If all you want to do is stay up to date, drop hulu, drop cable, drop everything except an internet connection and get wikipedia.
You can read all the important details for whole seasons of shows in the time it would take you to watch up to the second commercial break of the real thing. Heck, you'll know more than most viewers, as you'll learn about the bits they missed from the fanatics who carefully record the plot of every inane show in intimate detail.
Don't bother with torrents. There's too much risk of exposure (you can't receive a packet without telling someone where to send it, so all enforcement needs to do is join the swarm and record every address they connect to...), and once you get the show, you'd have to actually watch it.
Er.. why? just because they're forming a Pac to try and get favorable legislation passed? You don't even know if their interest and yours differ or coincide. Hint: With netflix in its current state, your interests and theirs probably have quite a bit of overlap.
Should've done pretty much anything but "Tall enough that superlative height was clearly a goal, but short enough of Burj Khalifa's height that people will draw the obvious conclusion."
If you apply for a patent for something that already has a "secret" patent pending, your patent should not be simply rejected, either they both ought to be (as the solution must be at least somewhat obvious as multiple people came to it), or you should get a stub patent that protects you from having to license the "original" patent that you never had the opportunity to see.
Neither of these things will probably happen, though....
Reporters are professional trained in how to write. Surely they should learn the use of this logical fallacy?!
"Begging the question" is the name of a logical fallacy, not the logical fallacy itself. The proper use of it depends on your purpose. If you want to be rigorously logical and make rational arguments, the proper use is not to use it. If, on the other hand, you want to trip up your adversary so that you "win" for reasons other than the actual merit of your arguments, the proper use is more complicated.
Finally, as a sibling poster has responded already, the phrase, "Begs the question," is commonly used as a synonym for "raises the question," a meaning which is well supported by the grammar and definitions of the words in question, despite the existence of a similar phrase which has a specific meaning to niche circles.
And if it's a "failed experiment" why the requirement to dismantle? If all it is is a curious looking ship, who cares what happens to it after it leaves the Navy's hands?
This sounds more like something you'd do with a successful prototype that nevertheless was not militarily useful due to factors relating to the fact that it is a prototype and not a full blown warship....
Unless crippling bureaucracy prevents taking the sensible option, of course....
This was certainly true in the 1920s, when the "standards" were set, as film was not inexpensive and more fps meant more feet of film, and also likely put a strain on the light sources available at the time, which must necessarily have been made brighter to accommodate shorter exposures, but surely technology has advanced a little bit since then...
I've always wondered about this phrase... Sure, you put 'em on one leg at a time if you don't have anything to sit on, or don't feel like sitting, but most of the time I change in my bedroom, which has ready availability of.. a bed.. for sitting. In that case, It's not really much difference in effort to pull 'em on a leg at a time, or all at once.
Anyway, I'd say that, based on experience of one person - me, most people put their pants on one leg at a time, about 60% of the time.
Also, I can't be alone in that every time someone uses that phrase here, I cannot avoid thinking of two or three pantsing/de-pantsing device designs of varying practicality and requirements (are the pants allowed to touch the floor? Can they be folded or bent?)
The ratings agencies weren't gullible. They were in on it too. They were paid for their ratings by the people asking for the ratings. If they'd done their jobs and rated them poor, those buying the ratings would go elsewhere for them.
Close. They would still buy them, but they would pay less for them. You can still make a profit buying debt with a 90% chance of default if you get it at a >90% discount.
Exposure time is always related to frame rate even in digital. You can't exactly have an exposure time of 1/20th of a second if your frames are going by at 1/48th of a second. The slowest possible exposure for 48fps is 1/48th of a second. Period.
With film, this is impossible. WIth digital, it is not only possible, I'd be willing to bet there are already cameras that are capable of it. The trick is to only use part of the sensor at a time. You lose some spacial resolution since you're using say.. 1/4 the pixels at a time, but if you stagger the start and stop times, you can achieve exactly that effect.
The reason I'm confident that there are likely already cameras that are capable of it is that this is basically the same trick that is used to get extra high-speed shots, and there is free firmware out there that will let you do it with a canon consumer camera - http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK
Gamers turn off motion blur because it is implemented by rendering the scene at an even higher rate and averaging the samples together. If you're going to render the whole scene anyway, why not just paint it to the screen and get the higher fps instead.
They're not choosing between motion blur at 60fps and no motion blur at 60fps. They're choosing between motion blur at 35 fps and no motion blur at 120 fps...
People are entirely different creatures than governments.
A person has limited lifespan, and an even smaller span of productivity in the middle, yet a person requires resources to live during the periods where that person cannot produce them. Clearly the answer is for a person to live on the efforts of others in the beginning - debt, then produce in excess of his needs in the middle - credit, then live off the efforts of others at then end, and that's not even including stretches of unemployment in the middle.
A person can only hold so many jobs, and in bad times can lose all of them. The income variability is very high for a person, so it makes sense to bridge the gaps with savings or debt, and a person has capital needs as well as ongoing maintenance needs - a person needs shelter. Currently, debt offers a way to turn an impossible capital expenditure into a long-term recurring payment within the immediate means of a person throughout their career.
A nation, on the other hand, just doesn't have the same income variation. In a depression, many become unemployed, but still most remain employed - going from 4% unemployment to 8% doubles the unemployment, but the total employment will have only dropped by 4.2% Although debt can be used to smooth out the income variation, there isn't that much that needs to be smoothed. Total deficit spending should not exceed the variance in employment if smoothing is the goal, and further, a government must not also run a deficit during the good times for this model to work.
But just as a government's income is by its nature spread out, so too are its expenses. A bridge might take years to build, depending on the span. Although the funds must be committed at the start of construction, there is no reason why they cannot be paid out as the work is completed, matching the continuous stream of income. Debt is not needed to spread out the expense, just pay along as you go along.
You might argue that a bridge benefits society for 50 years, but only takes 5 to build, so shouldn't we use debt to spread out the cost of the bridge's construction over its useful lifespan? This kind of thing makes sense for a business or a person, as it frees up capital and income for other purposes, but makes little sense when you apply it to the scale of a government. The government is already operating at levels that are within the same order of magnitude as the whole economic output.
It doesn't matter how much you borrow, it is only possible to build so many bridges in any given five year span, and every bridge you build occupies the resources of the economy that it requires for the duration of its construction. You might as well be honest about tax the rest of the economy by the proportion actually directed by the government. If government spends 20% of the economic output of the economy, that value is extracted from those that produce it somehow, and it is extracted as it is used. Either directly through taxes, or indirectly through inflation.
The 2 largest expenses for many areas is police and fire. Without those two services your ability to own property is dubious anyway (any person or group stronger than you would take it or destroy it).
where m is the length of your old password, s_m is the size you thought the character space was and s_n is the size the character space really is. Use conservative values for s_n if you're not certain about other characters.
Depending on the length of your original password, you'll probably be surprised that you only need to add a couple characters to beat the original password's security, and the new password may well be easier to remember.
Although the website to my bank is now more secure (it actually allows me to use password, rather than just using the old 4-digit PIN), the account still has a routing+account number that requires no cryptographic token (or even a one-time-use-with-a-limit number) to allow anyone full access to do anything with the account..
Also, it prints this routing number on the paper, "personal checks" that it issues to every checking customer.
I would love to have a bank that uses two factor authentication. As far as I can tell, the above situation is true for all banks in the US.
I thought they were profiling the addons now, or something, for the check instead of version numbers, so your add-on only gets disabled if the release changes something that your add-on actually uses.
Slashdot Mirror
If all you want to do is stay up to date, drop hulu, drop cable, drop everything except an internet connection and get wikipedia.
You can read all the important details for whole seasons of shows in the time it would take you to watch up to the second commercial break of the real thing. Heck, you'll know more than most viewers, as you'll learn about the bits they missed from the fanatics who carefully record the plot of every inane show in intimate detail.
Don't bother with torrents. There's too much risk of exposure (you can't receive a packet without telling someone where to send it, so all enforcement needs to do is join the swarm and record every address they connect to...), and once you get the show, you'd have to actually watch it.
I think maybe they did. You might be able to resist the crappy TV offerings, but your friends will happily pay twice for the privilege...
Er.. why? just because they're forming a Pac to try and get favorable legislation passed? You don't even know if their interest and yours differ or coincide. Hint: With netflix in its current state, your interests and theirs probably have quite a bit of overlap.
What's equally amazing to me is that a functional mast (antenna.. dirigible?) doesn't count, non-functional spire does....
Should've done pretty much anything but "Tall enough that superlative height was clearly a goal, but short enough of Burj Khalifa's height that people will draw the obvious conclusion."
If you apply for a patent for something that already has a "secret" patent pending, your patent should not be simply rejected, either they both ought to be (as the solution must be at least somewhat obvious as multiple people came to it), or you should get a stub patent that protects you from having to license the "original" patent that you never had the opportunity to see.
Neither of these things will probably happen, though....
Two pilots. The other pilot apparently did not contradict the first one, a sustained mistake which was also fatal.
Reporters are professional trained in how to write. Surely they should learn the use of this logical fallacy?!
"Begging the question" is the name of a logical fallacy, not the logical fallacy itself. The proper use of it depends on your purpose. If you want to be rigorously logical and make rational arguments, the proper use is not to use it. If, on the other hand, you want to trip up your adversary so that you "win" for reasons other than the actual merit of your arguments, the proper use is more complicated.
Finally, as a sibling poster has responded already, the phrase, "Begs the question," is commonly used as a synonym for "raises the question," a meaning which is well supported by the grammar and definitions of the words in question, despite the existence of a similar phrase which has a specific meaning to niche circles.
f'ing autocorrect. Used to be it just gave you red lines when you screwed up.
"...models have been in production..."
I must have left out the space the first time. Arggh!
Because it takes decade to bring a new airframe to fruition, and many airbus models have been introduction for a couple decades by now -
It was designed in the 80s by engineers who watched a lot of contemporary science fiction, 90% of which was bad, by sturgeon's law.
And if it's a "failed experiment" why the requirement to dismantle? If all it is is a curious looking ship, who cares what happens to it after it leaves the Navy's hands?
This sounds more like something you'd do with a successful prototype that nevertheless was not militarily useful due to factors relating to the fact that it is a prototype and not a full blown warship....
Unless crippling bureaucracy prevents taking the sensible option, of course....
This was certainly true in the 1920s, when the "standards" were set, as film was not inexpensive and more fps meant more feet of film, and also likely put a strain on the light sources available at the time, which must necessarily have been made brighter to accommodate shorter exposures, but surely technology has advanced a little bit since then...
...but they put their pants on one leg a time.
I've always wondered about this phrase... Sure, you put 'em on one leg at a time if you don't have anything to sit on, or don't feel like sitting, but most of the time I change in my bedroom, which has ready availability of.. a bed.. for sitting. In that case, It's not really much difference in effort to pull 'em on a leg at a time, or all at once.
Anyway, I'd say that, based on experience of one person - me, most people put their pants on one leg at a time, about 60% of the time.
Also, I can't be alone in that every time someone uses that phrase here, I cannot avoid thinking of two or three pantsing/de-pantsing device designs of varying practicality and requirements (are the pants allowed to touch the floor? Can they be folded or bent?)
And when they did hold gold, gold wasn't actually useful for much of anything except looking pretty. So it's always been nothing.
The ratings agencies weren't gullible. They were in on it too. They were paid for their ratings by the people asking for the ratings. If they'd done their jobs and rated them poor, those buying the ratings would go elsewhere for them.
Close. They would still buy them, but they would pay less for them. You can still make a profit buying debt with a 90% chance of default if you get it at a >90% discount.
Exposure time is always related to frame rate even in digital. You can't exactly have an exposure time of 1/20th of a second if your frames are going by at 1/48th of a second. The slowest possible exposure for 48fps is 1/48th of a second. Period.
With film, this is impossible. WIth digital, it is not only possible, I'd be willing to bet there are already cameras that are capable of it. The trick is to only use part of the sensor at a time. You lose some spacial resolution since you're using say.. 1/4 the pixels at a time, but if you stagger the start and stop times, you can achieve exactly that effect.
The reason I'm confident that there are likely already cameras that are capable of it is that this is basically the same trick that is used to get extra high-speed shots, and there is free firmware out there that will let you do it with a canon consumer camera - http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK
Gamers turn off motion blur because it is implemented by rendering the scene at an even higher rate and averaging the samples together. If you're going to render the whole scene anyway, why not just paint it to the screen and get the higher fps instead.
They're not choosing between motion blur at 60fps and no motion blur at 60fps. They're choosing between motion blur at 35 fps and no motion blur at 120 fps...
People are entirely different creatures than governments.
A person has limited lifespan, and an even smaller span of productivity in the middle, yet a person requires resources to live during the periods where that person cannot produce them. Clearly the answer is for a person to live on the efforts of others in the beginning - debt, then produce in excess of his needs in the middle - credit, then live off the efforts of others at then end, and that's not even including stretches of unemployment in the middle.
A person can only hold so many jobs, and in bad times can lose all of them. The income variability is very high for a person, so it makes sense to bridge the gaps with savings or debt, and a person has capital needs as well as ongoing maintenance needs - a person needs shelter. Currently, debt offers a way to turn an impossible capital expenditure into a long-term recurring payment within the immediate means of a person throughout their career.
A nation, on the other hand, just doesn't have the same income variation. In a depression, many become unemployed, but still most remain employed - going from 4% unemployment to 8% doubles the unemployment, but the total employment will have only dropped by 4.2% Although debt can be used to smooth out the income variation, there isn't that much that needs to be smoothed. Total deficit spending should not exceed the variance in employment if smoothing is the goal, and further, a government must not also run a deficit during the good times for this model to work.
But just as a government's income is by its nature spread out, so too are its expenses. A bridge might take years to build, depending on the span. Although the funds must be committed at the start of construction, there is no reason why they cannot be paid out as the work is completed, matching the continuous stream of income. Debt is not needed to spread out the expense, just pay along as you go along.
You might argue that a bridge benefits society for 50 years, but only takes 5 to build, so shouldn't we use debt to spread out the cost of the bridge's construction over its useful lifespan? This kind of thing makes sense for a business or a person, as it frees up capital and income for other purposes, but makes little sense when you apply it to the scale of a government. The government is already operating at levels that are within the same order of magnitude as the whole economic output.
It doesn't matter how much you borrow, it is only possible to build so many bridges in any given five year span, and every bridge you build occupies the resources of the economy that it requires for the duration of its construction. You might as well be honest about tax the rest of the economy by the proportion actually directed by the government. If government spends 20% of the economic output of the economy, that value is extracted from those that produce it somehow, and it is extracted as it is used. Either directly through taxes, or indirectly through inflation.
The 2 largest expenses for many areas is police and fire. Without those two services your ability to own property is dubious anyway (any person or group stronger than you would take it or destroy it).
Only areas that don't have schools...
Eh.. just make your password longer.
Use this formula:
n=m*ln(s_m)/ln(s_n)
where m is the length of your old password, s_m is the size you thought the character space was and s_n is the size the character space really is. Use conservative values for s_n if you're not certain about other characters.
Depending on the length of your original password, you'll probably be surprised that you only need to add a couple characters to beat the original password's security, and the new password may well be easier to remember.
"TWO" factor?
Although the website to my bank is now more secure (it actually allows me to use password, rather than just using the old 4-digit PIN), the account still has a routing+account number that requires no cryptographic token (or even a one-time-use-with-a-limit number) to allow anyone full access to do anything with the account..
Also, it prints this routing number on the paper, "personal checks" that it issues to every checking customer.
I would love to have a bank that uses two factor authentication. As far as I can tell, the above situation is true for all banks in the US.
Why? Math is neither science, nor a useful art? It doesn't need to be promoted?
TvTropes.org
I thought they were profiling the addons now, or something, for the check instead of version numbers, so your add-on only gets disabled if the release changes something that your add-on actually uses.
If they did that, they'd be working on Mirasol...