No,.999... is infinitely approximate to 1. Or more accurately, it's 1- 0.000...;...001...
The problem is that there are an infinite number of zeros, so you never get to the digit 1 at the end. You've effectively reduced it to 0.999... = 1 = 0.000...
Or rather for any given instance of 0.999.... there is an equivalent instance of 0.000....01 such that 0.999... + 0.000..01 = 1. In both cases an infinite number of a digit is used.
If you are willing to admit that one-third and.333... are the same thing, it would seem to follow that.999... has to equal one, since it equals.333... times 3.
Au contrare,.333.... is simply an approximation for the value of 1/3. Just like 0.999... can be an approximation for 1. That does not, however, mean that 0.999... is 1, just that it approaches the value 1 one sufficiently for most cases such that it is deemed to be useful enough to be interchangeable for the value 1.
That is,.333... is an approximation of 1/3, and while.333....*3 is.999.... and 1/3 * 3 is 1, it does not necessarily hold true that 1/3*3 =.333...*3.
My thoughts exactly. For how much I use it, a new smartphone is a steal at $200
That supposes that (i) you want to have a data plan and (ii) you like any of the phones they have.
I know a number of people that don't like any of the phones so they haven't upgraded in a while either.
And now that AT&T requires a data plan for any phone with a QUERTY keyboard or touch screen - e.g. pretty much all their phones - your rate may go up if you get a new phone and didn't have a data plan before.
Now, while you may think the $200 is cheap for the smart phone consider the changes in pricing as well. For me, I don't have a data plan. So to get a smart phone also means getting a data plan. If I got an iPhone that would be a data plan for 2 years. So $200 for the iPhone + $30*24 ($720) totaling $920 vs. $800 for the iPhone outright and no contract modifications. Though suppose you get a $200 phone with the minimum data plan - $5/month - $200 + $5*24 ($120) totaling $320 - did you really save much?
Oh, and if you have multiple phones on your account (e.g. a family plan) they all have to have separate data plans - so that is $30 per phone. A family of 4 each with an iPhone and you're paying $120/month just for the data plans without even talking about anything else.
Lesson: do the research first. It may be cheaper to buy a phone outside of AT&T or T-mobile paying full price for it than to get it through AT&T or T-mobile. Of course, any other U.S. Carrier screws you over since you can't change the phone without them knowing since there is not SIM card to just switch around.
IPsec is only useful for securing communications between two specific nodes for a specific communication channel. It does nothing for securing a network.
On the contrary, IPsec defines a protocol for securing connections between a security gateway and a host (network-to-host mode), in addition to the host-to-host and network-to-network modes. Using this protocol on a router you could securely authenticate client devices and limit routing to authenticated incoming packets.
But first you have to know about and be about to get a route to the router. That requires a valid IP address on the network and information about the network.
... separate software then monitors the network for MACs and addresses not on the official list, alerting appropriately.
Exactly—separate software, not DHCP. It's not much of a security feature if your DHCP server just accepts requests from any device which happens to ask, and if you have a way of actually authenticating clients you might as well use that by itself and skip the DHCP.
Except you can configure DHCP to only provide addresses to a known set of MAC addresses. It doesn't have to give one out to anything on the network; it could even require authentication via Radius or other mechanisms first as well.
Also truly secure networks only use static addressing and monitor for any unauthorized addresses, etc. on the network. This doesn't work for IPv6 since IPv6 by default assigns an address even without a DHCP server - something that is not desirable in all situations.
IPv4 will also assign addresses without a DHCP server, in the link-local 169.254.0.0/16 block.
No, that's just Microsoft. No other sane IPv4 stack that I know of (and I'm not calling Microsoft's IPv4 stack sane) assigns in that range. Also, even when Microsoft's does - you cannot go anywhere on most networks.
Unix/Linux/Mac/etc if no DHCP server is available just fail and do not enable the interface at all. No IP address is assigned.
IPv6 only assigns global addresses automatically if you enable router advertisement; they can also be assigned statically, directly on the client or with DHCPv6 (which is supported natively for Windows Vista, Windows 7, and Windows Server 2008 clients, not to mention Linux; free third-party software is also available for clients, servers, and relays).
Linux supports yes; but find a working DHCPv6 implementation please - and one that is available on most distributions.
Windows - I can believe Win7/Win2k8; but not Vista - unless they changed it in an "update". I have managed an IPv6 Windows network before; and no DHCP is not even possible. Windows does not even offer the possibility in the configuration; nor is static IPv6 assignment.
And as I said - please point out these clients/servers/relays. I have looked. DHCPv6 was shutdown because ISC's DHCP 4.1 and later has DHCP IPv6 support - but it's not available in most distributions yet; even Ubuntu and Gentoo are stuck on ISC DHCP 3.x.
IPsec is only useful for securing communications between two specific nodes for a specific communication channel. It does nothing for securing a network. It works for VPN as VPNs around all data between the diverse networks over a single communication channel (or multiple channels bonded into a essentially single channel). That is not the security I am talking about here.
DHCP does nothing for your network security. It's a voluntary protocol. Anyone who wishes to join the network can simply choose any available address and configure their interface to use it statically. They will then be invisible to your DHCP-based "tracking" system.
Only works for valid addresses on the network; and then you must get every little detail right for that specific network. That's WHY we have have DHCP - to assign valid addresses and inform of the network configuration.
Now granted, they designed that into IPv6 as (i) the auto address assignment (MAC+LocalLink) which provides administrators no method of controlling the address ranges, and (ii) Neighorhood Discovery which tells everyone about everything automatically - again, administrators have little to no control other than to try to track down the offending user and physically remove them.
On the other hand, with DHCP you can control the configuration. Granted, some may stealth their way in and figure out the configuration but the majority will not. With DHCP you can also setup methods to track the MAC and then alert for unauthorized nodes - e.g. DHCP registers a MAC+address, and separate software then monitors the network for MACs and addresses not on the official list, alerting appropriately.
Take away the ability to control a network via DHCP and such tools go away.
Also truly secure networks only use static addressing and monitor for any unauthorized addresses, etc. on the network. This doesn't work for IPv6 since IPv6 by default assigns an address even without a DHCP server - something that is not desirable in all situations. (Great idea, but doesn't really work for certain situations.)
Anyone who wishes to join the network can simply choose any available address and configure their interface to use it statically. They will then be invisible to your DHCP-based "tracking" system.
They will also be denied access to the services if the network is configured correctly. Some hotels do this to force you into a registration system before you can go elsewhere on the network.
Cell access should be a fairly elastic demand, because there are fallbacks--home phones, home wireless, free wireless from businesses, phone booths (they still have those, don't they?), etc.
The US Cell Market is not elastic by any means. New contracts are typically 1 or 2 years; and plans are setup to encourage friends and family to have the same network. Additionally, only AT&T and T-Mobile use Sim cards in their phones (you can get international phones for Verizon, etc. with SIM cards to use when you travel internationally, but they do you no good at home), thus locking people in further. Add to it that the carriers are the prime sellers for phones and it's not a nice market.
Honestly, the carriers should be forbidden from (1) selling phones period, (2) forced to focus on the network and services they provide, and (3) from doing the contracts; that's the only way the market will become more fluid. Sadly that won't ever happen as they have their hands in gov't enough to prevent gov't from forcing it to happen.
How often do you actually need to do this though, DHCP works, DNS works, etc...
DHCP does not necessarily work with IPv6.
Microsoft's IPv6 (Teredo) platform doesn't support for example, at least Win2k+IPv6, XP+IPv6, Vista, and W2k3 (I don't know about Win2k8 or Win7, but they probably are using the same IPv6 stack).
That said, DHCP for IPv6 is in a sorry state for pretty much all platforms as most are ignoring it entirely. ISC DHCP Server 4.1 and later supports it; but few distros if any support it. Even Gentoo and Ubuntu only provide 3.x releases as 'stable' releases.
And for those that think DHCP is not necessary - it has many benefits. From configuring the network (yeah, yeah, Neighbor Discovery provides that) to some network security - can't operate on the network without a valid address. Personally, I don't want anyone on my network that I have not authorized to be on it, and when they do get on I want to track them accordingly. DHCP provides a great benefit in that - since I know their MAC address and their network address; and if I expect they'll be on more often, then they'll get assigned their own static and DNS as well.
Until those kinds of things can be supported IPv6 won't go much of anywhere no matter how much IPv6 acolytes want to switch the world over.
As a matter of semantics, AOL is *not* an ISP. They are a web portal your ISP gives you access to.
AOL is in fact an ISP. They still operate their dial-up modem ISP business. However, at the same time they also offer a pricey web-portal that either (i) you can pay for each month, or (ii) ISPs can contract use of so that their customers don't have to pay each month. That does not negate their dial-up modem ISP business though.
Wow you're actually paying them? Last I used AOL and their subsidaries (Netscape ISP, CompServ, etc.) I didn't pay at all. Signed up for the trial, then when I tried to close the account they kept extending the free period. I finally got them to close it, but not after about 4-6 months of extensions. Just keep calling back every 30 days.
Or did they fix their system so that their operators are not afraid to close accounts any more?
Q: What difference will The Document Foundation make to developers?
A: The Document Foundation sets out deliberately to be as developer friendly as possible. We do not demand that contributors share their copyright with us. People will gain status in our community based on peer evaluation of their contributions - not by who their employer is.
So I'm guessing that was a Sun or Oracle requirement, probably Sun since they also had Star Office under a Commercial License so they probably wanted the copyright assignment so they could do Star Office, where as the Document Foundation seems to be set up so as not to have any kind of commercial offering, more like Mozilla; also from the FAQ (emphasis mine):
Q: What difference will The Document Foundation make to users of LibreOffice?
A: LibreOffice is The Document Foundation's reason for existence. We do not have and will not have a commercial product which receives preferential treatment. We only have one focus - delivering the best free office suite for our users - LibreOffice.
So it looks like that should not longer be a concern, and if that was the only reason for Go-OO then there is no longer a reason for Go-OO to remain. However, I doubt that was the only reason (don't know, just my thought).
Q: What does this announcement mean to other derivatives of OpenOffice.org?
A: We want The Document Foundation to be open to code contributions from as many people as possible. We are delighted to announce that the enhancements produced by the Go-OOo team will be merged into LibreOffice, effective immediately. We hope that others will follow suit.
I haven't been able to find anything saying that they rebranded anything from anyone else other than OpenOffice.org, in fact, to quote from their Downloads page:
The LibreOffice branding and renaming is new and work in progress. You may still see old graphics, icons or websites. So please bear with us. This also applies to the BrOffice.org branding - applicable in Brazil.
So I would venture a guess that they are truly forking from - or carrying on - the OpenOffice.org codebase (since they are having issues with OO.org branding, not GoOOo branding), but they have simply incorporated the changes from the Go-OOo team as well. I can udnerstand why the Go-OOo team might not be too happy since it effectively devalues their own fork.
Depends on what resolution & quality the download/streamed alternative is: I recently got a HD telly which can get streamed HD (720p I think) from BBC iPlayer, which isn't bad - and clearly better than upsampled standard def - but not so much as to blow my socks off. However, 1080p from Blu-Ray is in a different league - I recently watched 2001 on Blu Ray and my socks are definitely now in a mysterious brightly-lit hotel room somewhere on the other side of the universe (although even Blu-ray has the occasional annoying artifact). The Pixar stuff is pretty stunning in full HD, too.
Consider this: I won't buy an HDTV either; I have a Standard Def 24" TV + DVD Player, and also use my computers, which have a lot higher resolution than Blu-ray or HD, to watch DVDs. When it comes time to replace the TV, I'll do so with a projector - for which the resolution difference matters very little, and the possible resolutions are the same as computer screens - well above HD.
Reality has to take into account portability. Sure, if you have a non-portable system on the network then having a firewall on it is only for the layered-onion approach to security. However, any portable device that could go onto another network that you do not control ought to have a firewall on it - whether Windows, Mac, Linux, etc - to protect it when it is not on your own network. It's one thing when you can 100% control the equipment, where its located, and what it talks to; but an entirely different issue when you can't, and network administrators need to plan as if they can't in order to secure the whole network.
Honestly, there's no reason to go to blu-ray when DVD is good enough, and when it isn't, then (i) downloads (e.g. Amazon, Netflix) and (ii) rental service (e.g. Netflix) will be. DVD still outpaces the Blu-ray market with more discs available in stores than Blu-ray. Yep, I'm never going to buy Blu-ray, or if I do - it'll be data storage only for backups of the downloaded data, not for playing movies, music, etc. I've had it with the RIAA/MPAA and their copyright abuse. Someone needs to reign them in, and not buying blu-ray will help do so.
And rich people don't hire workers. Workers make people rich. When a rich person needs money, they go to the same place you or I go - the bank. They don't actually risk their own fortunes. They don't sell the summer house filled with expensive art to hire poor people.
So I guess Warren Buffet doesn't hire a chef, chauffeur, maids, butlers, people to maintain the grounds of his home, plumbers, or anyone else. Or Bill Gates, Ron Paul, Oprah Winfrey, Michael Dell, Tom Cruise, etc.
The rich hire a lot of people with their own personal wealth. Why? To them it's simple economics. If they value their time at $100/hr , then is it worth their time to clean the room for 20 minutes - which would cost them $33.33 - or is it more worth it to hire a maid to do it for $10/hr? Even if the maid took a whole hour, they still saved money and more likely than not, they made more money than $100/hr by being able to focus their time on what makes them money instead of being distracted by things that don't make money but cost them time, thus costing them money.
If you want to criticize the rich, you need to understand how they think first. You obviously don't.
The fact that property of this value can be transferred without the owner's knowledge and he has to go to the australian government in the hopes of recovering full value for the home is shameful. You would think that a court of law would need to be consulted and signatures would have to be issued and compared, at least through the mail.
If he had a Digital Signature on his e-mail it could very well be possible, especially if they subverted his e-mail. In the US, a Digital Signature issued under certain circumstances is just as good as a notarized document; you do have to prove who you are (via a notary) to get such Digital Signatures, which are legally binding. TFA is why I refused to get such a Digital Signature, at least without whomever is requiring it to indemnify me against things such as TFA, or anything else of such nature. (E.g. if my employer required it, then they should indemnify me against anything that I did not send - especially if their systems were compromised.)
My only contact with these Digital Signatures thus far was with an employer who refused to indemnify; thereby I refused to get it. It wasn't truly needed to do my job either.
...and simply put it thus: They're in your class. While the exam may be open-note, that also means no conversation - digital or otherwise - with others. Thereby, all cellphones, PDAs, iPods (yes, iPods are networked devices), laptops, etc. are off-limits during the exam.
The students that need language assistance dictionaries (e.g. ChineseEnglish, KoreanEnglish, SpanishEnglish) should not be allowed to use these devices either. To resolve their issue, I'd advise the school setup a program whereby the school issues digital dictionaries to these students; these "approved" devices are then what the students are allowed to use for the exams and any other similar situation - of which there are many, across nearly all subjects (the exception being the foreign language classes). This school policy allows the student to clearly understand the policy for all classes, and enables the teacher to clearly enforce it.
In all honesty, I wouldn't expect a school in Germany, Brazil, or China to bend to my needs just because I primarily speak English. I would expect to be allowed a language dictionary of some sort, but not something that would provide an unfair advantage over other students that do understand the language. The whole point of the dictionary is to help level the playing field (though it won't be able to 100% do that), not allow me to use whatever device I want in order to have my dictionary of choice. I could carry a book or use whatever the school issues to help me.
I would have to say that I am "far right wing", and agree wholeheartedly with you that the OP was stating the "This is the WORST possible argument one can give regarding the erosion of our rights". Patrick Henry, and the "Founding Fathers" of the US would die if they heard that kind of response after everything they went through to secure those rights. "Rights" are not something that should be taken for granted, but yet today they are, and those who are taking them for granted will not realize it until they no longer have 'em.
"AMD's lineup has been relatively stagnant while Intel continued to innovate with Nehalem and Sandy Bridge (due late this year) and the Bulldozer refresh is badly needed to keep in step."
Likely another Intel fanboy trying to spread FUD about the company that he doesn't like and at the same time getting his username posted on the front page.
The facts in that quote were presented clearly. AMD is a generation behind on architecture, trying to get comparable performance by multiplying old cores, while Intel has been advancing architecture and multiplying cores at the same time. For about 4 years now, Intel has had 2-4 chips performing at levels above anything AMD could produce.
It remains to be seen if Bulldozer will put AMD anywhere near at-par on a performance/core basis, but it's not 2002 any more, and AMD has no hope of a performance lead.
It's more the other way around. AMD has been using the AMD64/Athlon/Opteron architecture for a while now, yes. However, in that time Intel has (i) tried to move to Itanium and failed, (ii) tried to replace the Pentium Pro architecture with Netburst and failed - ultimately reverting back to the Pentium Pro architecture that is still at the heart of their latest processors, (iii) tried to compete with AMD only to adopt most of their general designs (e.g. memory controller on-chip) and their 64-bit instruction set, and (iv) developed the Core series processors. Meanwhile, AMD has been doing a fine job competing on all fronts with the same architecture, and minimal extensions to it.
A prime example is his _constant_ struggle to change their perception of Sabbath day law from a very literal "don't do any work" to perhaps a more inward devotion on a daily basis. The official interpretation at the time must have been based on a rather literal interpretation of creation: on the seventh day he rested.
Actually, the interpretation at that time was based on the numerous additional laws introduced by the Pharisees/Sadducees/etc - laws that made them essentially look righteous but had no real standing otherwise. They were basically laws that were to "protected" you from doing something you shouldn't - e.g. help to keep you from sinning by making even the littlest thing a sin. That was what he was breaking down. When it came to the actual Scriptures there was nothing they refuted, and typically they agreed (much to their dismay).
There are some double pane windows that are better than the triple pane windows. See Low-E for more information. Here's one provider of Low-E, Double-pane Windows Dixie Home Crafts (though their Window website seems screwed up at the moment).
We just didn't have a little mascot back in the day.
Umm...., we did! It has horns and looks kind of like Richard Stallman...
Open Source far predates Richard Stallman. He just helped create the legal framework for individual developers to do Open Source in a heavily proprietary environment. Open Source itself traces all the way back to the start of computer source code - after the era of manually re-routing wires to program the boards.
I would probably say "in active opposition to the interpretations of science"; though there has been in history as well "active opposition to science", but namely where science challenged rulers not Christianity itself. Christianity was also at the heart of Enlightenment at first too - as you was said:
motivated by the conviction that they were exploring and understanding the Almighty's handiwork, in addition to the more practical advantages associated with understanding nature
You program it in Java (the language), it contains the Apache Harmony Java class library implementation and Android fanbois crow about how you can leverage your existing Java skill set when you make apps for Android. Maybe you can argue the finer technical points but if it quacks like a duck, waggles like a duck and tastes good with orange then you can't act all surprised when people think its a duck.
You can do the same with a number of other languages. Just b/c Apache Harmony Java class library implementation is in the back-end, doesn't mean that it is Java. It may be Java compatible - just like C++ was at one point C compatible, using C as its back-end, etc. But in the end C++ is not C, and Dalvik is not Java.
Slashdot Mirror
No, .999... is infinitely approximate to 1. Or more accurately, it's 1- 0.000...;...001...
The problem is that there are an infinite number of zeros, so you never get to the digit 1 at the end. You've effectively reduced it to 0.999... = 1 = 0.000...
Or rather for any given instance of 0.999.... there is an equivalent instance of 0.000....01 such that 0.999... + 0.000..01 = 1. In both cases an infinite number of a digit is used.
1/3 = .333...
1/3 * 3 = 1 .333... * 3 = .999... = 1
If you are willing to admit that one-third and .333... are the same thing, it would seem to follow that .999... has to equal one, since it equals .333... times 3.
Au contrare, .333.... is simply an approximation for the value of 1/3. Just like 0.999... can be an approximation for 1. That does not, however, mean that 0.999... is 1, just that it approaches the value 1 one sufficiently for most cases such that it is deemed to be useful enough to be interchangeable for the value 1.
.333... is an approximation of 1/3, and while .333....*3 is .999.... and 1/3 * 3 is 1, it does not necessarily hold true that 1/3*3 = .333...*3.
That is,
Probably what I would have written as 1 - 0.000....01 - e.g. an infinite number of zeros followed by a 1.
Thus the equation:
0.999... + 0.0000....01 = 1
While TFA is asserting the following equation:
0.999.... = 1
When in fact the only truthful equation would be
0.999.. ~= 1 (~= meaning roughly equals or is congruent to)
That supposes that (i) you want to have a data plan and (ii) you like any of the phones they have.
I know a number of people that don't like any of the phones so they haven't upgraded in a while either.
And now that AT&T requires a data plan for any phone with a QUERTY keyboard or touch screen - e.g. pretty much all their phones - your rate may go up if you get a new phone and didn't have a data plan before.
Now, while you may think the $200 is cheap for the smart phone consider the changes in pricing as well. For me, I don't have a data plan. So to get a smart phone also means getting a data plan. If I got an iPhone that would be a data plan for 2 years. So $200 for the iPhone + $30*24 ($720) totaling $920 vs. $800 for the iPhone outright and no contract modifications. Though suppose you get a $200 phone with the minimum data plan - $5/month - $200 + $5*24 ($120) totaling $320 - did you really save much?
Oh, and if you have multiple phones on your account (e.g. a family plan) they all have to have separate data plans - so that is $30 per phone. A family of 4 each with an iPhone and you're paying $120/month just for the data plans without even talking about anything else.
Lesson: do the research first. It may be cheaper to buy a phone outside of AT&T or T-mobile paying full price for it than to get it through AT&T or T-mobile. Of course, any other U.S. Carrier screws you over since you can't change the phone without them knowing since there is not SIM card to just switch around.
But first you have to know about and be about to get a route to the router. That requires a valid IP address on the network and information about the network.
Except you can configure DHCP to only provide addresses to a known set of MAC addresses. It doesn't have to give one out to anything on the network; it could even require authentication via Radius or other mechanisms first as well.
No, that's just Microsoft. No other sane IPv4 stack that I know of (and I'm not calling Microsoft's IPv4 stack sane) assigns in that range. Also, even when Microsoft's does - you cannot go anywhere on most networks.
Unix/Linux/Mac/etc if no DHCP server is available just fail and do not enable the interface at all. No IP address is assigned.
Linux supports yes; but find a working DHCPv6 implementation please - and one that is available on most distributions.
Windows - I can believe Win7/Win2k8; but not Vista - unless they changed it in an "update". I have managed an IPv6 Windows network before; and no DHCP is not even possible. Windows does not even offer the possibility in the configuration; nor is static IPv6 assignment.
And as I said - please point out these clients/servers/relays. I have looked. DHCPv6 was shutdown because ISC's DHCP 4.1 and later has DHCP IPv6 support - but it's not available in most distributions yet; even Ubuntu and Gentoo are stuck on ISC DHCP 3.x.
IPsec is only useful for securing communications between two specific nodes for a specific communication channel. It does nothing for securing a network. It works for VPN as VPNs around all data between the diverse networks over a single communication channel (or multiple channels bonded into a essentially single channel). That is not the security I am talking about here.
Only works for valid addresses on the network; and then you must get every little detail right for that specific network. That's WHY we have have DHCP - to assign valid addresses and inform of the network configuration. Now granted, they designed that into IPv6 as (i) the auto address assignment (MAC+LocalLink) which provides administrators no method of controlling the address ranges, and (ii) Neighorhood Discovery which tells everyone about everything automatically - again, administrators have little to no control other than to try to track down the offending user and physically remove them. On the other hand, with DHCP you can control the configuration. Granted, some may stealth their way in and figure out the configuration but the majority will not. With DHCP you can also setup methods to track the MAC and then alert for unauthorized nodes - e.g. DHCP registers a MAC+address, and separate software then monitors the network for MACs and addresses not on the official list, alerting appropriately. Take away the ability to control a network via DHCP and such tools go away. Also truly secure networks only use static addressing and monitor for any unauthorized addresses, etc. on the network. This doesn't work for IPv6 since IPv6 by default assigns an address even without a DHCP server - something that is not desirable in all situations. (Great idea, but doesn't really work for certain situations.)
They will also be denied access to the services if the network is configured correctly. Some hotels do this to force you into a registration system before you can go elsewhere on the network.
The US Cell Market is not elastic by any means. New contracts are typically 1 or 2 years; and plans are setup to encourage friends and family to have the same network. Additionally, only AT&T and T-Mobile use Sim cards in their phones (you can get international phones for Verizon, etc. with SIM cards to use when you travel internationally, but they do you no good at home), thus locking people in further. Add to it that the carriers are the prime sellers for phones and it's not a nice market.
Honestly, the carriers should be forbidden from (1) selling phones period, (2) forced to focus on the network and services they provide, and (3) from doing the contracts; that's the only way the market will become more fluid. Sadly that won't ever happen as they have their hands in gov't enough to prevent gov't from forcing it to happen.
DHCP does not necessarily work with IPv6. Microsoft's IPv6 (Teredo) platform doesn't support for example, at least Win2k+IPv6, XP+IPv6, Vista, and W2k3 (I don't know about Win2k8 or Win7, but they probably are using the same IPv6 stack).
That said, DHCP for IPv6 is in a sorry state for pretty much all platforms as most are ignoring it entirely. ISC DHCP Server 4.1 and later supports it; but few distros if any support it. Even Gentoo and Ubuntu only provide 3.x releases as 'stable' releases.
And for those that think DHCP is not necessary - it has many benefits. From configuring the network (yeah, yeah, Neighbor Discovery provides that) to some network security - can't operate on the network without a valid address. Personally, I don't want anyone on my network that I have not authorized to be on it, and when they do get on I want to track them accordingly. DHCP provides a great benefit in that - since I know their MAC address and their network address; and if I expect they'll be on more often, then they'll get assigned their own static and DNS as well.
Until those kinds of things can be supported IPv6 won't go much of anywhere no matter how much IPv6 acolytes want to switch the world over.
As a matter of semantics, AOL is *not* an ISP. They are a web portal your ISP gives you access to.
AOL is in fact an ISP. They still operate their dial-up modem ISP business. However, at the same time they also offer a pricey web-portal that either (i) you can pay for each month, or (ii) ISPs can contract use of so that their customers don't have to pay each month. That does not negate their dial-up modem ISP business though.
Wow you're actually paying them? Last I used AOL and their subsidaries (Netscape ISP, CompServ, etc.) I didn't pay at all. Signed up for the trial, then when I tried to close the account they kept extending the free period. I finally got them to close it, but not after about 4-6 months of extensions. Just keep calling back every 30 days.
Or did they fix their system so that their operators are not afraid to close accounts any more?
Wasn't the whole point of Go-OO fork being a fork that copyright assignment was required for merging it upstream?
From their FAQ (emphasis mine):
So I'm guessing that was a Sun or Oracle requirement, probably Sun since they also had Star Office under a Commercial License so they probably wanted the copyright assignment so they could do Star Office, where as the Document Foundation seems to be set up so as not to have any kind of commercial offering, more like Mozilla; also from the FAQ (emphasis mine):
So it looks like that should not longer be a concern, and if that was the only reason for Go-OO then there is no longer a reason for Go-OO to remain. However, I doubt that was the only reason (don't know, just my thought).
I haven't been able to find anything saying that they rebranded anything from anyone else other than OpenOffice.org, in fact, to quote from their Downloads page:
So I would venture a guess that they are truly forking from - or carrying on - the OpenOffice.org codebase (since they are having issues with OO.org branding, not GoOOo branding), but they have simply incorporated the changes from the Go-OOo team as well. I can udnerstand why the Go-OOo team might not be too happy since it effectively devalues their own fork.
Consider this: I won't buy an HDTV either; I have a Standard Def 24" TV + DVD Player, and also use my computers, which have a lot higher resolution than Blu-ray or HD, to watch DVDs. When it comes time to replace the TV, I'll do so with a projector - for which the resolution difference matters very little, and the possible resolutions are the same as computer screens - well above HD.
Reality has to take into account portability. Sure, if you have a non-portable system on the network then having a firewall on it is only for the layered-onion approach to security. However, any portable device that could go onto another network that you do not control ought to have a firewall on it - whether Windows, Mac, Linux, etc - to protect it when it is not on your own network. It's one thing when you can 100% control the equipment, where its located, and what it talks to; but an entirely different issue when you can't, and network administrators need to plan as if they can't in order to secure the whole network.
Honestly, there's no reason to go to blu-ray when DVD is good enough, and when it isn't, then (i) downloads (e.g. Amazon, Netflix) and (ii) rental service (e.g. Netflix) will be. DVD still outpaces the Blu-ray market with more discs available in stores than Blu-ray. Yep, I'm never going to buy Blu-ray, or if I do - it'll be data storage only for backups of the downloaded data, not for playing movies, music, etc. I've had it with the RIAA/MPAA and their copyright abuse. Someone needs to reign them in, and not buying blu-ray will help do so.
So I guess Warren Buffet doesn't hire a chef, chauffeur, maids, butlers, people to maintain the grounds of his home, plumbers, or anyone else. Or Bill Gates, Ron Paul, Oprah Winfrey, Michael Dell, Tom Cruise, etc.
The rich hire a lot of people with their own personal wealth. Why? To them it's simple economics. If they value their time at $100/hr , then is it worth their time to clean the room for 20 minutes - which would cost them $33.33 - or is it more worth it to hire a maid to do it for $10/hr? Even if the maid took a whole hour, they still saved money and more likely than not, they made more money than $100/hr by being able to focus their time on what makes them money instead of being distracted by things that don't make money but cost them time, thus costing them money.
If you want to criticize the rich, you need to understand how they think first. You obviously don't.
The fact that property of this value can be transferred without the owner's knowledge and he has to go to the australian government in the hopes of recovering full value for the home is shameful. You would think that a court of law would need to be consulted and signatures would have to be issued and compared, at least through the mail.
If he had a Digital Signature on his e-mail it could very well be possible, especially if they subverted his e-mail. In the US, a Digital Signature issued under certain circumstances is just as good as a notarized document; you do have to prove who you are (via a notary) to get such Digital Signatures, which are legally binding. TFA is why I refused to get such a Digital Signature, at least without whomever is requiring it to indemnify me against things such as TFA, or anything else of such nature. (E.g. if my employer required it, then they should indemnify me against anything that I did not send - especially if their systems were compromised.)
My only contact with these Digital Signatures thus far was with an employer who refused to indemnify; thereby I refused to get it. It wasn't truly needed to do my job either.
...and simply put it thus: They're in your class. While the exam may be open-note, that also means no conversation - digital or otherwise - with others. Thereby, all cellphones, PDAs, iPods (yes, iPods are networked devices), laptops, etc. are off-limits during the exam.
The students that need language assistance dictionaries (e.g. ChineseEnglish, KoreanEnglish, SpanishEnglish) should not be allowed to use these devices either. To resolve their issue, I'd advise the school setup a program whereby the school issues digital dictionaries to these students; these "approved" devices are then what the students are allowed to use for the exams and any other similar situation - of which there are many, across nearly all subjects (the exception being the foreign language classes). This school policy allows the student to clearly understand the policy for all classes, and enables the teacher to clearly enforce it.
In all honesty, I wouldn't expect a school in Germany, Brazil, or China to bend to my needs just because I primarily speak English. I would expect to be allowed a language dictionary of some sort, but not something that would provide an unfair advantage over other students that do understand the language. The whole point of the dictionary is to help level the playing field (though it won't be able to 100% do that), not allow me to use whatever device I want in order to have my dictionary of choice. I could carry a book or use whatever the school issues to help me.
I would have to say that I am "far right wing", and agree wholeheartedly with you that the OP was stating the "This is the WORST possible argument one can give regarding the erosion of our rights". Patrick Henry, and the "Founding Fathers" of the US would die if they heard that kind of response after everything they went through to secure those rights. "Rights" are not something that should be taken for granted, but yet today they are, and those who are taking them for granted will not realize it until they no longer have 'em.
"AMD's lineup has been relatively stagnant while Intel continued to innovate with Nehalem and Sandy Bridge (due late this year) and the Bulldozer refresh is badly needed to keep in step."
Likely another Intel fanboy trying to spread FUD about the company that he doesn't like and at the same time getting his username posted on the front page.
The facts in that quote were presented clearly. AMD is a generation behind on architecture, trying to get comparable performance by multiplying old cores, while Intel has been advancing architecture and multiplying cores at the same time. For about 4 years now, Intel has had 2-4 chips performing at levels above anything AMD could produce.
It remains to be seen if Bulldozer will put AMD anywhere near at-par on a performance/core basis, but it's not 2002 any more, and AMD has no hope of a performance lead.
It's more the other way around. AMD has been using the AMD64/Athlon/Opteron architecture for a while now, yes. However, in that time Intel has (i) tried to move to Itanium and failed, (ii) tried to replace the Pentium Pro architecture with Netburst and failed - ultimately reverting back to the Pentium Pro architecture that is still at the heart of their latest processors, (iii) tried to compete with AMD only to adopt most of their general designs (e.g. memory controller on-chip) and their 64-bit instruction set, and (iv) developed the Core series processors. Meanwhile, AMD has been doing a fine job competing on all fronts with the same architecture, and minimal extensions to it.
Actually, the interpretation at that time was based on the numerous additional laws introduced by the Pharisees/Sadducees/etc - laws that made them essentially look righteous but had no real standing otherwise. They were basically laws that were to "protected" you from doing something you shouldn't - e.g. help to keep you from sinning by making even the littlest thing a sin. That was what he was breaking down. When it came to the actual Scriptures there was nothing they refuted, and typically they agreed (much to their dismay).
There are some double pane windows that are better than the triple pane windows. See Low-E for more information. Here's one provider of Low-E, Double-pane Windows Dixie Home Crafts (though their Window website seems screwed up at the moment).
We just didn't have a little mascot back in the day.
Umm...., we did! It has horns and looks kind of like Richard Stallman...
Open Source far predates Richard Stallman. He just helped create the legal framework for individual developers to do Open Source in a heavily proprietary environment. Open Source itself traces all the way back to the start of computer source code - after the era of manually re-routing wires to program the boards.
motivated by the conviction that they were exploring and understanding the Almighty's handiwork, in addition to the more practical advantages associated with understanding nature
What a bunch of morons.
Dalvik (what android runs) is not Java
You program it in Java (the language), it contains the Apache Harmony Java class library implementation and Android fanbois crow about how you can leverage your existing Java skill set when you make apps for Android. Maybe you can argue the finer technical points but if it quacks like a duck, waggles like a duck and tastes good with orange then you can't act all surprised when people think its a duck.
You can do the same with a number of other languages. Just b/c Apache Harmony Java class library implementation is in the back-end, doesn't mean that it is Java. It may be Java compatible - just like C++ was at one point C compatible, using C as its back-end, etc. But in the end C++ is not C, and Dalvik is not Java.