Actually if you apply too much voltage to the gate of CMOS transistor you can exceed the breakdown voltage of the gate oxide which, as I recall, scales with oxide thickness which itself scale inversely with process node. So actually "overvolting" can be a problem for the transistors, although I admit I don't know if electromigration or oxide breakdown dominates as a failure mechanism given the minor voltage changes we are talking about here.
Last time I flew with guns (after 9/11), I couldn't fly with ammunition, and I was specifically required NOT to lock my gun case which was only made more odd when I got to SFO (from Reagan/National in DC) and my gun case, which actually looks like a gun case, was out on the floor of the baggage area with no one watching it and no one to check my baggage claim.
Having lived in Europe let me assure you that Europeans also make unjustified jabs at Americans, sumg in the realization that they must surely be superior. These jabs get old no less quickly in Europe.
So if I combine this technology with what I learned in a previous Slashdot article on insider trading, I might conclude that it could be very profitable to go around Wall Street listening in on cell phone calls and trading on that information would not be a crime?
No, I am saying it makes sense to interpret the Second Amendment as it clearly was written, and not to try to pretend that hunting has anything to do with it, or that some how population density determines when and where Constitutional rights apply. Look, if you think that the right to keep and bear arms doesn't make sense in our times or in urban cities, fine. You have a perfect right to believe that, it might even be a rational position to have. What isn't OK is to decided that we will just ignore constitutional rights because we don't like them. If you don't like it, change it. We did that with the 18th and we can do it with the 2nd. Are you going to be happy when we use the same reasoning to tell people that the inner cities are so crime ridden that we really can't afford freedom from unreasonable searches or arrests? How about when we decide that we can't afford to have freedom of religion because the friction it creates is just unworkable?
Yes, but weren't private citizens allowed to have ships with cannons? Isn't that what a privateer was? And letters of Marquis? And since I am typing, is anyone else tired of people claiming that you don't need an assault weapon to protect your home? Who cares, that isn't what the Second Amendment is clearly about. Look, I think it's a dangerous argument; either the Second Amendment means what it reads or it does, but we chose to ignore it. The former may be uncomfortable but the later means that none of the other amendments mean what they say either. On the other hand in an age where interstate commerce includes privately grown food, never sold to anyone. Holding citizens for a year without charges. Laws making it illegal to advocate for or against a political candidate in certain circumstances, and whole sale spying on domestic communications. You know you're right, I don't know what I was thinking I guess it's OK if we ignore the Second Amendment too, I mean what's it matter if we ignore one more?
I can understand people who argue we don't need assault weapons or even guns of any kind. However, what I can't put up with is the implication we should just ignore the constitution because it's inconvenient or out dated. If you don't like the Second Amendment, fine go get it repealed like we did the 18th.
While this might be true of the abstract view of a transformer, it need not be true. There are all sorts of transformer configurations, and you can have both both the primary and the secondary share a common node. In which case you could end up being a return path.
Actually I did just the other day to replace my hard drive, and I would in no way call it "easy" there were no less than 14 screws of the smallest phillips head variety I have ever seen not to mention the torx screws. Not at all easy. Want to replace the hard drive on my work IBM laptop? One, count that *ONE* frick screw and it was fairly normal sized at that. Apple makes great gear and I love my MBP but easy to disassembled? I don't think so.
So if I burn a cross on a black persons front lawn even though I am a black person and presumably I hate you, not your race, I deserve less punishment than a white person?
Suppose you as a black man burn a cross on my lawn, and I as a white person (not that it matters) couldn't care less cause I am secure in who I am and I don't care who hates me. Does that mean you deserve no punishment?
If I am a white person and I burn a cross on a black persons front lawn to protest the absurdity of thought crimes I deserve less punishment than if I yell up and down the street I hate black people and then light it up?
Are their gradations of hate? I mean what if I hate you more than those annoying Jehovahs Witnesses but less than Muslim fundamentalists?
It might be wrong to hate, and we should bring down societal ire and shame on many kinds, but it is your right to do so. It is even your right to tell people you do and why. It doesn't matter if the object is a person or a group. As long as it is your right to hate, we shouldn't punish you for doing it just because you happen to commit a crime.
Finally, you say that word indisputable but I do not think it means what you think it means.
When you say "Criminals should be punished commensurate with the severity of the harm they've caused their victims. Clearly that's an indisputable goal of the justice system." I dispute that notion; I think the goal of the legal system (we don't have a justice system) is to try to minimize crime. I believe punishment should serve to act as a deterrent. An eye for an eye punishment doesn't make us an enlightened society.
Can I infer that you support the death penalty if you believe that "Criminals should be punished commensurate with the severity of the harm they've caused their victims."
Actually I think if you don't configure a network connection at the time of the install, then it doesn't send it out and bugs you later. Turns out the registration info is simply placed in a file on the disk which you can easily remove or rename to avoid this. It's not dead simple, but it's so easy for the average person to avoid it's not really worth complaining.
AT&T may back down, but as I see it this is still a problem for MicroSoft. Doesn't the principle of Judicial Estopple prevent MicroSoft from ever arguing that software patents are valid having argued just the opposite once in court even if that case was settled without judgement?
Let's not forget that should you find it and keep it, you will be charged with theft. The law will not see this as your property. If you find it and destroy it you will be charged with destruction of property and made to compensate the state for its (inflated) value. If you find it and simply passively disable it without removing or damaging it, you will be charged with obstruction of justice or interfering in an investigation.
I am not a libertarian and not blindly devoted to their principles, but I can't let this pass without responding. Sure I do believe that "liberty includes the right to enter into a contract, including the contract by which you gain the right to govern others in exchange for agreeing to live by the regulations you and others like you make together." However, being a contract there were terms that were suppose to apply to both parties. I was going to live by the rules that I and others made, but we agreed not to allow rules that prevented me from keeping and bearing arms, speaking freely, and being free from unreasonable searches and arrest except on probable cause. We agreed that I would have the right to a fair and speedy public trial with the right to see and challenge all evidence against me and compell testomony in my defense. And don't even get me started on the interstate commerce clauses and the 10th ammendment. If the government won't live up to it's end of the contract it can hardly expect me abide by mine let alone whine because I point out their shortcommings.
Hear hear, the same goes for people that want to sell you "Internet Service" which doesn't allow you to run servers or use port 25. If you are blocking or deprioritizing ports or telling me what data I can send and recieve you aren't an internet service provider. You are provding some sort of kiddie pool. Which is fine, just don't engage in fraud and tell me you are an ISP.
Sadly the Xilinx FPGA simulate/synthesize/place/route tools don't run on OSX but thats my prefered work environment. I would love to cary around one laptop where I could do my OSX coding and run my windows FPGA and CAD tools
Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too!
on
Going To Boot Camp
·
· Score: 1
Sadly the Xilinx FPGA simulate/synthesize/place/route tools don't run on OSX but thats my prefered work environment. I would love to cary around one laptop where I could do my OSX coding and run my windows FPGA and CAD tools
Where did your 12 year old get money from? If you gave your 12 money and don't supervise how he or she spends it why are you blaming others? You know this content is out there and that given money your child is able to purchase these games. So I have to ask why you are giving your child money or why you aren't supervising him or her when they spend it.
I have no problem if you want to have children, and I am delight to act as part of a village to help you raise them, but that is my choice not my responsibility. If you decide to have children then their supervision is nobodies responsibility but your own.
Either you trust your child not to purchase content that is inapropriate or you don't allow your children to do so. It is not acceptable to complain or try and make other people take on your responsibility
I agree with what you are saying, but you need to look farther. The purpose of copyright is to enrich the public. To accomplish this, the copyright monopoly was created to encourage authors to create works. Copy "rights" are not inherent rights they are created as a necessary evil to accomplish the goal of enriching the public. For books they work fine. I mean everything you need to reprint or make derivative works is right there. However, for software the really valuable thing isn't the binary, but the source code. I think that in order for software to recieve copyright, the term should be much smaller say 5-10 years, and the source code should have to be filed at the copyright office. I mean otherwise where is the value to the public 75 years from now when dos 5.0 finally becomes public domain, I mean we won't even have machines that can run it.
I don't know from what country you hail, and so this may not apply to you. However, in America you are not afforded righs. Your rights existed before there was goverment, and in fact are constrained by government. There is a social contract, but your post implies that government *gives* you rights. When in fact that is not the case. I make the effort to correct you becuase a post like that is dangerous becuase it leads to the natural but false impression that your rights can be taken by government. After all what government gives it can cease to give. You give up some of your rights in order for goverment to exist. Government doesn't give you anything, it only takes.
Yes it is small, but this is the proverbial warning shot over the bow, this lets the industry know that the FCC has taken a position, (where previously they hadn't) and that they are serious and will give out fines. This company wasn't particularly damaged due to the size of the fine for doing something they didn't know was wrong. Now everybody knows where they stand and the next infraction can (who know if it will) be a bigger fine.
This is exactly how the system should work. If the FCC had previously made it clear to the industry where they stand I would have supported a larger fine.
Sure fine, but sue them for fraud, you are presumeable offering internet access, and you aren't providing it. Instead you are providing web browsing or port 80 access, but if you are blocking my ports, you aren't providing internet access.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually if you apply too much voltage to the gate of CMOS transistor you can exceed the breakdown voltage of the gate oxide which, as I recall, scales with oxide thickness which itself scale inversely with process node. So actually "overvolting" can be a problem for the transistors, although I admit I don't know if electromigration or oxide breakdown dominates as a failure mechanism given the minor voltage changes we are talking about here.
Last time I flew with guns (after 9/11), I couldn't fly with ammunition, and I was specifically required NOT to lock my gun case which was only made more odd when I got to SFO (from Reagan/National in DC) and my gun case, which actually looks like a gun case, was out on the floor of the baggage area with no one watching it and no one to check my baggage claim.
Having lived in Europe let me assure you that Europeans also make unjustified jabs at Americans, sumg in the realization that they must surely be superior. These jabs get old no less quickly in Europe.
So if I combine this technology with what I learned in a previous Slashdot article on insider trading, I might conclude that it could be very profitable to go around Wall Street listening in on cell phone calls and trading on that information would not be a crime?
You've obviously never been subjected to a Motorola KRZR.
No, I am saying it makes sense to interpret the Second Amendment as it clearly was written, and not to try to pretend that hunting has anything to do with it, or that some how population density determines when and where Constitutional rights apply. Look, if you think that the right to keep and bear arms doesn't make sense in our times or in urban cities, fine. You have a perfect right to believe that, it might even be a rational position to have. What isn't OK is to decided that we will just ignore constitutional rights because we don't like them. If you don't like it, change it. We did that with the 18th and we can do it with the 2nd. Are you going to be happy when we use the same reasoning to tell people that the inner cities are so crime ridden that we really can't afford freedom from unreasonable searches or arrests? How about when we decide that we can't afford to have freedom of religion because the friction it creates is just unworkable?
Yes, but weren't private citizens allowed to have ships with cannons? Isn't that what a privateer was? And letters of Marquis? And since I am typing, is anyone else tired of people claiming that you don't need an assault weapon to protect your home? Who cares, that isn't what the Second Amendment is clearly about. Look, I think it's a dangerous argument; either the Second Amendment means what it reads or it does, but we chose to ignore it. The former may be uncomfortable but the later means that none of the other amendments mean what they say either. On the other hand in an age where interstate commerce includes privately grown food, never sold to anyone. Holding citizens for a year without charges. Laws making it illegal to advocate for or against a political candidate in certain circumstances, and whole sale spying on domestic communications. You know you're right, I don't know what I was thinking I guess it's OK if we ignore the Second Amendment too, I mean what's it matter if we ignore one more?
I can understand people who argue we don't need assault weapons or even guns of any kind. However, what I can't put up with is the implication we should just ignore the constitution because it's inconvenient or out dated. If you don't like the Second Amendment, fine go get it repealed like we did the 18th.
While this might be true of the abstract view of a transformer, it need not be true. There are all sorts of transformer configurations, and you can have both both the primary and the secondary share a common node. In which case you could end up being a return path.
Actually I did just the other day to replace my hard drive, and I would in no way call it "easy" there were no less than 14 screws of the smallest phillips head variety I have ever seen not to mention the torx screws. Not at all easy. Want to replace the hard drive on my work IBM laptop? One, count that *ONE* frick screw and it was fairly normal sized at that. Apple makes great gear and I love my MBP but easy to disassembled? I don't think so.
So if I burn a cross on a black persons front lawn even though I am a black person and presumably I hate you, not your race, I deserve less punishment than a white person?
Suppose you as a black man burn a cross on my lawn, and I as a white person (not that it matters) couldn't care less cause I am secure in who I am and I don't care who hates me. Does that mean you deserve no punishment?
If I am a white person and I burn a cross on a black persons front lawn to protest the absurdity of thought crimes I deserve less punishment than if I yell up and down the street I hate black people and then light it up?
Are their gradations of hate? I mean what if I hate you more than those annoying Jehovahs Witnesses but less than Muslim fundamentalists?
It might be wrong to hate, and we should bring down societal ire and shame on many kinds, but it is your right to do so. It is even your right to tell people you do and why. It doesn't matter if the object is a person or a group. As long as it is your right to hate, we shouldn't punish you for doing it just because you happen to commit a crime.
Finally, you say that word indisputable but I do not think it means what you think it means.
When you say "Criminals should be punished commensurate with the severity of the harm they've caused their victims. Clearly that's an indisputable goal of the justice system." I dispute that notion; I think the goal of the legal system (we don't have a justice system) is to try to minimize crime. I believe punishment should serve to act as a deterrent. An eye for an eye punishment doesn't make us an enlightened society.
Can I infer that you support the death penalty if you believe that "Criminals should be punished commensurate with the severity of the harm they've caused their victims."
Actually I think if you don't configure a network connection at the time of the install, then it doesn't send it out and bugs you later. Turns out the registration info is simply placed in a file on the disk which you can easily remove or rename to avoid this. It's not dead simple, but it's so easy for the average person to avoid it's not really worth complaining.
AT&T may back down, but as I see it this is still a problem for MicroSoft. Doesn't the principle of Judicial Estopple prevent MicroSoft from ever arguing that software patents are valid having argued just the opposite once in court even if that case was settled without judgement?
Let's not forget that should you find it and keep it, you will be charged with theft. The law will not see this as your property. If you find it and destroy it you will be charged with destruction of property and made to compensate the state for its (inflated) value. If you find it and simply passively disable it without removing or damaging it, you will be charged with obstruction of justice or interfering in an investigation.
I am not a libertarian and not blindly devoted to their principles, but I can't let this pass without responding. Sure I do believe that "liberty includes the right to enter into a contract, including the contract by which you gain the right to govern others in exchange for agreeing to live by the regulations you and others like you make together." However, being a contract there were terms that were suppose to apply to both parties. I was going to live by the rules that I and others made, but we agreed not to allow rules that prevented me from keeping and bearing arms, speaking freely, and being free from unreasonable searches and arrest except on probable cause. We agreed that I would have the right to a fair and speedy public trial with the right to see and challenge all evidence against me and compell testomony in my defense. And don't even get me started on the interstate commerce clauses and the 10th ammendment. If the government won't live up to it's end of the contract it can hardly expect me abide by mine let alone whine because I point out their shortcommings.
Hear hear, the same goes for people that want to sell you "Internet Service" which doesn't allow you to run servers or use port 25. If you are blocking or deprioritizing ports or telling me what data I can send and recieve you aren't an internet service provider. You are provding some sort of kiddie pool. Which is fine, just don't engage in fraud and tell me you are an ISP.
Sadly the Xilinx FPGA simulate/synthesize/place/route tools don't run on OSX but thats my prefered work environment. I would love to cary around one laptop where I could do my OSX coding and run my windows FPGA and CAD tools
Sadly the Xilinx FPGA simulate/synthesize/place/route tools don't run on OSX but thats my prefered work environment. I would love to cary around one laptop where I could do my OSX coding and run my windows FPGA and CAD tools
Where did your 12 year old get money from? If you gave your 12 money and don't supervise how he or she spends it why are you blaming others? You know this content is out there and that given money your child is able to purchase these games. So I have to ask why you are giving your child money or why you aren't supervising him or her when they spend it.
I have no problem if you want to have children, and I am delight to act as part of a village to help you raise them, but that is my choice not my responsibility. If you decide to have children then their supervision is nobodies responsibility but your own.
Either you trust your child not to purchase content that is inapropriate or you don't allow your children to do so. It is not acceptable to complain or try and make other people take on your responsibility
Amen! Albert Einstein should never have been permitted to submit anything, I mean look at what a mess he made!
I have been really really happy with my ReplayTV and it's automatic commercial skip. Not sure that model is still available.
I agree with what you are saying, but you need to look farther. The purpose of copyright is to enrich the public. To accomplish this, the copyright monopoly was created to encourage authors to create works. Copy "rights" are not inherent rights they are created as a necessary evil to accomplish the goal of enriching the public. For books they work fine. I mean everything you need to reprint or make derivative works is right there. However, for software the really valuable thing isn't the binary, but the source code. I think that in order for software to recieve copyright, the term should be much smaller say 5-10 years, and the source code should have to be filed at the copyright office. I mean otherwise where is the value to the public 75 years from now when dos 5.0 finally becomes public domain, I mean we won't even have machines that can run it.
I don't know from what country you hail, and so this may not apply to you. However, in America you are not afforded righs. Your rights existed before there was goverment, and in fact are constrained by government. There is a social contract, but your post implies that government *gives* you rights. When in fact that is not the case. I make the effort to correct you becuase a post like that is dangerous becuase it leads to the natural but false impression that your rights can be taken by government. After all what government gives it can cease to give. You give up some of your rights in order for goverment to exist. Government doesn't give you anything, it only takes.
Yes it is small, but this is the proverbial warning shot over the bow, this lets the industry know that the FCC has taken a position, (where previously they hadn't) and that they are serious and will give out fines. This company wasn't particularly damaged due to the size of the fine for doing something they didn't know was wrong. Now everybody knows where they stand and the next infraction can (who know if it will) be a bigger fine.
This is exactly how the system should work. If the FCC had previously made it clear to the industry where they stand I would have supported a larger fine.
Sure fine, but sue them for fraud, you are presumeable offering internet access, and you aren't providing it. Instead you are providing web browsing or port 80 access, but if you are blocking my ports, you aren't providing internet access.
You,ve obviously never looked closely at your ticket costs. Somewhere in there is usually an airport tax, ie the airport is charging you for it use.