Someone probably forgot that one of the numbers was negative. I did that in my physics exam today, spent 5 minutes trying to work out why my sums were telling me the universe was shrinking.
Trillian 4 seems pretty sturdy, and the featureset matches most of the native clients. Sadly all but critical fixes for the 3.x series seem to have ceased in favour of v4 development, but on the plus side it looks to be set to re-affirm Trillian's place as 'the best' of the multi-IM clients.
It all falls back to the ongoing cost. Generally Macs are more robust and have a longer working lifecycle, so they cost less in long term maintenance per unit (And probably network support costs as well, but I've never tried supporting a Mac network so don't quote me on that. I hear OS X Server is nice though). Likewise Linux is a lot cheaper per unit to licence the software, but tends to incur higher support costs because decent Linux sysadmins don't come off the shelf like MCSAs.
Surely it's possible to read that teleported state change, given that if you couldn't then you can't prove that the state change was teleported at all and it's all a load of bollocks (Which wouldn't surprise me, given most physics). You must then be able to read that state as some form of data (Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not gonna go OMG IM RIGHT THE TREK MANUAL SAYS SO!).
Have two or more sets of entangled photons. Use one set to transmit the results of the measurement, use the other for the actual message. You can then communicate the result of the measurement (The bit which can't go faster than light in your comment) over a teleported state, and read the teleported data from the other set of photons.
IANAQP, so thanks for the more detailed explanation of why it won't work with a single photon, but what about using several?
Bang on - it makes instant communications over (theoretically) infinite distances possible without needing an increase in power consumption as distance increases.
The downside is you need quite a bit of complex gear on each end (at least at the moment) and photons don't exactly hang around for the longest of all the known particles (Yeah I know wave particle duality, but you know what I mean). And of course we don't know how quantum entanglement exactly works, so for all we know it might pack in after 500 miles.
For larger satellites and massive distances it is certainly an important development. Communications would become effectively instant and not subject to interference from other bits of the EM spectrum since you don't need to 'tune' into anything from the outside world, so things like spacecraft in the shadow of planets can communicate exactly as if they were in orbit around Earth, and straight above the transmitter to boot.
If I don't then things are much more likely to end up in contact with various bits of the toilet. This varies across the world because designs change, but the basic principle is it's not nice to either touch the ceramic (Who knows what else has been down it?) or the water.
Not to mention it's faster. And it's only less messy if you're a particularly poor aim.
That was never the argument. Following Pearl Harbor, the American armed forces did a lot of the work across the rest of the world purely because the British forces had to focus on western Europe to avoid being spread too thinly.
Fact of the matter is, the UK, USSR, AUS, an everyone else were the primary force against Hitler and the Japanese in the beginning of the war. All of Europe would have fallen to Hitler very quickly, and with the economic mass of the continent (Not something to be underestimated) the US would likely have been screwed before they could get their war machine into gear.
My physics says that resistance increases with heat, thus at higher temperatures you need a higher current to achieve the same voltage. Lower temp = lower resistance = lower current.
Unless it's part of a larger shot in which John Q. Citizen isn't the main object of focus. There's nothing to stop me walking around and taking photos of a city centre street for any reason unless I'm being a public nuisance or likely to cause a breach of the peace (Which is why things like tripods, large flash diffusers, colour filters up the wazoo etc are a bad idea in crowded urban spaces, as is refusing to stop taking photos of one guy because "It's my right to take photos of you!"
Just done one, and a laptop no less. Worked perfectly first time, even the network drivers and the 3D acceleration.
Last time I tried a Linux distro on it (Ubuntu 7.4, about 8 hours ago) it refused point blank to even get to a desktop, bottling out at trying to load X.
Because a.bank domain *must* belong to a financial institution, and enables the browser to prompt the user about this. Eventually the user will know something is wrong when they *aren't* told that they're viewing a bank's site.
There is already a way of consistently packaging. It's called Windows Installer, uses MSI files, and supports version dependancies, external package sources, prerequisites (including automatic installation of those) and most everything else various other package formats support.
But of course we can't use that because it's Microsoft and shipped with every Windows installation from XP upwards, so we need to reinvent the wheel.
The point isn't to make it expensive, it's to improve security. Financial institutions generally can do things like cough up $50,000, with a $5,000 per annum renewal charge, probably including an SSL cert. Petty phishing gangs can't, and even if they could then they would have to prove they were a registered financial institution.
No, but if your bank buys a.bank domain and browsers have implemented the.bank security features, then your bank can send out a lot of marketing stuff telling you "When you do online banking with us, your browser address bar will turn purple and have a 'security seal' on the right hand side. If this doesn't happen, you are not at our website and should never give your details!"
Put enough marketing behind it, make the bank security something obvious enough so you'll spot it if it vanishes (Yellow toolbar for secure sites is great, but I tend to not notice it) and it would at least help a bit.
One of the other browser features could be a quick check of the URL for ".bank", for example in www.my.bank.scam.com and flag up a distinct "This website may be attempting to look like your bank, but it really isn't".
So basically what you're saying is there was insufficient routing capacity on the network causing it to fail? Well, I'm shocked!
Seriously though - would you try run a datacentre on a home router from NetGear? If I did and the network fell over in a fiery mass of routing tables I wouldn't say NetGear was to blame for building a bad router. I'd blame the network architect who thought they could shove hundreds of servers through a 5-port-with-wifi device.
If it had its own dedicated memory bank, wouldn't it need to power that somehow? I'm not a chipset designer (So there may be a valid way to do this) but I thought that no matter where you put the memory it'd need roughly the same amount of power, and you'd also need to come up with a reliable and fast way of managing memory through the interface.
All that said, an external memory bank to the card would make upgrades a lot nicer. Need another 256mb of graphics memory? Just slot it in!
We tend to be pretty good as far as actual fire drills are concerned in my school. However, the one time there was a fire (Not technically on school grounds, but close enough and at the right time of day to warrant evacuation) not one member of staff thought to hit the alarm. The alternative? Run around shouting "There's a fire, get the kids out".
Of course, the fact we all know exactly how to react should we hear the fire alarm, our quickest exit routes etc was rendered useless by panicking staff.
That said I agree with your point of the crying-wolf syndrome if drills are overdone. Staff are often the worst, wandering back to their offices to grab coats and other such nonsense. I reckon next time we have a drill I'm gonna stick a couple of pro-grade smoke machines in a corridor somewhere and watch the chaos.
Because the only people who use performance GPUs are those who want to simply get as much kick as possible, be it graphics designers, gamers or medical imaging. In these situations the machines won't be sat in a rack, and power is irrelevant as long as the PSU can supply it. The heat can quite easily be dissipated from high performance desktop towers either via liquid cooling or just enormous heat sinks and fans.
CPUs, on the other hand, are driven a large part by servers, which do sit in racks and need to run on as low power as possible, because power = heat = bad.
One important thing to recognise is that power requirements per unit speed are actually dropping, it's just that speed increases faster than this increase in efficiency. CPUs have a slower rate of speed increase in terms of what is required of them, so power efficiency (Which is also a higher priority) has a chance to catch up.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone probably forgot that one of the numbers was negative. I did that in my physics exam today, spent 5 minutes trying to work out why my sums were telling me the universe was shrinking.
Trillian 4 seems pretty sturdy, and the featureset matches most of the native clients. Sadly all but critical fixes for the 3.x series seem to have ceased in favour of v4 development, but on the plus side it looks to be set to re-affirm Trillian's place as 'the best' of the multi-IM clients.
Microsoft's IPv6 stack is extremely secure, more so than the Linux one. It achieves this by simply not talking to anything.
A lot of them can be tidied up in the generic old vs. new testament bit (Christ's sacrifice removed the need for x, y and z).
On the other hand, "Thou Shalt Not Kill", so lets go throw plagues on the Egyptians (for one) does seem a bit of a sticking point.
What's wrong with ALT+130 ?
Clarification:
(decent Linux sysadmins) don't come off the shelf like (MCSAs).
It all falls back to the ongoing cost. Generally Macs are more robust and have a longer working lifecycle, so they cost less in long term maintenance per unit (And probably network support costs as well, but I've never tried supporting a Mac network so don't quote me on that. I hear OS X Server is nice though). Likewise Linux is a lot cheaper per unit to licence the software, but tends to incur higher support costs because decent Linux sysadmins don't come off the shelf like MCSAs.
Surely it's possible to read that teleported state change, given that if you couldn't then you can't prove that the state change was teleported at all and it's all a load of bollocks (Which wouldn't surprise me, given most physics). You must then be able to read that state as some form of data (Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not gonna go OMG IM RIGHT THE TREK MANUAL SAYS SO!).
Have two or more sets of entangled photons. Use one set to transmit the results of the measurement, use the other for the actual message. You can then communicate the result of the measurement (The bit which can't go faster than light in your comment) over a teleported state, and read the teleported data from the other set of photons.
IANAQP, so thanks for the more detailed explanation of why it won't work with a single photon, but what about using several?
Bang on - it makes instant communications over (theoretically) infinite distances possible without needing an increase in power consumption as distance increases.
The downside is you need quite a bit of complex gear on each end (at least at the moment) and photons don't exactly hang around for the longest of all the known particles (Yeah I know wave particle duality, but you know what I mean). And of course we don't know how quantum entanglement exactly works, so for all we know it might pack in after 500 miles.
For larger satellites and massive distances it is certainly an important development. Communications would become effectively instant and not subject to interference from other bits of the EM spectrum since you don't need to 'tune' into anything from the outside world, so things like spacecraft in the shadow of planets can communicate exactly as if they were in orbit around Earth, and straight above the transmitter to boot.
My logic for standing up is this:
If I don't then things are much more likely to end up in contact with various bits of the toilet. This varies across the world because designs change, but the basic principle is it's not nice to either touch the ceramic (Who knows what else has been down it?) or the water.
Not to mention it's faster. And it's only less messy if you're a particularly poor aim.
That was never the argument. Following Pearl Harbor, the American armed forces did a lot of the work across the rest of the world purely because the British forces had to focus on western Europe to avoid being spread too thinly.
Fact of the matter is, the UK, USSR, AUS, an everyone else were the primary force against Hitler and the Japanese in the beginning of the war. All of Europe would have fallen to Hitler very quickly, and with the economic mass of the continent (Not something to be underestimated) the US would likely have been screwed before they could get their war machine into gear.
My physics says that resistance increases with heat, thus at higher temperatures you need a higher current to achieve the same voltage. Lower temp = lower resistance = lower current.
4 hour football games? Good Lord man, where are you from, and is injury time common?
Unless it's part of a larger shot in which John Q. Citizen isn't the main object of focus. There's nothing to stop me walking around and taking photos of a city centre street for any reason unless I'm being a public nuisance or likely to cause a breach of the peace (Which is why things like tripods, large flash diffusers, colour filters up the wazoo etc are a bad idea in crowded urban spaces, as is refusing to stop taking photos of one guy because "It's my right to take photos of you!"
Just done one, and a laptop no less. Worked perfectly first time, even the network drivers and the 3D acceleration.
Last time I tried a Linux distro on it (Ubuntu 7.4, about 8 hours ago) it refused point blank to even get to a desktop, bottling out at trying to load X.
Because a .bank domain *must* belong to a financial institution, and enables the browser to prompt the user about this. Eventually the user will know something is wrong when they *aren't* told that they're viewing a bank's site.
There is already a way of consistently packaging. It's called Windows Installer, uses MSI files, and supports version dependancies, external package sources, prerequisites (including automatic installation of those) and most everything else various other package formats support.
But of course we can't use that because it's Microsoft and shipped with every Windows installation from XP upwards, so we need to reinvent the wheel.
A lot of the US laws are built on old English ones. Are they unnatural because they've been 'forced' on you by the original settlers from England?
It's not half bad actually, even only over GSM. If you're on a network with GPRS capacity then it's even better.
The only trouble is people picking up your phone and reading your messages. Keep it in your pocket and even that is solved!
The point isn't to make it expensive, it's to improve security. Financial institutions generally can do things like cough up $50,000, with a $5,000 per annum renewal charge, probably including an SSL cert. Petty phishing gangs can't, and even if they could then they would have to prove they were a registered financial institution.
No, but if your bank buys a .bank domain and browsers have implemented the .bank security features, then your bank can send out a lot of marketing stuff telling you "When you do online banking with us, your browser address bar will turn purple and have a 'security seal' on the right hand side. If this doesn't happen, you are not at our website and should never give your details!"
Put enough marketing behind it, make the bank security something obvious enough so you'll spot it if it vanishes (Yellow toolbar for secure sites is great, but I tend to not notice it) and it would at least help a bit.
One of the other browser features could be a quick check of the URL for ".bank", for example in www.my.bank.scam.com and flag up a distinct "This website may be attempting to look like your bank, but it really isn't".
So basically what you're saying is there was insufficient routing capacity on the network causing it to fail? Well, I'm shocked!
Seriously though - would you try run a datacentre on a home router from NetGear? If I did and the network fell over in a fiery mass of routing tables I wouldn't say NetGear was to blame for building a bad router. I'd blame the network architect who thought they could shove hundreds of servers through a 5-port-with-wifi device.
If it had its own dedicated memory bank, wouldn't it need to power that somehow? I'm not a chipset designer (So there may be a valid way to do this) but I thought that no matter where you put the memory it'd need roughly the same amount of power, and you'd also need to come up with a reliable and fast way of managing memory through the interface.
All that said, an external memory bank to the card would make upgrades a lot nicer. Need another 256mb of graphics memory? Just slot it in!
We tend to be pretty good as far as actual fire drills are concerned in my school. However, the one time there was a fire (Not technically on school grounds, but close enough and at the right time of day to warrant evacuation) not one member of staff thought to hit the alarm. The alternative? Run around shouting "There's a fire, get the kids out".
Of course, the fact we all know exactly how to react should we hear the fire alarm, our quickest exit routes etc was rendered useless by panicking staff.
That said I agree with your point of the crying-wolf syndrome if drills are overdone. Staff are often the worst, wandering back to their offices to grab coats and other such nonsense. I reckon next time we have a drill I'm gonna stick a couple of pro-grade smoke machines in a corridor somewhere and watch the chaos.
Because the only people who use performance GPUs are those who want to simply get as much kick as possible, be it graphics designers, gamers or medical imaging. In these situations the machines won't be sat in a rack, and power is irrelevant as long as the PSU can supply it. The heat can quite easily be dissipated from high performance desktop towers either via liquid cooling or just enormous heat sinks and fans.
CPUs, on the other hand, are driven a large part by servers, which do sit in racks and need to run on as low power as possible, because power = heat = bad.
One important thing to recognise is that power requirements per unit speed are actually dropping, it's just that speed increases faster than this increase in efficiency. CPUs have a slower rate of speed increase in terms of what is required of them, so power efficiency (Which is also a higher priority) has a chance to catch up.