And what, is that a lot? 9 gigs is not really all that much to download - or even to upload, it's just 2-3 days of upload for a highspeed user. And maybe 1/10 of that to download.
And that's for 25 hours (18 really) of video.
That's better then real time (assuming you watch a reasonable number of hours per day).
Most people don't even think there's anything wrong with it, given that it was ABC who uploaded it. (Via ATSC broadcast.)
The reason to get a DVD is for the extras, commentary, and nice box. Basically everything that was not uploaded to the airwaves by ABC.
I pronounce it ark-kansas. (Some new kind of Kansas? Like an ark-tangent?) People usually have no idea what I'm talking about. And when they say arkinsaw I in turn have no idea what state that is.
I was doing this in 1997. The patent is dated 1999. The product is called Eprise, but I havn't worked for them since 1997, so I have no idea what the product does now, or if it even exists.
There is no thechnical reason for this can't work - it's just totally and completely pointless.
As I wrote earlier, have you ever heard of caching? Including write-back caching?
Add a little cache to the computer and you have all the benefits of your scheme + more - since it caches whatever is most used rather then just the FAT.
Almost none? And anyway have you ever heard of caching? Not to mention that putting FAT on flash would wear it out very quickly. Flash has a very limited lifetime, and there is a whole complicated scheme that has to be used on flash to avoid earing out the section that holds the FAT.
On the other hand, the mechanism only works on idiots. If I were to buy a stolen laptop (not that I'm into that kind of thing anyway), I would of course wipe it clean, just as I do with any other new or used computer that gets into my hands...
Are you sure? If you got a laptop wouldn't you boot it just to see what's on it, and then wipe it clean? It's too late though - you booted it.
It might not be connected to the net, true. But A: it could have wireless, and B: even non idiots will possibly connect it just for a little while - I mean you have this nice new computer just waiting to be used, let's browse just a little. And only then wipe it clean.
I don't know what you are hearing, but in all of those Wav's he's clearly saying Q. Are you from europe? I wonder if accent makes a difference in how you hear it.
The anon who replied to you put it rather less delicately, but you are quite wrong.
The only reason they are starving in the first place is their government (which taxes them to death, and won't let them own, or even farm land, breaks up families so you have no continuity or training, etc). So it's hardly fair to apply evolutionary ideas to them.
You write that you are "fairly certain that we have reached or exceeded carrying capacity to maintain life while preserving ecological diversity and a minimal standard of living." However that is utter noncence, if you want to pull such statements from thin air you better back them up.
Just as a tiny example: how much food gets thrown away every day in the US? Additionally people eat far more then they really need to. So you can easily manage more people just using current stocks.
Not to mention that their is plenty of room for new growth. Are you aware that the US pays farmers not to grow certain crops because there is a surplus?
You are really underinformed regarding the planet. You might not know this, but it's quite big - regardless of how it might look, humans only occupy something like 1% of it. Although the impact is larger then 1%, my point is that there is plenty of space.
And let not even get started on declining birth rates which is a far greater threat then overpopulation ever could be.
Which brings about the question: Are there too many humans on Earth? If yes, why try saving more?
Nope, there is plenty of room on earth. There is plenty of food, and everything else.
The only reason some people are starving is oppressive governments. And some distribution issues, but those can be solved, what's harder is stopping governments like Zimbabwe's which would not permit the World Food Programme to distibute food to starving poor.
The DV video format is basically not compressed. It's designed for just one thing: very low CPU usage, so that the parts are cheap.
It has a bitrate of 25Mbps, compare that with MPEG4: less then 1Mbps. For the same quality video I might add. Even a DVD is 5Mbps, and that is MPEG2 - which also was designed for low CPU (and memory) usage. (MPEG4 if it's not obvious was designed for the best compression possible.)
There is no problem with editing, the only reason they don't use MPEG4 is CPU usage.
You are mixing up a chumash and a torah scroll. The added marking (called vowels, or diacritics) are never written in a torah scroll, only in a printed chumash.
The torah scroll is hand written and is unchanged from the original, the chumash is a printed book, and has lots of extras.
The vowels were known for thousands of years, and without them you can't even read the torah (since some words will seem alike). But they were never written down for most of that time, people memorized them.
Someone else mentioned this briefly, but I'll expand on it, Satan is very very different then the devil.
He's just an angel with no free will, who was ordered by God to test people and act as a prosecutor. However he has no ability to act on his own, and he isn't even "evil" in the christian sense of the word.
He has even been described as working under protest of sorts: i.e. he actually does not want the person to fail the test, it's just that he was ordered to test the person, and therefore he will do his best at it. Even if it's not what he really wants.
Poor guy in a way, he an angel like all the others, but because of his job everyone hates him and tries to avoid him. (I'm majorly personifying here.)
The fallen angels that someone else described are not satan, they were angels who told god during the time of Noah that they could do a better job of living in the world. So God dropped them down to earth to see how they do - and they did really really badly. They had no ability to control their impulses. The giants mentioned there are all descended from them.
Erm, the scrolls are usually owned by the community: AKA the synagoge.
No elite going on here.
The only individual who HAD to own one personally was the king, (he was required to take it with him everywhere he went to remind him of it's contents) and I think Kings have sort of a built in Elite status......
Perhaps this link would be useful. They are about 3 or 4 feet tall, in case there is no sense of scale from the photos.
BTW you can add a label to the wooden rods the scroll is wrapped on, just not to the scroll itself. But it's easy to remove the scroll from the rods, so it's not useful for ID.
To answer your question about the number of characters it's because Torash scrolls are exact to the letter, identical with those that Moses wrote thousands of years ago.
For a while there were carefully checked torahs that were compared with the originals and vetted as identical, then others copied, and double checked from those, etc.
The back tracing has been lost, but the torah scrolls are still identical.
As for a scroll vs. a printed book, the scroll is far more holy, since it was hand writen with the proper intent of making a holy scroll (if an athiest write a torah scroll it has no holyness at all). A printed book has the intent of the printing machine I suppose:) But they are useful as day to day books, and are still holy, just not the same.
It's like a paint (is a paint, it's written with a quill) - it must have a raised letter feel to it, and it must be black, but other then that there is no specific rule on what you make it from.
Just some traditions on what's been done so far.
Obviously it needs to be able to write clear sharp letters with no holes, or jagged edges.
Also it's important that it can be removed (by scraping with a razor usually) in case of an error.
Not really, Chrisitanity has the devil for example, Judasim doesn't belive he exits. After all how is it possible for there to be an evil force that is independent of God? Nothing can be independant of God.
Of course this whole consept caused major arguments inside Christianity who could not understand how a 'Good' God can create evil.
And your other arguments are weak: singular God? What about the trinity? Just about every religion has a concept of Sin (even if it's as weak as "it's better not to do this"), so it's hardly a comparision.
Afterlife? Again almost all religions have some concept of a soul, or some part of the spirit that lasts after death.
You have not mentioned anything that is similar between Judasim and Christianity that is not also found in most (or at least some) other religions.
Slashdot Mirror
The GP is a little mixed up. It's 1mm per DAY, not per year.
See http://www.teleemg.com/new/back_and_leg2.htm for one reference. (Second question on the page.)
Um, that's not true.
Raid-0 uses the redundancy for performance? Do you even know what raid-0 is?
Yes, there is a performance increase, but not even the slightest bit of redundancy.
Oh, and raid-1 has BETTER performance then raid-0.
And what, is that a lot? 9 gigs is not really all that much to download - or even to upload, it's just 2-3 days of upload for a highspeed user. And maybe 1/10 of that to download.
And that's for 25 hours (18 really) of video.
That's better then real time (assuming you watch a reasonable number of hours per day).
Most people don't even think there's anything wrong with it, given that it was ABC who uploaded it. (Via ATSC broadcast.)
The reason to get a DVD is for the extras, commentary, and nice box. Basically everything that was not uploaded to the airwaves by ABC.
I pronounce it ark-kansas. (Some new kind of Kansas? Like an ark-tangent?) People usually have no idea what I'm talking about. And when they say arkinsaw I in turn have no idea what state that is.
I learned most of my words from reading.
Here is a better article on the subject:0 4115304.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/0502
Prior art.
I was doing this in 1997. The patent is dated 1999. The product is called Eprise, but I havn't worked for them since 1997, so I have no idea what the product does now, or if it even exists.
The sco server I maintain doesn't even have tunefs, but online I found:. 1M.html
http://docsrv.sco.com/cgi-bin/man/man?tunefs+1M
http://ou800doc.caldera.com/en/man/html.1M/tunefs
I think sco doesn't use the filesystem in question anymore. (They use vxfs now.)
There is no thechnical reason for this can't work - it's just totally and completely pointless.
As I wrote earlier, have you ever heard of caching? Including write-back caching?
Add a little cache to the computer and you have all the benefits of your scheme + more - since it caches whatever is most used rather then just the FAT.
"what percentage of a drive is FAT?"
Almost none? And anyway have you ever heard of caching? Not to mention that putting FAT on flash would wear it out very quickly. Flash has a very limited lifetime, and there is a whole complicated scheme that has to be used on flash to avoid earing out the section that holds the FAT.
Are you sure? If you got a laptop wouldn't you boot it just to see what's on it, and then wipe it clean? It's too late though - you booted it.
It might not be connected to the net, true. But A: it could have wireless, and B: even non idiots will possibly connect it just for a little while - I mean you have this nice new computer just waiting to be used, let's browse just a little. And only then wipe it clean.
I don't know what you are hearing, but in all of those Wav's he's clearly saying Q. Are you from europe? I wonder if accent makes a difference in how you hear it.
(I'm from US.)
The anon who replied to you put it rather less delicately, but you are quite wrong.
The only reason they are starving in the first place is their government (which taxes them to death, and won't let them own, or even farm land, breaks up families so you have no continuity or training, etc). So it's hardly fair to apply evolutionary ideas to them.
You write that you are "fairly certain that we have reached or exceeded carrying capacity to maintain life while preserving ecological diversity and a minimal standard of living." However that is utter noncence, if you want to pull such statements from thin air you better back them up.
Just as a tiny example: how much food gets thrown away every day in the US? Additionally people eat far more then they really need to. So you can easily manage more people just using current stocks.
Not to mention that their is plenty of room for new growth. Are you aware that the US pays farmers not to grow certain crops because there is a surplus?
You are really underinformed regarding the planet. You might not know this, but it's quite big - regardless of how it might look, humans only occupy something like 1% of it. Although the impact is larger then 1%, my point is that there is plenty of space.
And let not even get started on declining birth rates which is a far greater threat then overpopulation ever could be.
The only reason some people are starving is oppressive governments. And some distribution issues, but those can be solved, what's harder is stopping governments like Zimbabwe's which would not permit the World Food Programme to distibute food to starving poor.
You should stop talking pages per minute, and instead mention words per minute.
A fast reader reads at 500 words per minute.
A glance at a nearby book shows about 10 words per line, and 40 lines per page. But this will of course vary by the book.
It has a bitrate of 25Mbps, compare that with MPEG4: less then 1Mbps. For the same quality video I might add. Even a DVD is 5Mbps, and that is MPEG2 - which also was designed for low CPU (and memory) usage. (MPEG4 if it's not obvious was designed for the best compression possible.)
There is no problem with editing, the only reason they don't use MPEG4 is CPU usage.
Useful little chart.
If a pro made that B/W photo he should be fired, cause that's a really poor photo.
Just because it's in B/W doesn't make it pro.
The color picture above it loks a lot better, but still not especially good.
Personally I don't see why you need to be a pro to take a good picture anyway.
Every time this comes up people mention the same idea - use two hashes for security!
What people don't realize is that MD5 _IS_ two hashes already! That's how it works!
To make it worse the hashes you mentioned MD5 and SHA-1 are based on exactly the same algorithm, so using it twice doesn't help you much.
You are mixing up a chumash and a torah scroll. The added marking (called vowels, or diacritics) are never written in a torah scroll, only in a printed chumash.
The torah scroll is hand written and is unchanged from the original, the chumash is a printed book, and has lots of extras.
The vowels were known for thousands of years, and without them you can't even read the torah (since some words will seem alike). But they were never written down for most of that time, people memorized them.
Someone else mentioned this briefly, but I'll expand on it, Satan is very very different then the devil.
He's just an angel with no free will, who was ordered by God to test people and act as a prosecutor. However he has no ability to act on his own, and he isn't even "evil" in the christian sense of the word.
He has even been described as working under protest of sorts: i.e. he actually does not want the person to fail the test, it's just that he was ordered to test the person, and therefore he will do his best at it. Even if it's not what he really wants.
Poor guy in a way, he an angel like all the others, but because of his job everyone hates him and tries to avoid him. (I'm majorly personifying here.)
The fallen angels that someone else described are not satan, they were angels who told god during the time of Noah that they could do a better job of living in the world. So God dropped them down to earth to see how they do - and they did really really badly. They had no ability to control their impulses. The giants mentioned there are all descended from them.
Erm, the scrolls are usually owned by the community: AKA the synagoge.
No elite going on here.
The only individual who HAD to own one personally was the king, (he was required to take it with him everywhere he went to remind him of it's contents) and I think Kings have sort of a built in Elite status......
Perhaps this link would be useful. They are about 3 or 4 feet tall, in case there is no sense of scale from the photos. BTW you can add a label to the wooden rods the scroll is wrapped on, just not to the scroll itself. But it's easy to remove the scroll from the rods, so it's not useful for ID.
To answer your question about the number of characters it's because Torash scrolls are exact to the letter, identical with those that Moses wrote thousands of years ago.
:) But they are useful as day to day books, and are still holy, just not the same.
For a while there were carefully checked torahs that were compared with the originals and vetted as identical, then others copied, and double checked from those, etc.
The back tracing has been lost, but the torah scrolls are still identical.
As for a scroll vs. a printed book, the scroll is far more holy, since it was hand writen with the proper intent of making a holy scroll (if an athiest write a torah scroll it has no holyness at all). A printed book has the intent of the printing machine I suppose
For the non-jews: "Gimme loot, chasidim!" Sounds just like the words "Gmiloot Chasadim" which means works of charity and kindness.
It's like a paint (is a paint, it's written with a quill) - it must have a raised letter feel to it, and it must be black, but other then that there is no specific rule on what you make it from.
Just some traditions on what's been done so far.
Obviously it needs to be able to write clear sharp letters with no holes, or jagged edges.
Also it's important that it can be removed (by scraping with a razor usually) in case of an error.
Not really, Chrisitanity has the devil for example, Judasim doesn't belive he exits. After all how is it possible for there to be an evil force that is independent of God? Nothing can be independant of God.
Of course this whole consept caused major arguments inside Christianity who could not understand how a 'Good' God can create evil.
And your other arguments are weak: singular God? What about the trinity? Just about every religion has a concept of Sin (even if it's as weak as "it's better not to do this"), so it's hardly a comparision.
Afterlife? Again almost all religions have some concept of a soul, or some part of the spirit that lasts after death.
You have not mentioned anything that is similar between Judasim and Christianity that is not also found in most (or at least some) other religions.