Intel has made ARM processors in the past (xScale [wikipedia.org]), and, apparently, still retains an ARM license.
They were crap though. I have an XScale-based PDA lying around somewhere. They were truly the Netbursts of the ARM world: high clock speed and power consumption but low performance.
As another comment linked to an article: Vat by EU law is 20% for ebooks.
This is wrong. EU requires that VAT for ebooks is the same as the standard VAT, whatever that is in the particular country where the book is "published".
In 2015 the rules will change, and it will be the country of the buyer which determines VAT (as it is for everything else), and then it will all be academic.
Considering that they were attacking civilians (although I'm sure you have a justification since there were factories in those cities, which somehow makes everyone and their mother a combatant) , it kind of was. When you consider further that it looks like the main reason the US did it was to essentially call "first dibs" on Japan and stop the Soviets from invading, it doesn't look much better.
I do not have a justification for the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Calling them the acts of madmen is just wrong. You can call them evil if you prefer, but you cannot call them irrational, and certainly not mad. They were not even all that heinous by WW2 standards, compare with e.g. Dresden or Tokyo.
Both of them. Clearly each side believed that the other would be willing to murder their entire citizenry. If both sides truly believe that the other will never use their nuclear weapons unless attacked with nuclear weapons first, you can't have a tense standoff.
You are still suffering from the mistaken belief that all nuclear wars end with everyone dead. We have had one so far, it killed somewhere in the region of 200,000 people.
No, I am wrong. CSMA/CA will try to avoid interference.
I am still not sure that it's all that much of an advantage. You could end up waiting for a long time for a channel to be clear while the noise floor from the other access points/clients might be low enough that you could just transmit straight on top of their transmissions and still get through. When the inevitable collisions happen, they will be worse than if they were on adjacent channels.
However, CSMA/CA should work even when not using the same channel. Therefore it still ought to be an advantage to avoid picking the exact same channel as the access point you are having trouble with. When that access point is transmitting loudly enough to cause problems despite the channel difference, CSMA should kick in, but some of the time you get away with transmitting simultaneously.
RTS/CTS depends on nodes being synchronized, AFAIK. That is somewhat optimistic when we are talking about interference with an access point belonging to a random neighbour.
Using the same channel does not increase signal interference. Signal interference comes from APs using neighboring channels in close proximity.
Err, that makes zero sense. Wifi access points do not coordinate their transmissions or do any sort of code division multiplexing or anything else that might help with interference. Two transmitters on the same channel will absolutely interfere, worse than if they were on neighbouring channels. If you are lucky, they will interfere enough that the other access point decides to switch channel.
If you have a lot of wireless devices and access points running at the same time, do 1 4 7 11 (or 1 5 9 13 if in Europe or Japan). Yes, you will get a little interference, but it should not be too bad. The extra channel makes placing access points a lot easier and means you can pack them more densely, making up for the interference. The 1 5 9 13 arrangement in particular can work really well.
But of course it is better to just move as much traffic as possible to 5GHz.
If he switches to a router with 802.11n from one which doesn't, he is likely to get better reception. Even for non-n devices, if the new router is made by someone halfway competent.
Does the law allow them to correlate a set of GPS points including the apartment block and other frequently visited locations (job, maybe?) to determine which one is the right one?
Certainly. Resources are an issue.
Does it permit the police to wait outside and watch the front door until the GPS says it's moving, and note who was walking out the door at that time?
I don't believe you can find land, kill the people there, demolish it, ship in new people, distract them with tvs and phones and 'suburban life', put up a wall of propaganda, and thrive without having a definite plan in mind; a similar plan that has happened all over the world and *is* happening today.
Assuming you are talking about Israel, you are talking as if Israel is a special case, different from everywhere else. The thing that is unusual about Israel is just the timing, the colonization was otherwise pretty much done, and de-colonization started soon after. It isn't like Israel is the only place in the world which was colonized or instituted some kind of racial segregation.
Was South Africa a part of that plan too, then? Hasn't it failed a bit, if so?
I don't know, is there anything better in the works? I doubt that Galileo or Glonass will provide sufficient indoor accuracy; anything indoor would pretty much have to involve ground-based antenna. It is probably technically possible to add a location signal to LTE; although not always necessary, most LTE sites have access to nanosecond-accurate timing.
Thinking that you can go ahead with a nuclear war and win it is genocidal thinking. It's beyond psychotic.
The US went ahead with nuclear war and won it, against Japan. That was not beyond psychotic. You just need to attack someone with sufficiently few weapons, preferably zero, or be very sure that you can stop any counterattack.
Which side is it you're saying was reasonably believable as crazy during the Cold War?
It is completely ineffective in Europe. Those anti-theft applications sometimes work though, taking pics of the criminals. Most of the time the police cannot help though, because the law in Denmark at least does not allow the police to search an entire apartment block. GPS is not accurate enough to show which apartment the phone is in.
So, in effect, the entire fucking region is rogue.
That is one of the large problems, yes. The same thing happened in Africa, national borders drawn with no regard to what the people living there believed.
In Europe it has taken centuries to get a reasonable agreement between actual borders and people's beliefs about where they should be. There are still quite a few latent conflicts. It will likely take centuries for the Middle East and Africa to get things sorted out after the mess the last couple of centuries made of nations there.
israel threatens iran. yeah, that's a pretty level-headed assessment of the world situation.
Think about it for a while. You will find that the likelihood of an Israeli strike on Iran is actually quite high. It has several times been talked about as a near-certainty in fact, but so far it has not happened.
On the other hand, Iran can dream of attacking Israel all it wants, but it will never work. Just look at the geography. Yes, they could in theory lob a missile or two at Israel, but the likelihood is that the missile defence systems will knock them down (unless the Israeli forget to do their firmware updates again). Should the attack succeed, the response from both Israel and the US would be overwhelming.
You can't have a tense standoff with nuclear weapons unless at least one party believes another party will use them. So, to have tense standoff, at least one side has to be crazy or reasonably believable as crazy.
You are being a bit harsh on the US and the USSR now, aren't you?
To have a tense standoff, you just need to believe that either a) you can win a nuclear war by surprise attack or b) the opponent believes he can win a nuclear war by surprise attack. That can be entirely rational. The number of weapons available to the US and the USSR at the end of the Cold War made both a) and b) quite far fetched, but earlier it was much more realistic.
Iran cannot possibly believe a), and it is unlikely that they will believe b) either. Israel cannot possibly believe b), but could theoretically go for a). However, doing a nuclear first strike while already in the middle of conventional war is most likely politically unpalatable for Israel. During the Cold War, the US and the USSR did not have to worry much about what anyone else thought about Global Thermonuclear Warfare.
Yes we can all laugh, and that particular journal is obviously mostly about making money from authors.
However, the paper did not actually get published. The required revisions amount to a fairly complete rewrite. I.e. the reviewer actually notices that the paper does not prove what it says it proves, and asks for that to be fixed. Obviously any respectable journal would reject rather than ask for a revision when such basic things are wrong.
Basically the journal lied to the author: the paper did not get accepted at all, they just wanted $500.
domains found in URL's in spam emails are blacklisted too, in separate blacklists. Those blacklists are extremely effective in my experience, and have very few false positives.
Simply having your domain name appear in the text of an email which has been flagged as spam is not going to add your domain to a blocklist.
This is wrong. Some of the best (least bad, if you prefer) blocklists are exactly that: lists of domains which have appeared in spam emails for victims to click on.
You may recall, well, maybe not, that Saddam did not fully cooperate? His government was caught lying time after time.
No, I do not recall that. What I recall is that they tried for a while to keep an ambiguity going, so the US would not realize just how vulnerable they were. I recall that they started cooperating and providing lots and lots of evidence, and that they were unable to prove the destruction of all chemical weapons. Not all that surprising, the government was evil but incompetent.
On the other hand, I clearly recall George Bush and Tony Blair and Anders Fogh Rasmussen lying.
It is beside the point anyway. If Iran started cooperating now, you would say the exact same thing.
I take it you disagree with judicial punishment of those found guilty in a court of law of crimes against humanity, like using chemical weapons to kill tens of thousands of civilians?
No. I disagree with that particular kangaroo court. But that is not the point. It is also not the point that at the time, he was fighting a proxy war for the Western world, and that the West did not condemn him.
The point is that if you cooperate with the US, you can expect to hang. Any dictator will have done something worth hanging him for.
Slashdot Mirror
If you are concerned about power consumption, find 100W lightbulb in your house. Replace with CFL. You will have greater energy saving.
Surely you already did that 3 years ago, so now you're preparing for the switch to LED?
For the purposes of this discussion, evil is a form of functional insanity.
Right, THAT is where the real disagreement lies. You do not believe that evil can be rational and sane, and I believe it can be.
Intel has made ARM processors in the past (xScale [wikipedia.org]), and, apparently, still retains an ARM license.
They were crap though. I have an XScale-based PDA lying around somewhere. They were truly the Netbursts of the ARM world: high clock speed and power consumption but low performance.
As another comment linked to an article: Vat by EU law is 20% for ebooks.
This is wrong. EU requires that VAT for ebooks is the same as the standard VAT, whatever that is in the particular country where the book is "published".
In 2015 the rules will change, and it will be the country of the buyer which determines VAT (as it is for everything else), and then it will all be academic.
Considering that they were attacking civilians (although I'm sure you have a justification since there were factories in those cities, which somehow makes everyone and their mother a combatant) , it kind of was. When you consider further that it looks like the main reason the US did it was to essentially call "first dibs" on Japan and stop the Soviets from invading, it doesn't look much better.
I do not have a justification for the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Calling them the acts of madmen is just wrong. You can call them evil if you prefer, but you cannot call them irrational, and certainly not mad. They were not even all that heinous by WW2 standards, compare with e.g. Dresden or Tokyo.
Both of them. Clearly each side believed that the other would be willing to murder their entire citizenry. If both sides truly believe that the other will never use their nuclear weapons unless attacked with nuclear weapons first, you can't have a tense standoff.
You are still suffering from the mistaken belief that all nuclear wars end with everyone dead. We have had one so far, it killed somewhere in the region of 200,000 people.
No, I am wrong. CSMA/CA will try to avoid interference.
I am still not sure that it's all that much of an advantage. You could end up waiting for a long time for a channel to be clear while the noise floor from the other access points/clients might be low enough that you could just transmit straight on top of their transmissions and still get through. When the inevitable collisions happen, they will be worse than if they were on adjacent channels.
However, CSMA/CA should work even when not using the same channel. Therefore it still ought to be an advantage to avoid picking the exact same channel as the access point you are having trouble with. When that access point is transmitting loudly enough to cause problems despite the channel difference, CSMA should kick in, but some of the time you get away with transmitting simultaneously.
RTS/CTS depends on nodes being synchronized, AFAIK. That is somewhat optimistic when we are talking about interference with an access point belonging to a random neighbour.
Using the same channel does not increase signal interference. Signal interference comes from APs using neighboring channels in close proximity.
Err, that makes zero sense. Wifi access points do not coordinate their transmissions or do any sort of code division multiplexing or anything else that might help with interference. Two transmitters on the same channel will absolutely interfere, worse than if they were on neighbouring channels. If you are lucky, they will interfere enough that the other access point decides to switch channel.
If you have a lot of wireless devices and access points running at the same time, do 1 4 7 11 (or 1 5 9 13 if in Europe or Japan). Yes, you will get a little interference, but it should not be too bad. The extra channel makes placing access points a lot easier and means you can pack them more densely, making up for the interference. The 1 5 9 13 arrangement in particular can work really well.
But of course it is better to just move as much traffic as possible to 5GHz.
If he switches to a router with 802.11n from one which doesn't, he is likely to get better reception. Even for non-n devices, if the new router is made by someone halfway competent.
Does the law allow them to correlate a set of GPS points including the apartment block and other frequently visited locations (job, maybe?) to determine which one is the right one?
Certainly. Resources are an issue.
Does it permit the police to wait outside and watch the front door until the GPS says it's moving, and note who was walking out the door at that time?
Absolutely. Won't ever happen in practice.
I don't believe you can find land, kill the people there, demolish it, ship in new people, distract them with tvs and phones and 'suburban life', put up a wall of propaganda, and thrive without having a definite plan in mind; a similar plan that has happened all over the world and *is* happening today.
Assuming you are talking about Israel, you are talking as if Israel is a special case, different from everywhere else. The thing that is unusual about Israel is just the timing, the colonization was otherwise pretty much done, and de-colonization started soon after. It isn't like Israel is the only place in the world which was colonized or instituted some kind of racial segregation.
Was South Africa a part of that plan too, then? Hasn't it failed a bit, if so?
I don't know, is there anything better in the works? I doubt that Galileo or Glonass will provide sufficient indoor accuracy; anything indoor would pretty much have to involve ground-based antenna. It is probably technically possible to add a location signal to LTE; although not always necessary, most LTE sites have access to nanosecond-accurate timing.
Thinking that you can go ahead with a nuclear war and win it is genocidal thinking. It's beyond psychotic.
The US went ahead with nuclear war and won it, against Japan. That was not beyond psychotic. You just need to attack someone with sufficiently few weapons, preferably zero, or be very sure that you can stop any counterattack.
Which side is it you're saying was reasonably believable as crazy during the Cold War?
It is completely ineffective in Europe. Those anti-theft applications sometimes work though, taking pics of the criminals. Most of the time the police cannot help though, because the law in Denmark at least does not allow the police to search an entire apartment block. GPS is not accurate enough to show which apartment the phone is in.
So, in effect, the entire fucking region is rogue.
That is one of the large problems, yes. The same thing happened in Africa, national borders drawn with no regard to what the people living there believed.
In Europe it has taken centuries to get a reasonable agreement between actual borders and people's beliefs about where they should be. There are still quite a few latent conflicts. It will likely take centuries for the Middle East and Africa to get things sorted out after the mess the last couple of centuries made of nations there.
When it comes to setting bombs off killing civilians, Israel is doing rather better than Iran.
If we did regime change at every country which thumbed its nose at the UN, US governments would change monthly.
israel threatens iran. yeah, that's a pretty level-headed assessment of the world situation.
Think about it for a while. You will find that the likelihood of an Israeli strike on Iran is actually quite high. It has several times been talked about as a near-certainty in fact, but so far it has not happened.
On the other hand, Iran can dream of attacking Israel all it wants, but it will never work. Just look at the geography. Yes, they could in theory lob a missile or two at Israel, but the likelihood is that the missile defence systems will knock them down (unless the Israeli forget to do their firmware updates again). Should the attack succeed, the response from both Israel and the US would be overwhelming.
You can't have a tense standoff with nuclear weapons unless at least one party believes another party will use them. So, to have tense standoff, at least one side has to be crazy or reasonably believable as crazy.
You are being a bit harsh on the US and the USSR now, aren't you?
To have a tense standoff, you just need to believe that either a) you can win a nuclear war by surprise attack or b) the opponent believes he can win a nuclear war by surprise attack. That can be entirely rational. The number of weapons available to the US and the USSR at the end of the Cold War made both a) and b) quite far fetched, but earlier it was much more realistic.
Iran cannot possibly believe a), and it is unlikely that they will believe b) either. Israel cannot possibly believe b), but could theoretically go for a). However, doing a nuclear first strike while already in the middle of conventional war is most likely politically unpalatable for Israel. During the Cold War, the US and the USSR did not have to worry much about what anyone else thought about Global Thermonuclear Warfare.
Yes we can all laugh, and that particular journal is obviously mostly about making money from authors.
However, the paper did not actually get published. The required revisions amount to a fairly complete rewrite. I.e. the reviewer actually notices that the paper does not prove what it says it proves, and asks for that to be fixed. Obviously any respectable journal would reject rather than ask for a revision when such basic things are wrong.
Basically the journal lied to the author: the paper did not get accepted at all, they just wanted $500.
domains found in URL's in spam emails are blacklisted too, in separate blacklists. Those blacklists are extremely effective in my experience, and have very few false positives.
Simply having your domain name appear in the text of an email which has been flagged as spam is not going to add your domain to a blocklist.
This is wrong. Some of the best (least bad, if you prefer) blocklists are exactly that: lists of domains which have appeared in spam emails for victims to click on.
I am absolutely not a fan of Iran. They are just way down on the priority list.
And threatening Saudi Arabia and Bahrain?! Is that supposed to be a negative? That is what we should be doing!
You may recall, well, maybe not, that Saddam did not fully cooperate? His government was caught lying time after time.
No, I do not recall that. What I recall is that they tried for a while to keep an ambiguity going, so the US would not realize just how vulnerable they were. I recall that they started cooperating and providing lots and lots of evidence, and that they were unable to prove the destruction of all chemical weapons. Not all that surprising, the government was evil but incompetent.
On the other hand, I clearly recall George Bush and Tony Blair and Anders Fogh Rasmussen lying.
It is beside the point anyway. If Iran started cooperating now, you would say the exact same thing.
I take it you disagree with judicial punishment of those found guilty in a court of law of crimes against humanity, like using chemical weapons to kill tens of thousands of civilians?
No. I disagree with that particular kangaroo court. But that is not the point. It is also not the point that at the time, he was fighting a proxy war for the Western world, and that the West did not condemn him.
The point is that if you cooperate with the US, you can expect to hang. Any dictator will have done something worth hanging him for.