say that a jet-powered missile is not an airplane.
Consider this: A VCR contains a computer, but a VCR is not a computer.
In the DVD commentary for Futurama Season 1, David Cohen explains why he is David X. Cohen in the credits: Screen Actors Guild regulations specify that you cannot have duplicate names in the credits. There was already a David Cohen on the staff of Futurama when he joined, so he had to do something to make his name different.
That rant reminds me of how I used to get annoyed when people claimed we had enough nukes to blow up the world X amount of times.
In fact, we only had enough nukes to destroy all life X amount of times (if that). To me, destroying the planet means cracking it in half or something. I don't think we had enough nukes for that. Especially not if they were only detonated in a MAD scenario (surface and atmosphere only).
Of course, now I'm too busy worrying about terrorism to care about that stuff.
there are many in Egypt who would like nothing more than to have little to do with America and its allies
While there may be some in Egypt who don't want anything to do with the USA, their government sure likes us! The US gives Egypt around two billion dollars a year in economic and military aid.
We would be better off trying to perfect the first Transformer.
I don't see your point. Good Transformers almost never hurt anything (hell, some don't even carry weapons), and evil ones are too busy infighting to be useful during a war.
The 747-400F could be Airforce One (if it's not already), so it would be understandable if these lasers were mounted to it for tracking incoming sidewinders or surface to air missiles.
I don't think so. Firstly, the laser and its support equipment takes up a lot of room, and Air Force 1 needs all that space for accomodations, conference rooms, press support, etc. Secondly, it's mounted in the nose, and so only has a forward firing arc.
I'm sure Air Force 1 has plenty of ECM, flares, chaffe, etc. to defeat AAMs and SAMs. If you have ever seen it, it has lots of unusual blisters and antennae on it.
The term "spam" was already in use to describe lots of unexpected and unwanted output from computers before it started to refer specifically to mass junk email.
For example, in a college computer lab in 1993, I remember the attendent complaining about people sending postscript files to the shared line printer and having it "spam" paper.
Considering that the US has optical equipment in space that can read a license plate from orbit, it's not a far stretch to strap on a high powered laser and cut the car in half that the license plate is attached to...
Actually, I think it is a very far stretch! You can't "strap on high powered laser" onto a satellite. The ABL project is having a hard enough time fitting a laser in a 747, and that's for burning holes in thin-skinned missiles, not cutting cars in half. Think of the weight and power requirements...
Slashdot Mirror
In fact, there are currently attempts to sue the RIAA under the RICO act.
Search google: riaa "rico act".
Seriously, didn't Commodore Amigas work like that? The Amiga 500 cost $500-something, the Amiga 1000 cost $1000-something, etc?
You know that you can turn off the PS2 from the front by holding down the green LED button (until it turns red), right? That's what the symbol on the button means (it's in the manual, too). This puts it in a very low-power stand-by state.
The switch in the back is only for turning off the machine for an extended period, or before you unplug it.
I'm also curious what Sony will do about the names if they ever decide to revamp the PSX or PS2 a second time. PSOne-2 and PSTwo-2?
Super PStwo Turbo
One of the major arguments in favor of electronic voting is that it can allow many more disabled people to vote on their own.
> When you are pursuing an ethnic state you have
> to make some sacrifices. Germany made them, and
> Israel makes them today.
Israel is not an ethnic state. It contains many ethnicities, including Africans and Arabs. In fact, it is worth pointing out that Israel is the only country in the region where Arabs can vote, and the only country in the region where Arab women have any significant rights.
Oh crap, I fell for the troll.
Of course computers were called computers because they did the job of Computers (people)
...who were usually women (especially during wartime). I guess in that sense, women were the first computers!
> Except your doorknob doesn't manipulate data, thus, not a computer.
A doorknob manipulates data in the most general sense, because it has to transform a rotational measurement into a decision about unlatching the door.
My point was that when we talk about computers, we don't mean manipulating data in the most general sense. We mean "special" manipulations. The Turing Machine abstraction allows us to define exactly what a "special" manipulation is.
> V1 used fixed wings for lift, yet it was a jet-powered missile.
The V1 was more of an early cruise missile, which is a separate category that combines some characteristics of missiles and airplanes.
> But maybe the "jet" requirement wasn't so good. How about "pressurized cabin."
Again, you are picking things which are not part of the definition of an airplane to claim that the Wright Flyer is not an airplane. That would be like saying that the Z3 is not a computer because it doesn't have a mouse.
I am trying to show that the term "computer" is more specific than "calculator", at least in the context of computer science/engineering. Of course, I would agree that people might informally use the term computer under a much more general definition. But, we are being specific and technical here. This is Slashdot!
I recommend "The First Computers -- History and Architectures", ed. Raul Rojas and Ulf Hashagen. It covers most of the early American, British, German, and Japanese computers, in very technical detail. It also gets into why the stored-program concept is so important.
> A computer is anything that can recieve data,
> manipulate data, and then output the result.
This definition is so broad that it is useless. A doorknob is a computer by that definition: It takes rotational input. Then a mechanism determines whether the rotation is a sufficient number of degrees. Finally, it outputs the result of the test using the latch, conditionally allowing you to open the door.
In fact, there is a specific technical definition of a computer. Not everything that can do computations is a computer. As other posters have said, you need a stored program and conditional branching. The output has to be redirectable as input. This makes it equivlent to a Turing Machine, which is the most abstract computer that can be imagined.
> Your definition is a bit like saying the Wright
> flyer isn't an airplane because it didn't have
> a jet engine.
That's not a good analogy. An airplane is defined as an aircraft that uses fixed wings (airfoils) for lift. As a counter-example, we can say that a jet-powered missile is not an airplane.
Consider this: A VCR contains a computer, but a VCR is not a computer.
In the DVD commentary for Futurama Season 1, David Cohen explains why he is David X. Cohen in the credits: Screen Actors Guild regulations specify that you cannot have duplicate names in the credits. There was already a David Cohen on the staff of Futurama when he joined, so he had to do something to make his name different.
> executive producer David Cohen has a B.S. in computer science from U.C. Berkeley
In one of the DVD commentaries, he talks about an Apple ][ videogame he programmed in assembly.
That was actually really interesting! Thanks for the calculation.
That rant reminds me of how I used to get annoyed when people claimed we had enough nukes to blow up the world X amount of times.
In fact, we only had enough nukes to destroy all life X amount of times (if that). To me, destroying the planet means cracking it in half or something. I don't think we had enough nukes for that. Especially not if they were only detonated in a MAD scenario (surface and atmosphere only).
Of course, now I'm too busy worrying about terrorism to care about that stuff.
there are many in Egypt who would like nothing more than to have little to do with America and its allies
While there may be some in Egypt who don't want anything to do with the USA, their government sure likes us! The US gives Egypt around two billion dollars a year in economic and military aid.
Could you imagine the requirements to run a game on top of that?
The requirements should have clearly specified that the system case should have enough clear space for your Playstation 2 to sit on.
The text on the page was, needless to say, completely illegible.
Was it? Or maybe, the problem was that your faith was not strong enough...
We would be better off trying to perfect the first Transformer.
I don't see your point. Good Transformers almost never hurt anything (hell, some don't even carry weapons), and evil ones are too busy infighting to be useful during a war.
The target missiles will be rapidly ascending by rocket power, so any coating would get pretty scratched up, and may have ice accumulation.
The 747-400F could be Airforce One (if it's not already), so it would be understandable if these lasers were mounted to it for tracking incoming sidewinders or surface to air missiles.
I don't think so. Firstly, the laser and its support equipment takes up a lot of room, and Air Force 1 needs all that space for accomodations, conference rooms, press support, etc. Secondly, it's mounted in the nose, and so only has a forward firing arc.
I'm sure Air Force 1 has plenty of ECM, flares, chaffe, etc. to defeat AAMs and SAMs. If you have ever seen it, it has lots of unusual blisters and antennae on it.
Way to spoil the ending of "Passion" for me.
The term "spam" was already in use to describe lots of unexpected and unwanted output from computers before it started to refer specifically to mass junk email.
For example, in a college computer lab in 1993, I remember the attendent complaining about people sending postscript files to the shared line printer and having it "spam" paper.
This site has a summary of which states have laws requiring all parties to consent to recording of conversations:
http://www.rcfp.org/taping/
Considering that the US has optical equipment in space that can read a license plate from orbit, it's not a far stretch to strap on a high powered laser and cut the car in half that the license plate is attached to...
Actually, I think it is a very far stretch! You can't "strap on high powered laser" onto a satellite. The ABL project is having a hard enough time fitting a laser in a 747, and that's for burning holes in thin-skinned missiles, not cutting cars in half. Think of the weight and power requirements...