"In the blink of an eye, you can transfer files from one computer to another using Ethernet. And in the same amount of time, your eye sends signals to the brain. A study finds that images transferred to the brain and files across an Ethernet network take about the same amount of time."
The amount of time you transmit data over a network depends on round trip time and bandwidth product, which determines TCP window size that optimizes the send/ack of data packets. You also need to take collision into account.
The ganglion cells are probably more analogous to link transmitter. The measurement is on the amount of information generated by these cells per second. The proper conclusion is that you could probably use ethernet to connect the eyes and your brain, and the required bandwidth is supported.
If it were IPv6, they should give you a whole block (prefixlen 64) of IP addresses, not just one. A complementary DNS service (like a phone book) should also be available so you don't need elephant memory to remember all the digits of your IP addresses.
Your closest alternatives are BSD license or MIT license. BSD and MIT license differs in that BSD has this advertising clause: "Neither the name of the nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission."
The curious thing is, Verizon, for example, allows you to get Business DSL at a residential address. Here you do pay $60-$70/mo. for a presumably better service. I'm okay with that as long as we're not stuck with $15 partial/biased Internet.
But I do wish that sometime in the future, all business DSL plans are bundled with at least one static IP address. If it were phone, nobody would accept dynamic phone numbers (it changes everytime you pick up the phone). Why would people put up with dynamic IP addresses? It looks like we're actually moving backwards from voice to data.
Those who want to eliminate neutrality dismiss this as alarmist, and claim that net neutrality would remove the incentive for broadband providers to build the next generation of Internet infrastructure, which all agree is sorely needed in the US.
If having paying customers is not enough incentive to build the next generation networking infrastructure, I don't see what else is enough.
The only case where non-neutral Internet makes sense is to have ad-supported Internet, so that content providers pay for end user's Internet bills from advertising revenue. If this is the case, then you get what you didn't pay for. But I don't see this coming.
In the current model where end users do pay for their own Internet access, eliminating net neutrality actually poses risks to the ISP. If they happen to choose the wrong premium partner, they will lose customers. In fact, some people will be dissatisfied for every choices of partnership. Remaining neutral is probably the best way to make most people happy.
You should have known that Wikipedia is trying to present arguments from all sides. Some of the view points are indeed interesting, but there are still unsatisfied criticisms. In other words, the refutes are still incomplete.
If you will give me a telescope that let me see a U.S. flag hanging on the moon surface, that is worth more than a thousand words.
During any one of the many missions, they could have coordinated with observatories to see man's presence on the moon. This would eliminate any doubt we have today. Many people like you consider yourself skeptics, but you lack the ability to become skeptical to what you already believed.
Is calling names all you are capable of doing? Congratulations, now you can call me a conspiracy theorist. If any historical artifects of this mission are so important, why would they allow this to happen? And why are they closing down the only facility that can play back these tapes?
You are not a photographer worth your salt, because you do not know how to analyse light sources. These lights in question are obviously filler lights---not from reflection.
Your refutation to Part II is even more laughable. To get to 80% of orbit, that's not the technical difficulty. It is the last 20%, since you get out of Earth's natural magnetic shield. How would you suppose the thin walls of LEM can protect the astronauts from the constant bombardment of solar radiation? Let alone their space suit? They were badly exposed and should have died instantly.
Apparently you haven't watched this video. You have already made up your mind with pre-existing opinion so you will never accept anything that contradicts with what you believe.
I know I'm going to make myself unpopular, but bringing this to more awareness could help me clarify some of *my* misunderstandings too, so I rather do this now than regret later.
The hypothesis is that man never landed on moon, and everything in the Apollo missing was staged on earth. The facts are presented in this video "What Happened on the Moon." There are two parts to this video.
Part I: this part focuses on analysing NASA publicly released videos and photographs for fakeness. If the light shown in the scenes are lit only by sunlight, then all shadows should be parallel since the sun is so far away, that its rays are focused at infinity. Furthermore, moon does not have an atmosphere to diffuse ambient light, so shadow areas should be completely dark. The film is also constantly bombarded by solar wind and cosmic rays, so it would be badly exposed.
None of the above mentioned phenomenon are observed with publicly released photographs. Rather, contradicting observations are found, namely non-parallel shadows, well-lit shades, and studio quality exposed pictures. You can look at official NASA images and videos on your on and decide for yourself.
Part II: this part analyses rocket technology and radioactive shielding technology in the 1960's and concludes that these technologies are insufficient to actually bring human on the moon. Basically, they glued a German V-2 rocket to a space pod and claim that's what brought man to the moon.
As you can see, my summary is more detailed for Part I than Part II because I have some knowledge and interest in photography, and I do not have much to say about rockets and radioactive shielding.
I suppose they could just have installed dial locks with the combination written in the front. I presume bears don't read numbers. Even if they do, their paws wouldn't let them get a good grip to open the lock.
I know the article is a joke, but I could tell that from just looking at the picture.
If he really cooked an egg on his MacBook, he would need a bigger foil, otherwise the moment you crush the egg, it would spread and stain the uncovered parts of the laptop. The foil is too small to cover the spread of one egg. Thus, it is apparent from the picture that the egg was cooked before it is placed on the foil.
OS X supports up to 255 characters and can use the same characters as Linux, except for a colon (:).
In Terminal.app, you can create file names with colon, but such character is mapped to a forward slash when seen in Finder. On the other hand, you can use forward slash in Finder, and it is mapped to a colon in the command line.
Historically, Mac OSes use colon to separate folder names in a path.
There is a subtle restriction in HFS+. All files in HFS+ have their names in normalized unicode, and in order to normalize in the first place, file names must be in valid UTF-8 encoding. You cannot use random character string for file names.
There is no such restriction for UFS on Mac OS X. I think UFS supports roughly the same characters as in BSD and Linux and any other Unices. If you're transferring files from Linux with names in a legacy encoding, you can create a UFS disk image and convert file names to UTF-8 before copying them to HFS+.
I'm currently running Mac OS X on a powerbook G4. Like Jthon, I've only had to reboot it for software updates. Last time I had a kernel panic was because I used a Kismet wireless driver that didn't like it when I unloaded the driver. After that, I never used Kismet. It was three years ago.
You don't "give up" rights as a child, you gain them in stages.
In other words, you believe there exists no birth rights. What people have been talking about, free speech, privacy, etc. are privileges.
In reality, you are right. Many people in different culture under different government never gained common rights in their lives, such as the right to travel and live wherever they want. In some countries, children grow up routinely subject to abusive punishments. I'm sure you'd agree with me that abuse in the name of punitive correction is wrong. Do these children have the right to be treated better? What if nobody ever gives them the right of better treatment? At some point, one has to decide whether certain rights should be inherent by birth instead of being later granted by someone or some institution. If you do not have any birth rights, you would easily fall victim to the agenda of certain individuals and institutions.
But none of these are the issue.
The issue is the great hypocrisy that you've been told you have certain rights, but you can't actually exercise them. Then what good are they? We should stop harrassing another government for violating human rights, but take a look at our own government. Can we really use the rights they claim we have?
One day, the government is going to stop granting you the rights, and you will okay it because you never used it since you're a child.
It is fortunate that you and your friends feel strongly about an issue that is in disagreement with the government. As a result, you get to research the law and know your rights.
Even so, I'm not saying people are unaware of their rights. I know some of them, and I'm sure many people do much better than I. However, if you've never learned how to use these rights, you will not used them when situation arises.
There is a difference between knowing your rights and exercising your rights. It's like, if you read about martial arts or saw it on TV but never practiced it, how would you suddenly know kung-fu when a thug shows up and tries to beat you up? You can read the constitution however many times you want, but if you don't practice, you won't be able to apply your rights. Worse yet, the school has been telling you "these rights don't apply" since you're a child.
I worry that kids who grow up without knowing their constitutional rights will not ever learn to exercise them later in their lives. Unfortunately, taking a civil studies class doesn't help because the rights being taught in class hardly relates to the student's real-life experience.
If you have been habitually giving up your rights since childhood, you will not hesitate to do so again when you're an adult.
That is how I grew up. I can tell you, if I were stopped and interrogated by a police officer, I would let him search all over me, inspect my identification, all without a second thought. If the police showed up at my door, I would invite them in and let them look at all my personal belongings. That is because I was taught that if you didn't do anything wrong, then you should not be afraid to be searched. But searching without evidence of a crime is wrong.
Maybe I'm reading between the lines, but you didn't say you're switching to a Mac. Instead, you said your Windows machine gave up, and you switched to Mac OS X.
If you're using Mac OS X on a PC, you need to know that most (illegal) images you grab on the net has some sort of patch applied to it in order to make it install and run on non-Apple hardware. The patches do not come with any reliability guanratee.
Furthermore, the "original image" was most likely grabbed by Disk Utility on OS X, which results in a.dmg file. A third party program on Windows is used to convert.dmg to an.iso before patches are applied, so you can burn the resulting image under Windows. This conversion is error prone, probably more so than the patches themselves. Some people have had to try it a few times before they get a good "checksum."
Sometimes the "original image" came from a developer snapshot (DTK) rather than an official release. A developer snapshot is inherently unstable.
Considering all the disadvantages I mentioned above, if you're using Mac OS X on a non-Apple computer, you should not use this experience against Mac OS X itself.
I thought "threaten" is a transitive verb: there is one person issuing the claim, another one receiving it, such that the claim has the nature that something harmful is going to be done on the receiving person. And I agree with the court in the sense that the intent of the claim nor the ability to carry out the claim are irrelevant.
Define "threat" to be the claim that is being used for threatening. If the court admits this definition, then unless Aaron explicitly shows the AIM icon to that poor English teacher, then by definition this isn't a threat. This is simply because he hadn't delivered the claim, so the claim is not a threat.
Be specific about what you're comparing. You said Company B is offshore, possibly in a jurisdiction where having child porn is legal. What about Company A? Do we assume that is inside the United States of America? You said Company A is an ISP, but what is the nature of Company B? Sorry, I don't understand the word "freakshow." I guess you imply that Company B is a content provider. If so, does Company B rely on Company A for its internet connection into the United States?
Be specific about why you're comparing them. Here you're (possibly) comparing a content provider with an ISP. That's like apples and oranges, so there is no reason why you're comparing apples and oranges. If you intend to compare two ISPs, one in the United States, and one offshore, then obviously these companies are subject to different laws. How does this relate to zero tolerance law? What point are you trying to refute here?
State your thesis. Are you saying it is morally wrong for Company B to amass a huge database of child porn, and morally correct for Company A?
Make sure what you're refuting is refutable. Here the newspaper article is reporting a fact, which is that ISP and content providers team up to maintain the database. Their motivation is to show cooperation with the government. A fact is irrefutable. Nobody is suggesting the moral correctness of these facts (though such suggestion could be refutable).
In addition, when you play devil's advocate, you should (1) completely agree to what you're trying to refute, (2) show the consequences, and (3) argue that the consequences are undesired and therefore a contradiction.
If you follow my instructions, then you will be a much better devil's advocate.
But why bother become a devil's advocate? I hear a lot of smart people say that, but is it a buzzword to imply that you are smarter than your opponent in an argument? If that's your only purpose, don't do it.
No, this article is not polling online to find out that people who surf the web has no close friends. The fact is that everyone has less number of close friends, whether you use the Internet or not.
This is actually a consequence of a myriad of reasons, one of which is closely related to the Internet: complete partial attention. We're constantly interrupted---by e-mail, IM, cellphones, blueberries, all those distractions---that we don't pay any attention to anyone at all. Because of this, people in general are not very good listeners anymore. This also contributes to the growing indifference towards other people.
There are other reasons why we're all gradually feeling indifferent. For example, we all think we're getting smarter. Information is more readily available, we're getting better education, science is giving us better technologies, etc. However, all this only makes us more selfish and egoistic. We no longer know how to tender other people's feelings.
In a way, your response reflected the indifference. Do you really think accusing friendless people of abusing the Internet really helps remedy the situation?
This is what actually appears on the second page of the review.
The Speakers
TH: The sound quality of the speakers is appalling. Again, I'm sorry to say, but my cheap Dell has better speakers. Seriously better speakers.
AS: I can't argue with you there. The speakers on the Macbook Pro suck. On top of that, the volume is way too quiet. Plus, even with normalized music files the speakers sometimes distort with maximum volume. That's not unacceptable, but for a computer aimed at excellence in audio processing, this is a shortcoming, plain and simple.
TH: However, don't forget that the machine does have the ability to connect to other audio equipment via digital (optical) means. So you can get good quality audio from the MacBook; you just need to hook it up to other equipment.
AS is the one suggesting that a computer aimed at audio processing (I take it to mean sound engineering) should have good internal speakers.
Space inside the box is the "padding," while space around (outside) the box is the "margin." Between "padding" and "margin," there is also a "border." I'm not sure if asking how the terminology is determined is very interesting.
Slashdot Mirror
anthemaniac writes:
The amount of time you transmit data over a network depends on round trip time and bandwidth product, which determines TCP window size that optimizes the send/ack of data packets. You also need to take collision into account.
The ganglion cells are probably more analogous to link transmitter. The measurement is on the amount of information generated by these cells per second. The proper conclusion is that you could probably use ethernet to connect the eyes and your brain, and the required bandwidth is supported.
If it were IPv6, they should give you a whole block (prefixlen 64) of IP addresses, not just one. A complementary DNS service (like a phone book) should also be available so you don't need elephant memory to remember all the digits of your IP addresses.
Maybe he decided to quit because he finally learned Lisp? That would make a pretty serious personal conflict.
Your closest alternatives are BSD license or MIT license. BSD and MIT license differs in that BSD has this advertising clause: "Neither the name of the nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission."
The curious thing is, Verizon, for example, allows you to get Business DSL at a residential address. Here you do pay $60-$70/mo. for a presumably better service. I'm okay with that as long as we're not stuck with $15 partial/biased Internet.
But I do wish that sometime in the future, all business DSL plans are bundled with at least one static IP address. If it were phone, nobody would accept dynamic phone numbers (it changes everytime you pick up the phone). Why would people put up with dynamic IP addresses? It looks like we're actually moving backwards from voice to data.
If having paying customers is not enough incentive to build the next generation networking infrastructure, I don't see what else is enough.
The only case where non-neutral Internet makes sense is to have ad-supported Internet, so that content providers pay for end user's Internet bills from advertising revenue. If this is the case, then you get what you didn't pay for. But I don't see this coming.
In the current model where end users do pay for their own Internet access, eliminating net neutrality actually poses risks to the ISP. If they happen to choose the wrong premium partner, they will lose customers. In fact, some people will be dissatisfied for every choices of partnership. Remaining neutral is probably the best way to make most people happy.
You should have known that Wikipedia is trying to present arguments from all sides. Some of the view points are indeed interesting, but there are still unsatisfied criticisms. In other words, the refutes are still incomplete.
If you will give me a telescope that let me see a U.S. flag hanging on the moon surface, that is worth more than a thousand words.
During any one of the many missions, they could have coordinated with observatories to see man's presence on the moon. This would eliminate any doubt we have today. Many people like you consider yourself skeptics, but you lack the ability to become skeptical to what you already believed.
Is calling names all you are capable of doing? Congratulations, now you can call me a conspiracy theorist. If any historical artifects of this mission are so important, why would they allow this to happen? And why are they closing down the only facility that can play back these tapes?
You are not a photographer worth your salt, because you do not know how to analyse light sources. These lights in question are obviously filler lights---not from reflection.
Your refutation to Part II is even more laughable. To get to 80% of orbit, that's not the technical difficulty. It is the last 20%, since you get out of Earth's natural magnetic shield. How would you suppose the thin walls of LEM can protect the astronauts from the constant bombardment of solar radiation? Let alone their space suit? They were badly exposed and should have died instantly.
Apparently you haven't watched this video. You have already made up your mind with pre-existing opinion so you will never accept anything that contradicts with what you believe.
I know I'm going to make myself unpopular, but bringing this to more awareness could help me clarify some of *my* misunderstandings too, so I rather do this now than regret later.
The hypothesis is that man never landed on moon, and everything in the Apollo missing was staged on earth. The facts are presented in this video "What Happened on the Moon." There are two parts to this video.
Part I: this part focuses on analysing NASA publicly released videos and photographs for fakeness. If the light shown in the scenes are lit only by sunlight, then all shadows should be parallel since the sun is so far away, that its rays are focused at infinity. Furthermore, moon does not have an atmosphere to diffuse ambient light, so shadow areas should be completely dark. The film is also constantly bombarded by solar wind and cosmic rays, so it would be badly exposed.
None of the above mentioned phenomenon are observed with publicly released photographs. Rather, contradicting observations are found, namely non-parallel shadows, well-lit shades, and studio quality exposed pictures. You can look at official NASA images and videos on your on and decide for yourself.
Part II: this part analyses rocket technology and radioactive shielding technology in the 1960's and concludes that these technologies are insufficient to actually bring human on the moon. Basically, they glued a German V-2 rocket to a space pod and claim that's what brought man to the moon.
As you can see, my summary is more detailed for Part I than Part II because I have some knowledge and interest in photography, and I do not have much to say about rockets and radioactive shielding.
I suppose they could just have installed dial locks with the combination written in the front. I presume bears don't read numbers. Even if they do, their paws wouldn't let them get a good grip to open the lock.
I know the article is a joke, but I could tell that from just looking at the picture. If he really cooked an egg on his MacBook, he would need a bigger foil, otherwise the moment you crush the egg, it would spread and stain the uncovered parts of the laptop. The foil is too small to cover the spread of one egg. Thus, it is apparent from the picture that the egg was cooked before it is placed on the foil.
In Terminal.app, you can create file names with colon, but such character is mapped to a forward slash when seen in Finder. On the other hand, you can use forward slash in Finder, and it is mapped to a colon in the command line.
Historically, Mac OSes use colon to separate folder names in a path.
There is a subtle restriction in HFS+. All files in HFS+ have their names in normalized unicode, and in order to normalize in the first place, file names must be in valid UTF-8 encoding. You cannot use random character string for file names.
There is no such restriction for UFS on Mac OS X. I think UFS supports roughly the same characters as in BSD and Linux and any other Unices. If you're transferring files from Linux with names in a legacy encoding, you can create a UFS disk image and convert file names to UTF-8 before copying them to HFS+.
I'm currently running Mac OS X on a powerbook G4. Like Jthon, I've only had to reboot it for software updates. Last time I had a kernel panic was because I used a Kismet wireless driver that didn't like it when I unloaded the driver. After that, I never used Kismet. It was three years ago.
In other words, you believe there exists no birth rights. What people have been talking about, free speech, privacy, etc. are privileges.
In reality, you are right. Many people in different culture under different government never gained common rights in their lives, such as the right to travel and live wherever they want. In some countries, children grow up routinely subject to abusive punishments. I'm sure you'd agree with me that abuse in the name of punitive correction is wrong. Do these children have the right to be treated better? What if nobody ever gives them the right of better treatment? At some point, one has to decide whether certain rights should be inherent by birth instead of being later granted by someone or some institution. If you do not have any birth rights, you would easily fall victim to the agenda of certain individuals and institutions.
But none of these are the issue.
The issue is the great hypocrisy that you've been told you have certain rights, but you can't actually exercise them. Then what good are they? We should stop harrassing another government for violating human rights, but take a look at our own government. Can we really use the rights they claim we have?
One day, the government is going to stop granting you the rights, and you will okay it because you never used it since you're a child.
It is fortunate that you and your friends feel strongly about an issue that is in disagreement with the government. As a result, you get to research the law and know your rights.
Even so, I'm not saying people are unaware of their rights. I know some of them, and I'm sure many people do much better than I. However, if you've never learned how to use these rights, you will not used them when situation arises.
There is a difference between knowing your rights and exercising your rights. It's like, if you read about martial arts or saw it on TV but never practiced it, how would you suddenly know kung-fu when a thug shows up and tries to beat you up? You can read the constitution however many times you want, but if you don't practice, you won't be able to apply your rights. Worse yet, the school has been telling you "these rights don't apply" since you're a child.
I worry that kids who grow up without knowing their constitutional rights will not ever learn to exercise them later in their lives. Unfortunately, taking a civil studies class doesn't help because the rights being taught in class hardly relates to the student's real-life experience.
If you have been habitually giving up your rights since childhood, you will not hesitate to do so again when you're an adult.
That is how I grew up. I can tell you, if I were stopped and interrogated by a police officer, I would let him search all over me, inspect my identification, all without a second thought. If the police showed up at my door, I would invite them in and let them look at all my personal belongings. That is because I was taught that if you didn't do anything wrong, then you should not be afraid to be searched. But searching without evidence of a crime is wrong.
I never learned about any of these until I saw this video: How to avoid being arrested by cops. Anyone should watch this.
Maybe I'm reading between the lines, but you didn't say you're switching to a Mac. Instead, you said your Windows machine gave up, and you switched to Mac OS X.
.dmg file. A third party program on Windows is used to convert .dmg to an .iso before patches are applied, so you can burn the resulting image under Windows. This conversion is error prone, probably more so than the patches themselves. Some people have had to try it a few times before they get a good "checksum."
If you're using Mac OS X on a PC, you need to know that most (illegal) images you grab on the net has some sort of patch applied to it in order to make it install and run on non-Apple hardware. The patches do not come with any reliability guanratee.
Furthermore, the "original image" was most likely grabbed by Disk Utility on OS X, which results in a
Sometimes the "original image" came from a developer snapshot (DTK) rather than an official release. A developer snapshot is inherently unstable.
Considering all the disadvantages I mentioned above, if you're using Mac OS X on a non-Apple computer, you should not use this experience against Mac OS X itself.
Am I the only one who simply didn't know anything about this? I never saw links posted to any forums and blogs...
I thought "threaten" is a transitive verb: there is one person issuing the claim, another one receiving it, such that the claim has the nature that something harmful is going to be done on the receiving person. And I agree with the court in the sense that the intent of the claim nor the ability to carry out the claim are irrelevant.
Define "threat" to be the claim that is being used for threatening. If the court admits this definition, then unless Aaron explicitly shows the AIM icon to that poor English teacher, then by definition this isn't a threat. This is simply because he hadn't delivered the claim, so the claim is not a threat.
You cannot plan something by thinking about it? If thinking is not a crime, why would planning be a crime?
David Bowie
If you want to play devil's advocate...
In addition, when you play devil's advocate, you should (1) completely agree to what you're trying to refute, (2) show the consequences, and (3) argue that the consequences are undesired and therefore a contradiction.
If you follow my instructions, then you will be a much better devil's advocate.
But why bother become a devil's advocate? I hear a lot of smart people say that, but is it a buzzword to imply that you are smarter than your opponent in an argument? If that's your only purpose, don't do it.
No, this article is not polling online to find out that people who surf the web has no close friends. The fact is that everyone has less number of close friends, whether you use the Internet or not.
This is actually a consequence of a myriad of reasons, one of which is closely related to the Internet: complete partial attention. We're constantly interrupted---by e-mail, IM, cellphones, blueberries, all those distractions---that we don't pay any attention to anyone at all. Because of this, people in general are not very good listeners anymore. This also contributes to the growing indifference towards other people.
There are other reasons why we're all gradually feeling indifferent. For example, we all think we're getting smarter. Information is more readily available, we're getting better education, science is giving us better technologies, etc. However, all this only makes us more selfish and egoistic. We no longer know how to tender other people's feelings.
In a way, your response reflected the indifference. Do you really think accusing friendless people of abusing the Internet really helps remedy the situation?
This is what actually appears on the second page of the review.
AS is the one suggesting that a computer aimed at audio processing (I take it to mean sound engineering) should have good internal speakers.
Space inside the box is the "padding," while space around (outside) the box is the "margin." Between "padding" and "margin," there is also a "border." I'm not sure if asking how the terminology is determined is very interesting.