Want your young kids to be comfortable switching them on and off while you are working on the garbage disposal?
Adults can accidentally kill other adults the same way if you don't post any warning signs on the circuit breaker that the particular circuit is being worked on. Why not focus on the correct safety instruction?
Or maybe people wouldn't mind their kids switching things off while your NAS is busy writing a file?
It's your fault that your NAS is not protected by UPS.
And then there is the actual possibility that a breaker carrying a big enough load could fail while being switched and there be an arc-flash that breaches the shell of the breaker?
In recent years there have been a number of reports of counterfeit circuit breakers out of China that made it into the distribution chain - for those that think it is impossible for a breaker to fail catastrophically while being switched under load...
These breakers will not be safe for adults either.
It's best that children not switch breakers on and off. Ada was right. You are wrong.
I wish she hadn't said that only grown ups are allowed to touch the circuit breaker box. For most part the circuit breakers are designed to be remarkably safe. Only don't use a hammer to pound on them or try to insert blades or paper clips into the gap lines. Maybe a word of caution is that if the circuit breaker has dangling wires, or if it shows signs of poor construction or tampering, then even grown ups probably shouldn't mess with it. All of that could take just a few more seconds to explain.
I am of the opinion that if you keep teaching children like they were children, they would never grow up. You have to teach them like adults. Of course some people would disagree and say that in order to communicate effectively, you must target an age group. I would say take the element that makes communicating to that age group effective, and use it to improve communication to other age groups also. In the end, the most effective communication methods to all age groups converge into one, and target audience age group becomes a non-issue.
Are hunting and target practice really the intended purposes of guns? Let me argue against it from the litmus test of scarcity. One way to consider scarcity is assuming the price is high. In face of scarcity, the intended purpose of the good is the use that extracts the most utility from it. For the test to work, let's also not consider people who collect the good with no intention to extract utility because there is no purpose without utility.
Suppose a gun costs $100,000 and each bullet $100 to make in today's currency. You are definitely not going to use it for target practice. Even using it for hunting is elusive. The only remaining use that extracts utility is when you use it as a weapon, either for the purpose of self-defense where the opportunity cost is to lose personal property if you don't use the weapon, or for aggression where the weapon serves to extract more utility wrongfully from other individuals.
Applying the same test to other items you mentioned, you will quickly see that your argument holds no water.
Radio controlled airplane that costs $100,000 each are still useful for exploration and surveying places that are hard to reach, or for rescue missions where the recovery of human lives outweighs the cost. You don't use it fly bombs into a building because there are cheaper ways to bomb, not to mention the bombing would destruct the plane. The target must worth the $100,000 if you were to do that and there are no cheaper alternatives.
If a kite costs $100,000, then you could still use it to carry a scientific instrument, for example weather observation. Reaching high places is also useful for surveillance purpose.
If an accordion costs $100,000, then your neighbor should better be a good accordionist, with the intended purpose to make more music using this prized accordion. Again, we do not consider collectors who do not intend to extract utility from the accordion.
Why am I using scarcity as a litmus test for intended purpose? That's because if a good is "free good" then you are free to use it for anything ridiculous. Using guns for target practice and hunting is a result that firearms have become so affordable that they are basically free goods, so you cannot argue that target practice and hunting are the intended purposes of guns.
You might also be interested to take a look at this interview with Bellesiles who did some research of historical gun ownership. He likened the cost of gun in the 18th century to buying a Lamborghini today, so my figure of $100,000 isn't actually too far fetched.
The two halves of the book are written from the perspective of two kinds of people. The first part is about people who are disobedient and actively practices acts of hatred and malice towards others. The second part is about obedient ones who share love with others. Both halves are about the same God, just different people.
How do you know definitely it's USPS losing your packages? A package from Germany to USPS exchanges hands with many parties: it first goes through a system of Universal Postal Union before it's handed to USPS, and has to clear customs before it leaves Germany and also before it enters the US. Germany to EU is regional delivery and goes through different routes.
He should publish some tracking information to back up his claim. At least the shipping information will show dates and locations of the packages where they get lost or delayed. The dates can be used to identify weather patterns and see if weather is a bias. The midwest and northeast has had some pretty rough winter this year.
A responsible person should be a lot more careful before attacking someone else, particularly if you already know that a person's religion is a very personal thing. He hasn't even shown that USPS workers are religious to begin with, and whether it's the religious ones or atheists ones losing the packages. Why shouldn't an atheist USPS worker embezzle the shoes? It's an amusing artifact for them to steal and it would have no value to religious ones. He jumps the gun and accuses the religious ones of losing atheist branded packages. That's irresponsibility.
He just makes a cleverly drawn poster and made you believe he put the effort to conduct a study. He's just trying to raise a controversy.
You ought to be more courteous by not calling someone who disagrees with you as ignorant. The fact you have not shown any counter-evidence makes you less knowledgeable then someone you call ignorant.
Many of the apparent benefits of marriage are dwarfed by the risk of breaking this contract. Let's say you manage to get $5,000 tax break each year in your 10 years of marriage. Then your partner divorces you and is granted $50,000 alimony. You're even. In reality it's not that simple because everyone has a different break even point, and some things are valued more than others. With a 50% divorce rate, marriage is an inherently risky partnership.
Only get married if you are feelingly particularly generous towards that person and will not mind doing this for the rest of your life even if that person turned out to be very different than the one you know. But I don't consider this something a homosexual couple should be envious about. You could certainly be generous towards someone you love and care without a piece of certification.
It is important to not confuse right with obligation. A right does not have to be exercised, and not exercising the right would not be illegal. If you suppose that marrying the opposite sex is a right, not marrying the opposite sex, including not marrying, would not be illegal. Same sex marriage would only be illegal if marrying the opposite sex is now an obligation. In that case, abstinence from marriage would become illegal as well.
If marrying the opposite sex is not an obligation, then the right itself is rather weak. Furthermore, marriage enters two people into a contract, and the breach of the contract (i.e. divorce) carries penalties (e.g. alimony). For that reason, more and more people choose to not exercise that right but instead choose cohabitation.
Therefore, it is quite clear that the spirit of the current law actually discourages opposite-sex marriage by enforcing all the legal obligations it entails, but grants same-sex marriage legal relief. I don't understand why homosexual couples rather want the law to become unfavorable to them by legalizing same-sex marriage.
The log does show that rated range remaining dropped at the 400 mile mark very sharply. I wonder what happened. Did Broder just park the car and leave it on overnight? The battery charge did drain quite a bit without making any distance. Since the log's x-axis is distance based, it doesn't show how fast the battery charge is used up while the car is not moving.
It is complicated. He might have begun as a user of CCleaner, then decided to write his own software because he recognized deficiencies in CCleaner. It's not in the lawyer's interest to know about his history of using CCleaner.
IANAL, but I might start by arguing that writing the winapp2.ini importer does not technically require breaking CCleaner's TOS, so Louise's claim that "having written an importer implies that TOS is broken" does not hold. This is preferable because the argument does not depend on how BleachBit is actually implemented, nor how the guy has interacted with CCleaner in the past. Failing that, I'd ask Louise to clarify (1) what are the legal justifications that the TOS should apply to BleachBit, and (2) exactly which terms of TOS that BleachBit allegedly violates (otherwise I'm not obligated to read their full TOS). And then counter-argue these two points.
Actually, you don't even need to turn off wifi. Just set your phone to not automatically join any public wifi.
Wireless clients, including the phone, compiles a list of access points you can join using the ESSID broadcast from the access point. In other words, the access points just dumbly advertise their presence and don't know who are looking until your device tries to join.
The website for Women's Aid linked to stories on the newspaper's website mentioning Women's Aid, as if the news stories are some form of endorsement. Maybe that's what the newspapers are charging for. It is not the same like Google or blogs bringing visitors to the newspaper.
Looks like Linus is on your side. You're in the shoes of Rafael, whose patch to fix certain kernel brokenness introduced by the maintainer got rejected and repeatedly ignored. In this case, Rafael tried to fix the problem where PulseAudio enters infinite loop because kernel returns non-POSIX compliant errno, and the patch was being rejected by Mauro, who is the maintainer for the media subsystem. The maintainer tried to justify ignoring bona-fide contributions from people like you, then got the Linus treatment. Your example exactly shows that, without the Linus attitude, Linux will simply stagnate because of the egos of the maintainers. Linus may not be politically correct, but he's trying to help get things done.
Contrary to the grandparents, I think this guy should go mainstream. Become a DVD retailer and try to get the box office hit DVDs as soon as they come out before the bigger guys get them. I think it's quite feasible because the big studios and online streaming services are always on a tug of war on the share of royalties. And make sure you advertise the hell out of it so everyone knows they can rent the movie before you can even stream it online or get it mailed to you on Netflix.
You can also beat Netflix with their cost model. Every time Netflix ships a DVD, it costs them postage. How much longer can Netflix ship cheaply when USPS starts reducing service and increasing prices to cover their financial black hole? Every time your customer picks up the DVD from your store, it's free for you, and marginally free for your customers if they're already on their way doing something. Netflix allows only at most 3 discs at a time. Give your customers 7 discs at a time plan. And promote the hell out of it too.
There is no way you can cater to a customer who considers downloading pirated movies as an option. You might as well sell them home theater projectors and expensive sound systems. Also going niche would not work at all. Torrents are much better at providing the long-tail niche movies.
I think option C would not be a bad choice. The system has worked and will continue to work until Bob leaves for any reason. The original poster already has an alternative. If he wants to, he can start using Google Docs today and benefit from the convenience of its search features immediately. He'll need to make some effort to sync with Bob's document system without Bob's help. This way, he and Bob can coexist. He will use Google Docs as a back up so that, if Bob's system collapses, the failover to Google Docs would be relatively simple.
This approach is "do nothing politically, but be prepared technically."
Option A has the problem that you invent more politics to solve a political problem. It will only get messier and worse. Option B is simply cruel. It just spells the lack of appreciation to Bob's hard work over the years, and the original poster would not have that option anyway, being just a new member.
Having seen this video on how to splice fiber optic cable, I couldn't agree with you more. Not to mention cutting and splicing the fiber is only a small part.
I think the cost of several $100k for one OC-192 POP near his house is still a bargain. If anything, that would add value to his property, and he could probably recoup part of that cost when he sells his house. However, trying to become an ISP would make you lose more money, so that would be a dumb idea.
Largest capacity 3.5" hard disk on market today is 4TB. It takes 4.6PB / 4TB = 4600TB / 4TB = 1150 hard disks to achieve this.
Suppose a rack is 48U, 19" wide and 42" deep. 1U is 1.75" height. This gives 67032 cubic inch. Each hard drive is allowed 67032 cubic inch / 1150 = 58 cubic inch.
A typical 3.5" hard drive is 4" x 1" x 5.75" = 23 cubic inch.
This does leave a comfortable amount of space for ventilation, wiring, and RAID controller. You basically build a whole rack full of hard drives.
But this is extremely impractical. You'll need a fast interconnect between other computing node racks and this storage rack because all storage access to raw data has to go through this pipe. On the other hand, if you basically keep it one or two hard drive per computing node, then raw data never needs to travel across the interconnect, and you get better locality as result.
And in this time and age, it's fairly trivial to do a full-text search in the bible for verses that mention both "stone" and "death" in close proximity, and then you can go ahead and read the full context. But if it makes Joce640k feel better that he knows the bible better than a full-text search engine, then so be it.
My apartment is in a high rise that has concrete walls between rooms, and 5GHz is already having issues penetrating that. The wavelength is about 6cm and the wall is double the thickness. It works great in the same room with the WiFi access point, but the one next to it suffers severe signal loss. I imagine the EHF band is strictly same-room only---even a thin sheet of glass would entirely block the milliliter wave---so being attenuated at 10db per kilometer by oxygen and water vapor at 60GHz isn't a great deal.
Leaving the Ecuadorian embassy and being extradited to Sweden in order to be tried for sex scandal ought to be forbidden as a means to combat political crime and terrorism committed in secret by established government.
Real life is crisper because of the dynamic range of the intensities of light. All the technical details of photography---ISO range, aperture, neutral density filter, etc.---are just clever ways to clamp down the dynamic range to get a reasonable approximation of real life. Even high dynamic range (HDR) photography is an approximation. It still has to be presented through a low dynamic range display. It just means HDR is using a different clamping function.
Consider that there are also people who are tetrachromatic who can see a color between red and green. Surely all computer and TV displays, being RGB, are always lacking a color for them. Imagine seeing the world through a broken display where one of the colors isn't working.
There are way too many responses for me to address individually, but since this is the highest modded post, I'll respond to this, hoping the others will find it.
I'm actually not asking you to believe in the Bible, and I have absolutely no interest in defending it. The whole point of the challenge is this: when you are presented a statement, you are making a decision to admit or reject the statement. The Bible is a collection of statements that you have to decide upon. However, when you make your decision, there is no way you have perfect knowledge about the truthfulness or falseness of the statements in the Bible. If you do, we would not be calling on who has the burden of proof here. Therefore, whatever decision you end up making is logically unsound. This is true for both believers and non-believers, and we are both equal.
This is the case for the bible, the stuff you read on the news, the stuff you read in science textbooks, and the stuff you read published as journal or conference papers. Mathematical papers are easier to ensure soundness in that regard since the problem definition is a closed logical system for which you have perfect knowledge. None of the other disciplines have that luxury. Whenever you read a paper in a prestigious journal, you're putting great faith into the authors, the peer reviewers, the editor, and the publisher. Unless you are an expert, it is not possible for you to find error. Even those who can spot errors do it assuming that the axioms introduced by the author are not deliberately false.
In conclusion, those people who call upon me for the burden of proof don't actually understand what a proof is, and have no reason to believe they're more intellectual than religious people.
These people who think they're wise and learned are actually pretty ignorant and close-minded. Even worse, they want others to be just like them, or to respect their position so they can keep enjoying the prestige. When Jesus came to challenge the Pharisees (who are the teachers and law-keepers among the Jews) about their inconsistent moral standard, the Pharisees hung Jesus on the cross through the hands of Pontius Pilate.
Never let a blind person lead another blind, lest both of them fall into a pit.
If you're against Christian teaching and you think you're an analytic thinker, I challenge you find out what's wrong about the content of the bible and find an convincing argument why people who believe in Christ are doing it in vein. If you want to show that the bible is made up, or its text is corrupt, I'm going to put you through scientific method process and axiomatic logic reasoning to establish your case.
Don't give more than what you're comfortably giving. Richard Stallman at least had a boiler room to live in, graciously provided by MIT, and there is always free food around MIT campus. He could afford to give away without a lot of material requirement in his lifestyle.
End users don't really care which open source license your software is, but businesses do. Businesses can't stand GPL and will ask for BSD-like licenses. An example to consider is that QT was licensed by Trolltech under GPL, so it let them keep the ability to make money from business partners if they wanted to.
I'd even go a step further and license your software under Affero GPL which requires software providing public network service that contain your software to give network users the access to source code as well. It's especially far-reaching since you said your software is a framework.
If you built an end product around the framework, you can open source the framework but keep the end product proprietary. Think of the difference between Apache Portable Runtime (APR) and the Apache httpd server itself. APR is a framework, but httpd is a product.
If you're really concerned about open sourcing as a moral decision, think about what drove Richard Stallman to open source in the first place. Instead of offering you a concrete suggestion here, you can look at the problem Stallman was facing, compare it with your situation, and see if you can offer another moral solution.
Under no circumstances I'd use the controlled obsolescence approach (old version open source, new version proprietary) or try to sabotage the open source version (intentionally withhold documentation, inadequate build system, etc.), as suggested by other Slashdot commenters. They hurt most the people who are the most capable to give back to you.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, but how's that relevant?
Adults can accidentally kill other adults the same way if you don't post any warning signs on the circuit breaker that the particular circuit is being worked on. Why not focus on the correct safety instruction?
It's your fault that your NAS is not protected by UPS.
These breakers will not be safe for adults either.
How childish of you to say that.
I wish she hadn't said that only grown ups are allowed to touch the circuit breaker box. For most part the circuit breakers are designed to be remarkably safe. Only don't use a hammer to pound on them or try to insert blades or paper clips into the gap lines. Maybe a word of caution is that if the circuit breaker has dangling wires, or if it shows signs of poor construction or tampering, then even grown ups probably shouldn't mess with it. All of that could take just a few more seconds to explain.
I am of the opinion that if you keep teaching children like they were children, they would never grow up. You have to teach them like adults. Of course some people would disagree and say that in order to communicate effectively, you must target an age group. I would say take the element that makes communicating to that age group effective, and use it to improve communication to other age groups also. In the end, the most effective communication methods to all age groups converge into one, and target audience age group becomes a non-issue.
Are hunting and target practice really the intended purposes of guns? Let me argue against it from the litmus test of scarcity. One way to consider scarcity is assuming the price is high. In face of scarcity, the intended purpose of the good is the use that extracts the most utility from it. For the test to work, let's also not consider people who collect the good with no intention to extract utility because there is no purpose without utility.
Suppose a gun costs $100,000 and each bullet $100 to make in today's currency. You are definitely not going to use it for target practice. Even using it for hunting is elusive. The only remaining use that extracts utility is when you use it as a weapon, either for the purpose of self-defense where the opportunity cost is to lose personal property if you don't use the weapon, or for aggression where the weapon serves to extract more utility wrongfully from other individuals.
Applying the same test to other items you mentioned, you will quickly see that your argument holds no water.
Radio controlled airplane that costs $100,000 each are still useful for exploration and surveying places that are hard to reach, or for rescue missions where the recovery of human lives outweighs the cost. You don't use it fly bombs into a building because there are cheaper ways to bomb, not to mention the bombing would destruct the plane. The target must worth the $100,000 if you were to do that and there are no cheaper alternatives.
If a kite costs $100,000, then you could still use it to carry a scientific instrument, for example weather observation. Reaching high places is also useful for surveillance purpose.
If an accordion costs $100,000, then your neighbor should better be a good accordionist, with the intended purpose to make more music using this prized accordion. Again, we do not consider collectors who do not intend to extract utility from the accordion.
Why am I using scarcity as a litmus test for intended purpose? That's because if a good is "free good" then you are free to use it for anything ridiculous. Using guns for target practice and hunting is a result that firearms have become so affordable that they are basically free goods, so you cannot argue that target practice and hunting are the intended purposes of guns.
You might also be interested to take a look at this interview with Bellesiles who did some research of historical gun ownership. He likened the cost of gun in the 18th century to buying a Lamborghini today, so my figure of $100,000 isn't actually too far fetched.
The two halves of the book are written from the perspective of two kinds of people. The first part is about people who are disobedient and actively practices acts of hatred and malice towards others. The second part is about obedient ones who share love with others. Both halves are about the same God, just different people.
How do you know definitely it's USPS losing your packages? A package from Germany to USPS exchanges hands with many parties: it first goes through a system of Universal Postal Union before it's handed to USPS, and has to clear customs before it leaves Germany and also before it enters the US. Germany to EU is regional delivery and goes through different routes.
He should publish some tracking information to back up his claim. At least the shipping information will show dates and locations of the packages where they get lost or delayed. The dates can be used to identify weather patterns and see if weather is a bias. The midwest and northeast has had some pretty rough winter this year.
A responsible person should be a lot more careful before attacking someone else, particularly if you already know that a person's religion is a very personal thing. He hasn't even shown that USPS workers are religious to begin with, and whether it's the religious ones or atheists ones losing the packages. Why shouldn't an atheist USPS worker embezzle the shoes? It's an amusing artifact for them to steal and it would have no value to religious ones. He jumps the gun and accuses the religious ones of losing atheist branded packages. That's irresponsibility.
He just makes a cleverly drawn poster and made you believe he put the effort to conduct a study. He's just trying to raise a controversy.
You ought to be more courteous by not calling someone who disagrees with you as ignorant. The fact you have not shown any counter-evidence makes you less knowledgeable then someone you call ignorant.
Many of the apparent benefits of marriage are dwarfed by the risk of breaking this contract. Let's say you manage to get $5,000 tax break each year in your 10 years of marriage. Then your partner divorces you and is granted $50,000 alimony. You're even. In reality it's not that simple because everyone has a different break even point, and some things are valued more than others. With a 50% divorce rate, marriage is an inherently risky partnership.
Only get married if you are feelingly particularly generous towards that person and will not mind doing this for the rest of your life even if that person turned out to be very different than the one you know. But I don't consider this something a homosexual couple should be envious about. You could certainly be generous towards someone you love and care without a piece of certification.
It is important to not confuse right with obligation. A right does not have to be exercised, and not exercising the right would not be illegal. If you suppose that marrying the opposite sex is a right, not marrying the opposite sex, including not marrying, would not be illegal. Same sex marriage would only be illegal if marrying the opposite sex is now an obligation. In that case, abstinence from marriage would become illegal as well.
If marrying the opposite sex is not an obligation, then the right itself is rather weak. Furthermore, marriage enters two people into a contract, and the breach of the contract (i.e. divorce) carries penalties (e.g. alimony). For that reason, more and more people choose to not exercise that right but instead choose cohabitation.
Therefore, it is quite clear that the spirit of the current law actually discourages opposite-sex marriage by enforcing all the legal obligations it entails, but grants same-sex marriage legal relief. I don't understand why homosexual couples rather want the law to become unfavorable to them by legalizing same-sex marriage.
The log does show that rated range remaining dropped at the 400 mile mark very sharply. I wonder what happened. Did Broder just park the car and leave it on overnight? The battery charge did drain quite a bit without making any distance. Since the log's x-axis is distance based, it doesn't show how fast the battery charge is used up while the car is not moving.
It is complicated. He might have begun as a user of CCleaner, then decided to write his own software because he recognized deficiencies in CCleaner. It's not in the lawyer's interest to know about his history of using CCleaner.
IANAL, but I might start by arguing that writing the winapp2.ini importer does not technically require breaking CCleaner's TOS, so Louise's claim that "having written an importer implies that TOS is broken" does not hold. This is preferable because the argument does not depend on how BleachBit is actually implemented, nor how the guy has interacted with CCleaner in the past. Failing that, I'd ask Louise to clarify (1) what are the legal justifications that the TOS should apply to BleachBit, and (2) exactly which terms of TOS that BleachBit allegedly violates (otherwise I'm not obligated to read their full TOS). And then counter-argue these two points.
Actually, you don't even need to turn off wifi. Just set your phone to not automatically join any public wifi. Wireless clients, including the phone, compiles a list of access points you can join using the ESSID broadcast from the access point. In other words, the access points just dumbly advertise their presence and don't know who are looking until your device tries to join.
The website for Women's Aid linked to stories on the newspaper's website mentioning Women's Aid, as if the news stories are some form of endorsement. Maybe that's what the newspapers are charging for. It is not the same like Google or blogs bringing visitors to the newspaper.
Looks like Linus is on your side. You're in the shoes of Rafael, whose patch to fix certain kernel brokenness introduced by the maintainer got rejected and repeatedly ignored. In this case, Rafael tried to fix the problem where PulseAudio enters infinite loop because kernel returns non-POSIX compliant errno, and the patch was being rejected by Mauro, who is the maintainer for the media subsystem. The maintainer tried to justify ignoring bona-fide contributions from people like you, then got the Linus treatment. Your example exactly shows that, without the Linus attitude, Linux will simply stagnate because of the egos of the maintainers. Linus may not be politically correct, but he's trying to help get things done.
Contrary to the grandparents, I think this guy should go mainstream. Become a DVD retailer and try to get the box office hit DVDs as soon as they come out before the bigger guys get them. I think it's quite feasible because the big studios and online streaming services are always on a tug of war on the share of royalties. And make sure you advertise the hell out of it so everyone knows they can rent the movie before you can even stream it online or get it mailed to you on Netflix.
You can also beat Netflix with their cost model. Every time Netflix ships a DVD, it costs them postage. How much longer can Netflix ship cheaply when USPS starts reducing service and increasing prices to cover their financial black hole? Every time your customer picks up the DVD from your store, it's free for you, and marginally free for your customers if they're already on their way doing something. Netflix allows only at most 3 discs at a time. Give your customers 7 discs at a time plan. And promote the hell out of it too.
There is no way you can cater to a customer who considers downloading pirated movies as an option. You might as well sell them home theater projectors and expensive sound systems. Also going niche would not work at all. Torrents are much better at providing the long-tail niche movies.
I think option C would not be a bad choice. The system has worked and will continue to work until Bob leaves for any reason. The original poster already has an alternative. If he wants to, he can start using Google Docs today and benefit from the convenience of its search features immediately. He'll need to make some effort to sync with Bob's document system without Bob's help. This way, he and Bob can coexist. He will use Google Docs as a back up so that, if Bob's system collapses, the failover to Google Docs would be relatively simple.
This approach is "do nothing politically, but be prepared technically."
Option A has the problem that you invent more politics to solve a political problem. It will only get messier and worse. Option B is simply cruel. It just spells the lack of appreciation to Bob's hard work over the years, and the original poster would not have that option anyway, being just a new member.
Having seen this video on how to splice fiber optic cable, I couldn't agree with you more. Not to mention cutting and splicing the fiber is only a small part.
I think the cost of several $100k for one OC-192 POP near his house is still a bargain. If anything, that would add value to his property, and he could probably recoup part of that cost when he sells his house. However, trying to become an ISP would make you lose more money, so that would be a dumb idea.
Let's do a little math here.
This does leave a comfortable amount of space for ventilation, wiring, and RAID controller. You basically build a whole rack full of hard drives.
But this is extremely impractical. You'll need a fast interconnect between other computing node racks and this storage rack because all storage access to raw data has to go through this pipe. On the other hand, if you basically keep it one or two hard drive per computing node, then raw data never needs to travel across the interconnect, and you get better locality as result.
And in this time and age, it's fairly trivial to do a full-text search in the bible for verses that mention both "stone" and "death" in close proximity, and then you can go ahead and read the full context. But if it makes Joce640k feel better that he knows the bible better than a full-text search engine, then so be it.
My apartment is in a high rise that has concrete walls between rooms, and 5GHz is already having issues penetrating that. The wavelength is about 6cm and the wall is double the thickness. It works great in the same room with the WiFi access point, but the one next to it suffers severe signal loss. I imagine the EHF band is strictly same-room only---even a thin sheet of glass would entirely block the milliliter wave---so being attenuated at 10db per kilometer by oxygen and water vapor at 60GHz isn't a great deal.
Leaving the Ecuadorian embassy and being extradited to Sweden in order to be tried for sex scandal ought to be forbidden as a means to combat political crime and terrorism committed in secret by established government.
Real life is crisper because of the dynamic range of the intensities of light. All the technical details of photography---ISO range, aperture, neutral density filter, etc.---are just clever ways to clamp down the dynamic range to get a reasonable approximation of real life. Even high dynamic range (HDR) photography is an approximation. It still has to be presented through a low dynamic range display. It just means HDR is using a different clamping function.
Consider that there are also people who are tetrachromatic who can see a color between red and green. Surely all computer and TV displays, being RGB, are always lacking a color for them. Imagine seeing the world through a broken display where one of the colors isn't working.
Could it be that Chrome prefetching is actually generating enough traffic to skew the result?
There are way too many responses for me to address individually, but since this is the highest modded post, I'll respond to this, hoping the others will find it.
I'm actually not asking you to believe in the Bible, and I have absolutely no interest in defending it. The whole point of the challenge is this: when you are presented a statement, you are making a decision to admit or reject the statement. The Bible is a collection of statements that you have to decide upon. However, when you make your decision, there is no way you have perfect knowledge about the truthfulness or falseness of the statements in the Bible. If you do, we would not be calling on who has the burden of proof here. Therefore, whatever decision you end up making is logically unsound. This is true for both believers and non-believers, and we are both equal.
This is the case for the bible, the stuff you read on the news, the stuff you read in science textbooks, and the stuff you read published as journal or conference papers. Mathematical papers are easier to ensure soundness in that regard since the problem definition is a closed logical system for which you have perfect knowledge. None of the other disciplines have that luxury. Whenever you read a paper in a prestigious journal, you're putting great faith into the authors, the peer reviewers, the editor, and the publisher. Unless you are an expert, it is not possible for you to find error. Even those who can spot errors do it assuming that the axioms introduced by the author are not deliberately false.
In conclusion, those people who call upon me for the burden of proof don't actually understand what a proof is, and have no reason to believe they're more intellectual than religious people.
These people who think they're wise and learned are actually pretty ignorant and close-minded. Even worse, they want others to be just like them, or to respect their position so they can keep enjoying the prestige. When Jesus came to challenge the Pharisees (who are the teachers and law-keepers among the Jews) about their inconsistent moral standard, the Pharisees hung Jesus on the cross through the hands of Pontius Pilate.
Never let a blind person lead another blind, lest both of them fall into a pit.
If you're against Christian teaching and you think you're an analytic thinker, I challenge you find out what's wrong about the content of the bible and find an convincing argument why people who believe in Christ are doing it in vein. If you want to show that the bible is made up, or its text is corrupt, I'm going to put you through scientific method process and axiomatic logic reasoning to establish your case.