Most US Geological Survey 7.5 minute quads are available for download in PDF from: US Topo
With the size the OP mentions, it should show fairly well; these are 10 foot/3 meter contours and a 1200 foot "crater" should be about 0.6"/1.5 cm. Not all states are covered, yet, but there are other free USGS sources to download these.
The problem is that if these extras are so cheap that Intel figures they can afford to put them in every CPU even if only a few people buy them, then there's clearly a large disparity between the cost to produce the feature and the current market price for it.
Not necessarily. You're absolutely correct if you're talking only of the incremental production costs between the two feature sets. But, those aren't the only costs involved; Intel has to recover the R&D costs of the additional features.
Once you take these into account, you can make an argument that this is actually a good deal. This model can decrease Intel's production costs since there's only one type of chip to make. It can also decrease the cost for the limited version since they don't have to recover the R&D costs of the extra features. It probably also increases the cost per unit for the extra features because only the subset of customers that want/need those features are paying the R&D costs.
An alternative model would be to fold the R&D costs into the price of each CPU and only sell the non-limited version, raising the base cost.
The point stands. After Google invested the time, effort, and money to develop their search algorithms, they should have some protect against others using the same techniques, not necessarily having access to Google's copyrighted code. That's where patents come in.
Are some/many software patents silly or frivolous? Sure. But, the same applies to traditional patents as well. In both cases, I think the threshold for patentability is set too low. I mean, should sticking a goose-neck lamp on then end of a flashlight really be patentable?
As for the IP terms: "trademark" protects the company's brand(s) "copyright" protects creative works (text, photos, source code, etc.) "patent" protects how things work
I don't think it'd take much compression. That's a bit over 30 bytes per record. Strip out the common prefix to the urls and I think you'll find the average is something like 15-20 bytes per, leaving plenty of room for other data.
Shouldn't Magnuson-Moss apply here? Probably a gray area, but it seems to me the intent, at least, of the act would require Apple to show that the unlocking or jail-breaking actually caused the broken screen? They'd be perfectly correct to deny warranty coverage if the iPhone was jailbroken and the software was no longer working, but for a defect in the hardware itself?
Yep. Is there a bigger star out there? Almost certainly. Is there a bigger star out there where we have to ability to observe it? This is where it gets difficult.
They still have it. It's a $150 custom order option on the 15" MacBook Pro and a $50 option on the 17". It's not available on the 13" MacBook Pro or MacBook.
Is this really changing the sentence or is it a new civil commitment hearing after punishment is up? It makes a difference. You know, the type of hearing that takes place to involuntarily commit a mentally ill person for being a danger to others?
AFAIK, neither party to this case made it about such hearings and procedures per se, but rather whether it's proper for the Federal government to do so.
Regarding the other case, I have to side with the SCOTUS minority. If you want to keep child molesters locked away for ever, then pass laws that require longer sentences, rather than sentencing them to ten years then holding them forever.
Which is not what the dissent said. This case was not about whether a state, say Texas, could do this. It's well-established they can; it's called civil commitment. This case was about whether the Federal government can do it.
Essentially, the topics examined were:
is it a "necessary and proper" use of power under Article I Section 8?
a part of proper management of the Federal prisons?
an infringement of the States' police powers deriving from the 10th Amendment?
Neither side argued this on 5th Amendment Due Process grounds.
they do however kill sheep, the noise keeps them awake until they die. the sound may or may not have an effect on fish and dolphins, we don't know yet. also fossil fuel is forever, check out a work called "deep, hot, biosphere"
Considering the article is specifically talking about offshore windfarms, I don't think that we need to be too concerned about any sheep who happen to be close enough to hear them.
The speed of sound seems to hit a minimum (over the range of altitudes he'll be falling through) in the Tropopause between 40 and 65000 ft (12 and 20000 m) at about 970 ft/s (295 m/s).
In The Long, Lonely Leap Kittenger claims a radar-checked top speed of 274 m/s which is getting pretty close to Mach 1 at at least some of the Baumgartner he'll be falling through. The extra 18000 ft (5500 m) he'll fall may be enough in the thin air up there to do it.
"The president can sign all the treaties he wants, but he can't force Congress to enact legislation to enforce it all."
Or even force the Senate to ratify it. Until it's ratified by the Senate, by 2/3 vote, a treaty has no legal standing in the United States. Thus, you only need to get 34 Senators to vote against ratification to prevent a treaty from coming into effect.
Or use a different character. I dunno, maybe http[tech.slashdot.org:80/story... or http;tech.slashdot.org:80/story... Or even, considering ports are rarely specified, http:tech.slashdot.org%5B80%5D/story...
Something like this might be needed because the wear on roads due to your driving is proportional mainly to vehicle weight and distance driven, not fuel burned (it's true in the past gas burned was proportional to vehicle weight and distance driven, but with hybrids, electric vehicles, etc. this relation breaks). As fuel efficiencies go up wear remains largely the same yet revenue from the gas tax for road work goes down.
Provided a true distance tax could be implemented in such a way that both apportioned the revenue to the correct jurisdictions and adequately protected privacy, I would support this replacing the current gas tax. But I have my doubts that fair apportionment and privacy protections are both achievable.
You know, I'm not sure I'd get all worked up about a bill that has no co-sponsors and sent into committee in July. That's likely where it will languish until it dies.
All Congressional actions on H.R. 3311: 7/23/2009:
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, Energy and Commerce, and Science and Technology, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
7/23/2009:
Referred to House Ways and Means
7/23/2009:
Referred to House Transportation and Infrastructure
7/24/2009:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
7/23/2009:
Referred to House Energy and Commerce
7/23/2009:
Referred to House Science and Technology
7/27/2009:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation.
This doesn't mean the issue in general isn't worth paying attention to (as well as tracking the bill on the off chance it does get some action), but the mere introduction of a bill doesn't mean it's time to go all-out in opposition.
Actually the bottleneck has been the impossibility of bringing additional refining capacity online in the US.
True. And actually this isn't just the case in the USA; there are virtually no new refineries anywhere in the world.
While the US hasn't built new refineries, existing ones have been expanded with a near 2 million barrel per day increase (over 12%) from 1985 to present (most of the increase has come since 1995).
Actually, through incorporation with the 14th, it pretty much bans any government, Federal or State or local, restrictions on freedom of expression, unlike these others that may have ratified the universal declaration but have criminalized certain speech (Holocaust denial and Nazi symbols, for example).
Not exactly upholding freedom of expression there, huh? Freedom of expression is most important for unpopular and objectionable views, like those above, not mainstream discourse.
Of course, at that time the Vice President was the candidate the came in second in the Electoral College. Washington and Adams were adversaries in the elections of 1789 and 1792; Washington won with 69 electoral votes to Adams' 34. Thus it would not be like Bush following Reagan.
And, don't forget in the "Revolution of 1800", Thomas Jefferson has been Adam's Vice President.
This was changed to the current system of President and Vice President running on the same ticket with the 12th Amendment in 1804.
Slashdot Mirror
Most US Geological Survey 7.5 minute quads are available for download in PDF from: US Topo
With the size the OP mentions, it should show fairly well; these are 10 foot/3 meter contours and a 1200 foot "crater" should be about 0.6"/1.5 cm. Not all states are covered, yet, but there are other free USGS sources to download these.
And you won't get it since Firaxis doesn't have the rights to it.
The problem is that if these extras are so cheap that Intel figures they can afford to put them in every CPU even if only a few people buy them, then there's clearly a large disparity between the cost to produce the feature and the current market price for it.
Not necessarily. You're absolutely correct if you're talking only of the incremental production costs between the two feature sets. But, those aren't the only costs involved; Intel has to recover the R&D costs of the additional features.
Once you take these into account, you can make an argument that this is actually a good deal. This model can decrease Intel's production costs since there's only one type of chip to make. It can also decrease the cost for the limited version since they don't have to recover the R&D costs of the extra features. It probably also increases the cost per unit for the extra features because only the subset of customers that want/need those features are paying the R&D costs.
An alternative model would be to fold the R&D costs into the price of each CPU and only sell the non-limited version, raising the base cost.
The point stands. After Google invested the time, effort, and money to develop their search algorithms, they should have some protect against others using the same techniques, not necessarily having access to Google's copyrighted code. That's where patents come in.
Are some/many software patents silly or frivolous? Sure. But, the same applies to traditional patents as well. In both cases, I think the threshold for patentability is set too low. I mean, should sticking a goose-neck lamp on then end of a flashlight really be patentable?
As for the IP terms:
"trademark" protects the company's brand(s)
"copyright" protects creative works (text, photos, source code, etc.)
"patent" protects how things work
I don't think it'd take much compression. That's a bit over 30 bytes per record. Strip out the common prefix to the urls and I think you'll find the average is something like 15-20 bytes per, leaving plenty of room for other data.
Shouldn't Magnuson-Moss apply here? Probably a gray area, but it seems to me the intent, at least, of the act would require Apple to show that the unlocking or jail-breaking actually caused the broken screen? They'd be perfectly correct to deny warranty coverage if the iPhone was jailbroken and the software was no longer working, but for a defect in the hardware itself?
Yep. Is there a bigger star out there? Almost certainly. Is there a bigger star out there where we have to ability to observe it? This is where it gets difficult.
The hires screen is available in the same resolution. It's a $100 upgrade vs. $150 on the 15".
They still have it. It's a $150 custom order option on the 15" MacBook Pro and a $50 option on the 17". It's not available on the 13" MacBook Pro or MacBook.
Is this really changing the sentence or is it a new civil commitment hearing after punishment is up? It makes a difference. You know, the type of hearing that takes place to involuntarily commit a mentally ill person for being a danger to others?
AFAIK, neither party to this case made it about such hearings and procedures per se, but rather whether it's proper for the Federal government to do so.
Regarding the other case, I have to side with the SCOTUS minority. If you want to keep child molesters locked away for ever, then pass laws that require longer sentences, rather than sentencing them to ten years then holding them forever.
Which is not what the dissent said. This case was not about whether a state, say Texas, could do this. It's well-established they can; it's called civil commitment. This case was about whether the Federal government can do it.
Essentially, the topics examined were:
Neither side argued this on 5th Amendment Due Process grounds.
they do however kill sheep, the noise keeps them awake until they die. the sound may or may not have an effect on fish and dolphins, we don't know yet. also fossil fuel is forever, check out a work called "deep, hot, biosphere"
Considering the article is specifically talking about offshore windfarms, I don't think that we need to be too concerned about any sheep who happen to be close enough to hear them.
Maybe they should just count themselves?
Or Richard Daley.
Unless you want to complain about the cops.
The speed of sound seems to hit a minimum (over the range of altitudes he'll be falling through) in the Tropopause between 40 and 65000 ft (12 and 20000 m) at about 970 ft/s (295 m/s).
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/atmosphere/q0112.shtml
In The Long, Lonely Leap Kittenger claims a radar-checked top speed of 274 m/s which is getting pretty close to Mach 1 at at least some of the Baumgartner he'll be falling through. The extra 18000 ft (5500 m) he'll fall may be enough in the thin air up there to do it.
"The president can sign all the treaties he wants, but he can't force Congress to enact legislation to enforce it all."
Or even force the Senate to ratify it. Until it's ratified by the Senate, by 2/3 vote, a treaty has no legal standing in the United States. Thus, you only need to get 34 Senators to vote against ratification to prevent a treaty from coming into effect.
Or to California. Really. Expecting something to come out of the California government to make sense?
Or use a different character. I dunno, maybe http[tech.slashdot.org:80/story... or http;tech.slashdot.org:80/story...
Or even, considering ports are rarely specified, http:tech.slashdot.org%5B80%5D/story...
Something like this might be needed because the wear on roads due to your driving is proportional mainly to vehicle weight and distance driven, not fuel burned (it's true in the past gas burned was proportional to vehicle weight and distance driven, but with hybrids, electric vehicles, etc. this relation breaks). As fuel efficiencies go up wear remains largely the same yet revenue from the gas tax for road work goes down.
Provided a true distance tax could be implemented in such a way that both apportioned the revenue to the correct jurisdictions and adequately protected privacy, I would support this replacing the current gas tax. But I have my doubts that fair apportionment and privacy protections are both achievable.
You know, I'm not sure I'd get all worked up about a bill that has no co-sponsors and sent into committee in July. That's likely where it will languish until it dies.
All Congressional actions on H.R. 3311:
7/23/2009:
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, Energy and Commerce, and Science and Technology, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
7/23/2009:
Referred to House Ways and Means
7/23/2009:
Referred to House Transportation and Infrastructure
7/24/2009:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
7/23/2009:
Referred to House Energy and Commerce
7/23/2009:
Referred to House Science and Technology
7/27/2009:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation.
This doesn't mean the issue in general isn't worth paying attention to (as well as tracking the bill on the off chance it does get some action), but the mere introduction of a bill doesn't mean it's time to go all-out in opposition.
True. And actually this isn't just the case in the USA; there are virtually no new refineries anywhere in the world.
While the US hasn't built new refineries, existing ones have been expanded with a near 2 million barrel per day increase (over 12%) from 1985 to present (most of the increase has come since 1995).
Go a step further - invent a written language.
Actually, through incorporation with the 14th, it pretty much bans any government, Federal or State or local, restrictions on freedom of expression, unlike these others that may have ratified the universal declaration but have criminalized certain speech (Holocaust denial and Nazi symbols, for example).
Not exactly upholding freedom of expression there, huh? Freedom of expression is most important for unpopular and objectionable views, like those above, not mainstream discourse.
Of course, at that time the Vice President was the candidate the came in second in the Electoral College. Washington and Adams were adversaries in the elections of 1789 and 1792; Washington won with 69 electoral votes to Adams' 34. Thus it would not be like Bush following Reagan.
And, don't forget in the "Revolution of 1800", Thomas Jefferson has been Adam's Vice President.
This was changed to the current system of President and Vice President running on the same ticket with the 12th Amendment in 1804.
Digitalize[2], a synonym for digitize.
"Digitalize" has been a transitive verb meaning to convert an analog signal to digital since 1962.