The problem is not that they used special effects for the crowd. The problem is that they showed up something different from what the live audience saw and pretended that that's what they really saw.
NBC commentators said during the scene: "Your looking at a cinematic device, employed by Zhang Yimou here. This is actually almost animation. "
What's part of that didn't you understand? Additionally, if that wasn't clear, it's hardly the fault of the Chinese that the commentators didn't make it clear for you.
This is the problem here. They wrote up an article with completely fake dialog that might have plausibly happened and expected to deceive us all. If they'd said, "The conversation in the cockpit when something like this..." we'd be fine, because we'd be on notice that this is a fictional telling. It's the intent to pull the wool over our eyes that offends in a way that an impressible special effect or magic trick does not.
Numerous people have pointed out this is probably either filler dialog or scripted dialog that is expected to be said, a practice employed by media outlets around the world. Why do you feel the need to ignore this and jump to the conclusion of deception?
Well, actually, complete consistency in the neural network is never a requirement set by DNA. Complete consistency doesn't help and could actually hurt the reproductive fitness of an animal. As a result, its completely possible to have inconsistent beliefs, especially if they are very rarely triggered at the same time (that's also why we use analogies, inorder to connect two completely seperate ideas). Now for ideas that are typically triggered at the same time but cause opposite reactions, there are mechanisms that, over time, ensure consistency, as this is beneficial to fitness.
I'm trying to download 1080p version of Casino Royal and I'm getting less than 500kB/s. Damn those grandmas hogging the bandwidth with their ancestry.com.
That's because, time and time again, Western nations have shown complete disregard for the welfare of the people of China and simply other countries. Western countries don't care about what is best for the people of other nations, they care about being in control and having power. Just look at what happens in Iraq/Iran, Asian atrocites in WW2, imperialism and slavery. I am not be suprised that the rest of the world distrust Western nations.
Also, most of the favorable opinion Chinese people have of their government is probably the result of the massive amount of economic growth of the past few decades. There is a theory in economics that the economy has the greatest influence on public opinion of the government. If the US experiences that level of growth during the Bush administration, I doubt we would be as critical of the government.
What part of violent riot by Tibetan monks don't us understand? If the Native Americans rioted violently, you Americans will expect the riot police and military to get involved to maintain peace.
The only people claiming it was non violient are the misinformed and the Tibetan government using a very screwed up definition of non-violence:
Dawa Tsering, an Additional Secretary in the Department of Information and International Relations of the Tibetan government-in-exile, said "First of all, I must make it clear that the Tibetan (rioters) has been non-violent throughout (the incident). From Tibetans' perspective, violence means harming life. From the video recordings you can see that the Tibetans rioters were beating Han Chinese, but only beating took place. After the beating the Han Chinese were free to flee. Therefore [there were] only beating, no life was harmed. Those who were killed were all results of accidents. From recordings shown by the Chinese Communist government, we can clearly see that when Tibetan [rioters] were beating on their doors, the Han Chinese all went into hiding upstairs. When the Tibetan [rioters] set fire to the buildings, the Han Chinese remained in hiding instead of escaping, the result is that these Han Chinese were all accidentally burnt to death. Those who set and spread the fire, on the other hand, had no idea whatsoever that there were Han Chinese hiding upstairs. Therefore not only were Han Chinese burnt to death, some Tibetans were burnt to death too. Therefore all these incidents were accidents, not murder."
>How does Bejing rank compared to that massive injection?
Do you seriously think one city in China has a significant carbon footprint, especially when US is the biggest CO2 emitter?
In terms of total annual CO2 emissions, US ranks first with a CO2 emissions of 20% greater than China (which ranks second). This is despite the fact that US only has less than 1/4 of the population of China. Looking at CO2 emissions per capita, China doesn't come close to the top (BTW US wins again in that category). Since it looks like you are itching to put the blame somewhere for CO2 emissions, US is your answer.
It should have been Momentum Heavier car: 150000Ns --> Momentum Lighter car: 60000Ns <-- Final momentum: 90000Ns --> Final velocity: 12.86m/s --> Total impulse of driver of heavier car: |100kg*(30m/s-12.86m/s)|=1714Ns Total impulse of driver of lighter car: |100kg*(-30m/s-12.86m/s)|=4285Ns
A better equation is f=dp/dt. Not only is it more correct (consistent with relativity), but it is important to consider the change in momentum, not just the mass of the object when talking about vehicle collisions.
>A 5000 pound SUV that remains solid like a brick (but turns its occupants into scrambled eggs) is a lot more dangerous than a 2000 pound civic that crumples like a wad of paper (but protects its passengers from damage).
while it's true that the ability to absorb energy is important to vehicle safety, this statement is simply incorrect.
The statement is half correct when your talking about hitting a (mainly) unmoveable object (like a wall) (your explanation is wrong). Yes the force on the car will equal the cars weight times the instantaneous acceleration (of the car), but the force on the human will only be the humans weight times the instantaneous acceleration (of the human). And I'm pretty sure your weight does not change regardless of what car you drive. The reason for driving a car that crumples is that it speads out the total change in momentum (impulse) over a longer duration of time, when compared to a car that remains rigid (your total impulse depends on your mass, your initial velocity and your final velocity). As a result the maximum force on your body will more likely be lower due to lower dp per dt (Likely because we are talking about instantanous momentum change which will depend on how the cars are built. the average force will definitly be lower if the impluse is the same as the car that crumples will have a longer collision time).
Your statement is incorrect when your talking about a collision between two vehicles, in which case, the heavier car will win out almost every time (assuming same safety features, i.e. airbags and seatbelts, and weight of driver). The reason for this is because the driver of the heavier vehicle will always experience a lower total impulse. Example: head on collision between two cars (Weight including drivers: 5000kg going to the right and 2000kg going to the left) at 30m/s; drivers weight 100kg; inelastic collision.
Momentum Heavier car: 150000Ns -->
Momentum Lighter car: 60000Ns
Final momentum: 90000Ns --> Final velocity: 12.86m/s -->
Total impulse of driver of heavier car: |100kg*(30m/s-12.86m/s)|=1714Ns
Total impulse of driver of lighter car: |100kg*(-30m/s-12.86m/s)|=4285Ns
Now the total time of collision will be the same for both drivers, hence the driver of the heavier car experience less force. (Note: the total impulse of driver and car is the same for both vehicles but not the total impulse just of the driver)
This scenario plays out in a similar way with different kind of vehicle to vehicle collisions as well (assuming inelastic collision).
What about testing? do you honestly think a company can make even a single line change and release a driver without testing it on most (if not all) platforms that it will likely be used on?
Lack of ROI (from NVIDIA's perspective) for XP, due to the test hit, is likely the reason.
And no one wanted the $10000 and laptop they would recieve if they hacked the Vista and Ubuntu systems. Addtionally, hacking a linux box will not earn that person any press coverage at all and will force that person into bankruptcy. See? it all makes sense why OSX is the most secure operating system despite these results!
>In the past I've written replies which effectively defended the mac platform, not due to some loyalty, but because most of the feedback people write is pure b/s.
Coincidentally, this is also the reason why some people criticize the mac platform.
>For example, Only recently are the Japanese portrayed in a semi-positive light in WWII TV series, which probably explains the large amount of people that participate in anti-Japanese riots.
Umm, do you even know about the atrocities committed by the Japanese during WWII? It was worse than Hitler. Many westerners don't seem to know or care. Also, the resentment not specific to Chinese people. Don't believe me, ask non-Japanese Asians what what their opinions are?
Damn the reality distortion field is strong with this one.
Just to be clear, I don't use the HTC device or the iphone but have played with them. My main portable device is the n800 (it runs linux), replacing a Axim X51v.
No, the problem is that you have no choice but to juggle because there is no RAM installed in the phones Windows Enthusiasts claim cost so much less than the iPhone.Add in a couple hundred bucks for SD cards (hopefully your phone supports greater than 2GB cards) and you end up with expensive hardware with segmented memory.
You're complaining about choices when you're the one stuck with 4/8GB no removable or upgradable Flash (not to even mention the other limitations of Apple)? (also flash is different from RAM, just in case you didn't know. I believe the phone in qestion has 64MB of SDRAM. this is non upgradable just like most small form factor devices)
Also, the grandparent can easily upgrade to 8GB on his (or her) phone RIGHT NOW by buying a 8GB SDHC card for less than $80 getting it to the same storage space as the iphone (technically more if you add in the embedded flash), hence your "juggling" argument is simply incorrect at best. And the cost of SD cards is really only going to drop.
It's like the 80s playing over again, with people defending DOS and the 8086 and a 640K memory map and deriding the Mac because it was a "graphical toy." Who needs a 16 bit processor, 640k should be enough for anybody, etc.
The HTC supports SDHC so the memory capacity limit will atleast be 8GB but much more likely greater (as in >32GB). I do see somewhat of a similarity; it is like that old argument, except the iphone is the one with the low flash memory limitation and some people (such as yourself) are strongly (and illogically) defending it.
Well the iPhone can and does access the intarweb, and can stream anything you can play or watch on an iPod.
you can connect to an samba share and stream from that (without hacks)? What about other formats, like say FLAC (again without hacks)?
How is a keyboard "accurate"?
It's more accurate because you can easily press the key that you want the number of times that you want. This is hard to do on a touchscreen keyboard because of small keys (compared to one's fingers) and lack of tactile feedback.
And when you spell something wrong, it automatically corrects in a way that isn't in the way.
That's great and all but what if you need to type a non-English word, non-English names or even obscure English terms? Would it recognize phosphoenolpyruvate or maybe 6-phosphogluconolactonase? (yes, these are English words)
they don't do the important things the iPhone
Like connecting to an exchange server? Making quick last minute modifications to documents or speadsheets? Or how about just getting certain video formats to play without time consuming reconversions?
Windows Mobile software is all crap
Funny how crap software (like TCPMP and IGuidance/Mapopolis) allows me to do so much more.
The iPhone is trying to be something great, not just trying to monopolize a new market and make lots of money
Didn't the iphone cost $600 until Apple realized that they couldn't meet the expected sales number and hence dropped the price?
I went over the top most popular Windows Mobile downloads from major sites, and quickly added up $115 of Windows Mobile software that solves problems that shouldn't exist, and another $334 worth of third party software that is bundled for free in the iPhone
I'm going to have to call you on this. Can you please show what problem you're solving with the additional software(http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/9FB758E7-CA6E-415F-828D-08F01471F6B5.html)? (I assume you wrote the article as you did not appear to quote it.) That list seems to contain sofware that adds features that iphone doesn't even have like backup, software for OS tweaking, w
Clearly, you haven't used the Quadro 2000 dowser rod.
Check out Shermer's TED talk (http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/22) explaining the basic psychological phenomena that results in our gullibility.
The problem with applying Adam Smith's theory on economic specialization to engineering is that the theory is developed for efficient production, where labor is needed to produce the same thing over and over again. By specializing, one ensures a higher productivity, over non specialized production methods. It doesn't work as well when we consider it in the context of engineering and research as once we develop or understand something, we don't need to do it again.
No, this post is incorrect. For the 100+ years since 1750, Tibet was considered to be a province of China. Their relationship to the imperial government is the same as many other regions like Manchuria and Mongolia. You don't see any kind of foreign agreements with Tibet during that time.
Now, your information is based upon agreements forced onto China by the British in an attempt to weaken the position of government. At no point did the government of China signed an treaty declaring indepedence of China in 1914. A surrender in 1912 doesn't mean that a country is independent. Also, I'd like to point out that the treaty in 1904 was not considered valid by other countries hence there was another treaty in 1906 signed with China that reaffirmed the provisions of the 1904 treaty.
Actaully all of Mongolia was a part of China as well under the Qing Dynasty. There was a treaty signed in 1949 that recognized the independence of outer Mongolia and China.
America is definitely not part of Britain but they did not gain all their land from the east coast to the west during the declaration of independence.
>Tibet was a separate country, and had been for a very long time
Since when? Tibet has been part of China before the independence of the US.
>Tibet is used as a toxic waste dump, and the Han Chinese population outnumbers the Tibetan population
Where are you getting your numbers? The previous statements sound fishy but I know this one is incorrect. Han Chinese account for less than 20% of the population in Tibet and Tibet is far from being a toxic waste dump. Infact, it wan't until recently that train routes have been established to certain areas in Tibet.
I've tried it on Vista (at work) along with XP with IE7 previously installed via WU and with a version I just installed though the download from microsoft. In all three cases I get the message "Your browser does not appear to be vulnerable to this particular exploit"
Is this website trying to capitalize on increased traffic by announcing a fake IE7 exploit or did MS just fix it incredibly fast? Based on MS' past history, I'm guessing the former.
This is actually the "problem" hdmi is suppose to solve. Using this interface, data sent between the disk player and the tv screen/monitor is actually encrypted. Sure people may eventually create decoders to overcome this protection but it's still another issue to deal with not to mention increased costs.
Actually, instruction reordering is not important in consoles mainly because it is designed to improve performance when executing code not specifically optimized for that particular processor. This feature is necessary for cpus used in general computing devices as these devices are highly likely to execute code optimized for other processors. With the case of game consoles, all the games are compiled specifically for one processor and one set of hardware, hence no need to use up precious Si area to make up for improvements that should have been made during compilation.
I'm pretty sure that transistor leakage is a huge problem at the moment. Most semiconductor companies are working on ways to fix this problem. Especially when using 90nm and lower processes, the gate oxide is very thin which causes the leakage current per transistor to be higher when you compare with 130nm process. One of the more popular solutions involves finder a high-k dielectric which will allow the gate oxide to be thicker yet have the same electrical properties. So far, to the best of my knowledge, we have been unable to find on that can be easily produced on silicon wafers.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is not that they used special effects for the crowd. The problem is that they showed up something different from what the live audience saw and pretended that that's what they really saw.
NBC commentators said during the scene: "Your looking at a cinematic device, employed by Zhang Yimou here. This is actually almost animation. "
What's part of that didn't you understand? Additionally, if that wasn't clear, it's hardly the fault of the Chinese that the commentators didn't make it clear for you.
This is the problem here. They wrote up an article with completely fake dialog that might have plausibly happened and expected to deceive us all. If they'd said, "The conversation in the cockpit when something like this..." we'd be fine, because we'd be on notice that this is a fictional telling. It's the intent to pull the wool over our eyes that offends in a way that an impressible special effect or magic trick does not.
Numerous people have pointed out this is probably either filler dialog or scripted dialog that is expected to be said, a practice employed by media outlets around the world. Why do you feel the need to ignore this and jump to the conclusion of deception?
Well, actually, complete consistency in the neural network is never a requirement set by DNA. Complete consistency doesn't help and could actually hurt the reproductive fitness of an animal. As a result, its completely possible to have inconsistent beliefs, especially if they are very rarely triggered at the same time (that's also why we use analogies, inorder to connect two completely seperate ideas). Now for ideas that are typically triggered at the same time but cause opposite reactions, there are mechanisms that, over time, ensure consistency, as this is beneficial to fitness.
I'm trying to download 1080p version of Casino Royal and I'm getting less than 500kB/s. Damn those grandmas hogging the bandwidth with their ancestry.com.
That's because, time and time again, Western nations have shown complete disregard for the welfare of the people of China and simply other countries. Western countries don't care about what is best for the people of other nations, they care about being in control and having power. Just look at what happens in Iraq/Iran, Asian atrocites in WW2, imperialism and slavery. I am not be suprised that the rest of the world distrust Western nations.
Also, most of the favorable opinion Chinese people have of their government is probably the result of the massive amount of economic growth of the past few decades. There is a theory in economics that the economy has the greatest influence on public opinion of the government. If the US experiences that level of growth during the Bush administration, I doubt we would be as critical of the government.
> Are you sure about that?
What part of violent riot by Tibetan monks don't us understand? If the Native Americans rioted violently, you Americans will expect the riot police and military to get involved to maintain peace.
The only people claiming it was non violient are the misinformed and the Tibetan government using a very screwed up definition of non-violence:
Dawa Tsering, an Additional Secretary in the Department of Information and International Relations of the Tibetan government-in-exile, said "First of all, I must make it clear that the Tibetan (rioters) has been non-violent throughout (the incident). From Tibetans' perspective, violence means harming life. From the video recordings you can see that the Tibetans rioters were beating Han Chinese, but only beating took place. After the beating the Han Chinese were free to flee. Therefore [there were] only beating, no life was harmed. Those who were killed were all results of accidents. From recordings shown by the Chinese Communist government, we can clearly see that when Tibetan [rioters] were beating on their doors, the Han Chinese all went into hiding upstairs. When the Tibetan [rioters] set fire to the buildings, the Han Chinese remained in hiding instead of escaping, the result is that these Han Chinese were all accidentally burnt to death. Those who set and spread the fire, on the other hand, had no idea whatsoever that there were Han Chinese hiding upstairs. Therefore not only were Han Chinese burnt to death, some Tibetans were burnt to death too. Therefore all these incidents were accidents, not murder."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reaction_to_2008_Tibetan_unrest
>How does Bejing rank compared to that massive injection?
Do you seriously think one city in China has a significant carbon footprint, especially when US is the biggest CO2 emitter?
In terms of total annual CO2 emissions, US ranks first with a CO2 emissions of 20% greater than China (which ranks second). This is despite the fact that US only has less than 1/4 of the population of China. Looking at CO2 emissions per capita, China doesn't come close to the top (BTW US wins again in that category). Since it looks like you are itching to put the blame somewhere for CO2 emissions, US is your answer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
It should have been
Momentum Heavier car: 150000Ns -->
Momentum Lighter car: 60000Ns <--
Final momentum: 90000Ns --> Final velocity: 12.86m/s -->
Total impulse of driver of heavier car: |100kg*(30m/s-12.86m/s)|=1714Ns
Total impulse of driver of lighter car: |100kg*(-30m/s-12.86m/s)|=4285Ns
>F=ma
A better equation is f=dp/dt. Not only is it more correct (consistent with relativity), but it is important to consider the change in momentum, not just the mass of the object when talking about vehicle collisions.
>A 5000 pound SUV that remains solid like a brick (but turns its occupants into scrambled eggs) is a lot more dangerous than a 2000 pound civic that crumples like a wad of paper (but protects its passengers from damage).
while it's true that the ability to absorb energy is important to vehicle safety, this statement is simply incorrect.
The statement is half correct when your talking about hitting a (mainly) unmoveable object (like a wall) (your explanation is wrong). Yes the force on the car will equal the cars weight times the instantaneous acceleration (of the car), but the force on the human will only be the humans weight times the instantaneous acceleration (of the human). And I'm pretty sure your weight does not change regardless of what car you drive. The reason for driving a car that crumples is that it speads out the total change in momentum (impulse) over a longer duration of time, when compared to a car that remains rigid (your total impulse depends on your mass, your initial velocity and your final velocity). As a result the maximum force on your body will more likely be lower due to lower dp per dt (Likely because we are talking about instantanous momentum change which will depend on how the cars are built. the average force will definitly be lower if the impluse is the same as the car that crumples will have a longer collision time).
Your statement is incorrect when your talking about a collision between two vehicles, in which case, the heavier car will win out almost every time (assuming same safety features, i.e. airbags and seatbelts, and weight of driver). The reason for this is because the driver of the heavier vehicle will always experience a lower total impulse. Example: head on collision between two cars (Weight including drivers: 5000kg going to the right and 2000kg going to the left) at 30m/s; drivers weight 100kg; inelastic collision.
Momentum Heavier car: 150000Ns -->
Momentum Lighter car: 60000Ns Final momentum: 90000Ns --> Final velocity: 12.86m/s -->
Total impulse of driver of heavier car: |100kg*(30m/s-12.86m/s)|=1714Ns
Total impulse of driver of lighter car: |100kg*(-30m/s-12.86m/s)|=4285Ns
Now the total time of collision will be the same for both drivers, hence the driver of the heavier car experience less force. (Note: the total impulse of driver and car is the same for both vehicles but not the total impulse just of the driver)
This scenario plays out in a similar way with different kind of vehicle to vehicle collisions as well (assuming inelastic collision).
>"You can stop eating to lose weight, but you'd have to stop breathing to lose stupid"
Just make sure you don't stop half way or you will be stupid. We sure as hell don't need more of those.
What about testing? do you honestly think a company can make even a single line change and release a driver without testing it on most (if not all) platforms that it will likely be used on?
Lack of ROI (from NVIDIA's perspective) for XP, due to the test hit, is likely the reason.
And no one wanted the $10000 and laptop they would recieve if they hacked the Vista and Ubuntu systems. Addtionally, hacking a linux box will not earn that person any press coverage at all and will force that person into bankruptcy. See? it all makes sense why OSX is the most secure operating system despite these results!
>In the past I've written replies which effectively defended the mac platform, not due to some loyalty, but because most of the feedback people write is pure b/s.
Coincidentally, this is also the reason why some people criticize the mac platform.
>For example, Only recently are the Japanese portrayed in a semi-positive light in WWII TV series, which probably explains the large amount of people that participate in anti-Japanese riots.
Umm, do you even know about the atrocities committed by the Japanese during WWII? It was worse than Hitler. Many westerners don't seem to know or care. Also, the resentment not specific to Chinese people. Don't believe me, ask non-Japanese Asians what what their opinions are?
Damn the reality distortion field is strong with this one.
Just to be clear, I don't use the HTC device or the iphone but have played with them. My main portable device is the n800 (it runs linux), replacing a Axim X51v.
No, the problem is that you have no choice but to juggle because there is no RAM installed in the phones Windows Enthusiasts claim cost so much less than the iPhone.Add in a couple hundred bucks for SD cards (hopefully your phone supports greater than 2GB cards) and you end up with expensive hardware with segmented memory.
You're complaining about choices when you're the one stuck with 4/8GB no removable or upgradable Flash (not to even mention the other limitations of Apple)? (also flash is different from RAM, just in case you didn't know. I believe the phone in qestion has 64MB of SDRAM. this is non upgradable just like most small form factor devices)
Also, the grandparent can easily upgrade to 8GB on his (or her) phone RIGHT NOW by buying a 8GB SDHC card for less than $80 getting it to the same storage space as the iphone (technically more if you add in the embedded flash), hence your "juggling" argument is simply incorrect at best. And the cost of SD cards is really only going to drop.
It's like the 80s playing over again, with people defending DOS and the 8086 and a 640K memory map and deriding the Mac because it was a "graphical toy." Who needs a 16 bit processor, 640k should be enough for anybody, etc.
The HTC supports SDHC so the memory capacity limit will atleast be 8GB but much more likely greater (as in >32GB). I do see somewhat of a similarity; it is like that old argument, except the iphone is the one with the low flash memory limitation and some people (such as yourself) are strongly (and illogically) defending it.
Well the iPhone can and does access the intarweb, and can stream anything you can play or watch on an iPod.
you can connect to an samba share and stream from that (without hacks)? What about other formats, like say FLAC (again without hacks)?
How is a keyboard "accurate"?
It's more accurate because you can easily press the key that you want the number of times that you want. This is hard to do on a touchscreen keyboard because of small keys (compared to one's fingers) and lack of tactile feedback.
And when you spell something wrong, it automatically corrects in a way that isn't in the way.
That's great and all but what if you need to type a non-English word, non-English names or even obscure English terms? Would it recognize phosphoenolpyruvate or maybe 6-phosphogluconolactonase? (yes, these are English words)
they don't do the important things the iPhone
Like connecting to an exchange server? Making quick last minute modifications to documents or speadsheets? Or how about just getting certain video formats to play without time consuming reconversions?
Windows Mobile software is all crap
Funny how crap software (like TCPMP and IGuidance/Mapopolis) allows me to do so much more.
The iPhone is trying to be something great, not just trying to monopolize a new market and make lots of money
Didn't the iphone cost $600 until Apple realized that they couldn't meet the expected sales number and hence dropped the price?
I went over the top most popular Windows Mobile downloads from major sites, and quickly added up $115 of Windows Mobile software that solves problems that shouldn't exist, and another $334 worth of third party software that is bundled for free in the iPhone
I'm going to have to call you on this. Can you please show what problem you're solving with the additional software(http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/9FB758E7-CA6E-415F-828D-08F01471F6B5.html)? (I assume you wrote the article as you did not appear to quote it.) That list seems to contain sofware that adds features that iphone doesn't even have like backup, software for OS tweaking, w
Clearly, you haven't used the Quadro 2000 dowser rod.
Check out Shermer's TED talk (http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/22) explaining the basic psychological phenomena that results in our gullibility.
The problem with applying Adam Smith's theory on economic specialization to engineering is that the theory is developed for efficient production, where labor is needed to produce the same thing over and over again. By specializing, one ensures a higher productivity, over non specialized production methods. It doesn't work as well when we consider it in the context of engineering and research as once we develop or understand something, we don't need to do it again.
No, this post is incorrect. For the 100+ years since 1750, Tibet was considered to be a province of China. Their relationship to the imperial government is the same as many other regions like Manchuria and Mongolia. You don't see any kind of foreign agreements with Tibet during that time.
Now, your information is based upon agreements forced onto China by the British in an attempt to weaken the position of government. At no point did the government of China signed an treaty declaring indepedence of China in 1914. A surrender in 1912 doesn't mean that a country is independent. Also, I'd like to point out that the treaty in 1904 was not considered valid by other countries hence there was another treaty in 1906 signed with China that reaffirmed the provisions of the 1904 treaty.
Actaully all of Mongolia was a part of China as well under the Qing Dynasty. There was a treaty signed in 1949 that recognized the independence of outer Mongolia and China.
America is definitely not part of Britain but they did not gain all their land from the east coast to the west during the declaration of independence.
>Tibet was a separate country, and had been for a very long time
Since when? Tibet has been part of China before the independence of the US.
>Tibet is used as a toxic waste dump, and the Han Chinese population outnumbers the Tibetan population
Where are you getting your numbers? The previous statements sound fishy but I know this one is incorrect. Han Chinese account for less than 20% of the population in Tibet and Tibet is far from being a toxic waste dump. Infact, it wan't until recently that train routes have been established to certain areas in Tibet.
I can see it now, KOTOR 3 will ship with 50 wav and two text files. Let the community sort it out.
I've tried it on Vista (at work) along with XP with IE7 previously installed via WU and with a version I just installed though the download from microsoft. In all three cases I get the message "Your browser does not appear to be vulnerable to this particular exploit"
Is this website trying to capitalize on increased traffic by announcing a fake IE7 exploit or did MS just fix it incredibly fast? Based on MS' past history, I'm guessing the former.
yup, just like how an 18 wheeler or truck could never ram into a car ...
Exactly. US labels them terrorists first.
This is actually the "problem" hdmi is suppose to solve. Using this interface, data sent between the disk player and the tv screen/monitor is actually encrypted. Sure people may eventually create decoders to overcome this protection but it's still another issue to deal with not to mention increased costs.
Actually, instruction reordering is not important in consoles mainly because it is designed to improve performance when executing code not specifically optimized for that particular processor. This feature is necessary for cpus used in general computing devices as these devices are highly likely to execute code optimized for other processors. With the case of game consoles, all the games are compiled specifically for one processor and one set of hardware, hence no need to use up precious Si area to make up for improvements that should have been made during compilation.
I'm pretty sure that transistor leakage is a huge problem at the moment. Most semiconductor companies are working on ways to fix this problem. Especially when using 90nm and lower processes, the gate oxide is very thin which causes the leakage current per transistor to be higher when you compare with 130nm process. One of the more popular solutions involves finder a high-k dielectric which will allow the gate oxide to be thicker yet have the same electrical properties. So far, to the best of my knowledge, we have been unable to find on that can be easily produced on silicon wafers.