The new version has an additional splash screen that appears immediately. Then after 7 seconds the second splashscreen appears. Then after 15 seconds a bitmap of OOo appears and sets the mouse cursor to an hourglass. Finally after 20 seconds the bitmap is replaced by the app.
Joking, but it's amazing how many times I've seen people go to almost this level of faking as a quick fix for long boot/start times.
Even worse that sponsor can buy the right to act above the law just like the Party always has.
The Communist Party in China is much more above the law than the Republican party. You can sort of tell that is the case given that the Republicans have just lost power because they lost an election whereas the Communist party in China ships people off to camps for trying to start alternative parties.
Oh noes, it's the communist boogey-man! They must be ideologically hard-core communists, worried about losing their sponsors and all (a little ironic, communists with sponsors).
If you look at China the Communist party has gradually been corrupted by private enterprise to the point where it will take money from one 'sponsor' and then cover up the logos from that sponsor's competitiors. Even worse that sponsor can buy the right to act above the law just like the Party always has. Essentially communism was always about monopolies, originally these were monopolies that were run by the Party - the so called collectives - now private enterprise can run them instead. In both cases government goons protect the monopoly.
Trotskyites always said that 'Communism', or rather the version that Communist Parties implement was State Capitalism, and it sort of seems they were right. Actually if you look at the original collective idea, in practice they were big feudal farms owned by the Party with the workers reduced to the level of serfs since they had no freedom to get a job elsewhere or negotiate about their pay and conditions. The difference is now the Party has merged with big business in a way reminiscent of Musolinis 'Corporate State'. Of course on the upside there is no longer mass starvation, but the system is actually much less free than a country with free markets and free elections and oddly much farther from socialism. I suspect it's not that efficient either even if the inefficiencies can be hidden in the short term by threatening anyone who points them out.
The problem with the German approach is it doesn't work properly. The US has been far more liberal in allowing extremist groups free speech and they are politically marginalised. In Germany the far left and far right seem to have increased influence since reunification.
I could accept some sort of draconian restrictions on extremist groups if they are close to taking power - like the British crackdown on the Union of Fascists just before WWII or the one on the far right and violent Islamists now. However the current legal attack on the BNP and the Islamists is based on enforcing laws against incitement against individuals. The German idea of banning political symbols and parties seems to me to be highly counterproductive.
Essentially the UK approach makes it safer to organise as a non violent political party but less safe to incite violence. Essentially the BNP is allowed to organise provided its spokesmen don't cross the line into incitement in public speeches. Sinn Fein seems to have made the transition from a political party which gave at least tacit support for terrorism to one which is now wholly inside the political process and their violent 'Unionist' opponents have done the same. Now I hate the BNP, murderous Northern Irish sectarian parties, the Islamists and the Commies but I can see that the UK way of allowing them to operate as legal parties is better than the German one.
The German approach of outright bans actually does the opposite - it forces non violent extremists out of the political system and into the violent territory outside it because it all extremist parties are equally illegal, regardless of whether they incite violence or not. Also in the German model there is no way for mainstream parties to negotiate with parties that oppose the constitution, even though in the UK it was this negotiation that brought the Northern Irish sectarians into that system in the end by convincing them that disowning the terrorists was in their interests. And terrorists that have been disowned by their political allies can be dealt with as a law enforcement problem.
Hmm, an overpowerful state murders dissidents. That state is destroyed by foreign military action. Its successor sets up a Constitution Protection department to keep an eye on dissidents and limit their free speech. What could possibly go wrong.
Since before the dawn of time, Man has dreamed of the laser cannon - even when Woman said it was dumb and that the costumes on Star Trek were ridiculous. The ancient Hebrews called it "Uriel" - "the flame of God". The Romans had an entire god (Apollo) devoted to the laser cannon and its many uses. The Greeks dreamed of Prometheus stealing the laser cannon of Zeus and giving it to mortals. In Norse mythology, the end of Ragnarok is marked by the wolf Skoll consuming the last remaining laser cannon and condemning the world to a laser cannon-less eternal night. Today, the laser cannon is at last ours. Thank you, Northrop-Grumman, and thank you, US military-industrial complex. The spirits of countless millennia stand in silent awe at what you have wrought.
Dude, that's like a prayer for War Nerds. In which spirit
"When we encounter aliens, they will respect us not for our literature and society but for our death ray technology"
The 360 is packed full of DRM and it works. Last I heard you can crack the old kernel and play pirated games but new games will only run on the new kernel which has not been cracked. Upgrading and downgrading is pain.
On the PC pretty much any new game will be on pirate bay with the DRM stripped out in a week or so. I personally buy games but clearly 90% of people don't. It's much less hassle to pirate on a PC than an Xbox 360, and actually less hassle than buying the game. Check Pirate Bay and download whatever you want. No need to drive to the store or cough up your $50 per game.
In the long run games companies will only release new games on consoles, and consoles will be locked down as effectively as cell phones are so cracking them will be impossible. Sad really.
You could chemically castrate them. Oh, wahh, civil liberties and so on. But face it, it would work. Actually it sort of makes you wonder what would happen if we had drugs to regulate testosterone. My guess is you could do a sort of chemical castration lite on kids that bully and reverse it later.
A laptop in S3 does need to keep SDRAM powered but you can put the SDRAM chips into a mode called Self Refresh. As the name suggests they refresh themselves internally. Refresh is quite a slow process, you need to refresh the entire chip every 64ms. In self refresh you could make the chip sleep for 64ms, wake up and do a refresh cycle and then go back to sleep. The external interface can stay powered down because in self refresh mode you can't access the SDRAM contents from the outside world. Because of these possibilities and furious competition to make low power chips modern SDRAM tends to be pretty low power in self refresh mode. These chips use 5mW -
That's each, an a typical laptop SIM might have 8 chips on it, so maybe you need 40-100mW for the whole laptop which is by no means negligable, but bear in mind an active laptop needs tens of watts. So a laptop in S3 is plausibly using 1% of the power of a laptop which is on.
Looking at the parent post you can actually work out the percentage. He said he left the laptop on for a weekend, say 30 hours and it was 20% depleted. That means he could have left it for 150 hours before it was completely depleted. An average laptop manages around 2 hours battery life, so you can see S3 is about 1% of the power of an active laptop.
So if you want to sleep for less than a week, S3 is quite safe. Vista has a hybrid sleep mode that writes the memory to disk and then goes into S3. If you press the power button before the battery runs out it does an S3 resume which is very quick. If the power fails it does an S4 resume i.e. it reads the memory contents back from disk which takes a bit longer.
You don't have to read all the memory off disk, only the pages that are in use. If the memory is literally free you could skip writing and reading it. And on a Windows OS lots of memory is used for disk caching so you could skip saving and restoring that too. You could even not store code pages, just the data.
Now I'm not sure whether all of these things are a good idea - particularly not storing code would make the machine very unresponsive after a resume as it paged stuff in in a storm of page faults - but the point is that you don't need to write all RAM to disk.
But my private theory is that the Trek universe simply ran out of room for exciting new storylines, making people care less about future Trek extrapolations.
I didn't quote I paraphrased. And there were several sources for this. One paragraph and the attribution seem to be conventional wisdom, the part about the commentary making points not present in any of the individual sources is my rule for academic stuff. Mostly because it makes it more interesting to write, but also because that's one of the things that separate quoting for critical purposes from plagiarism.
A long time ago when I was in an class someone told that all quotes had to be attributed and you could only quote one paragraph from each source, and you had to add some sort of original commentary tying the quotes together to make a point that was not present in any of them individually. Apparently in the US the rule of thumb is 300 words maximum and attribution. Now these are usually designed for safety rather than maximizing the amount you can quote. They are style rules too, so they vary from institution to institution. And actually it was ruled that quoting 300 words from Gerald Ford's biography, the crucial part about pardoning Nixon, was not fair use.
However if you've ever written anything formally you should have some idea about how to quote and not be at risk of a copyright lawsuit. You could probably work out a rule of thumb from research now.
From what I can tell this lexicon quoted way, way more than plausible fair use, didn't attribute and did not add original commentary. That's why the author was in trouble.
But in the end the public don't own Harry Potter. J K Rowling does, because she created it. She's already said there are other lexicons she is fine with, she just doesn't like this one. And the guy that wrote it did it in such a way that it is classed as a derivative work which means she can stop it being distributed. From what I've read it was so blatantly plagiarised that the case for it being a derivative work was easy to make. Plus he sold it.
It reminds me of a good quote from Victor Lewis Smith -"Imitation is the sincerest form of being an unoriginal thieving bastard" or the 4chan insult of newfag for people who solely exist to repost stuff by other people.
And note that fair use quoting is OK for satire and lexicons like this. But you must follow the rules to do it and add some original content. Really the only people who get clobbered are people without anything original to say.
Slashdot Mirror
I told him that Facebook was a CIA front organisation. Tee hee.
That's one way of putting it. Another is that the hivemind is maddeningly inconsistent.
Slashdot: Rule 34 by the sound of it.
Paah, MS Office has supported Black Speech for ages.
Sounds like an excellent way to distribute documents others can't/won't read.
That's a killer application in some offices.
The new version has an additional splash screen that appears immediately. Then after 7 seconds the second splashscreen appears. Then after 15 seconds a bitmap of OOo appears and sets the mouse cursor to an hourglass. Finally after 20 seconds the bitmap is replaced by the app.
Joking, but it's amazing how many times I've seen people go to almost this level of faking as a quick fix for long boot/start times.
Even worse that sponsor can buy the right to act above the law just like the Party always has.
The Communist Party in China is much more above the law than the Republican party. You can sort of tell that is the case given that the Republicans have just lost power because they lost an election whereas the Communist party in China ships people off to camps for trying to start alternative parties.
Oh noes, it's the communist boogey-man! They must be ideologically hard-core communists, worried about losing their sponsors and all (a little ironic, communists with sponsors).
If you look at China the Communist party has gradually been corrupted by private enterprise to the point where it will take money from one 'sponsor' and then cover up the logos from that sponsor's competitiors. Even worse that sponsor can buy the right to act above the law just like the Party always has. Essentially communism was always about monopolies, originally these were monopolies that were run by the Party - the so called collectives - now private enterprise can run them instead. In both cases government goons protect the monopoly.
Trotskyites always said that 'Communism', or rather the version that Communist Parties implement was State Capitalism, and it sort of seems they were right. Actually if you look at the original collective idea, in practice they were big feudal farms owned by the Party with the workers reduced to the level of serfs since they had no freedom to get a job elsewhere or negotiate about their pay and conditions. The difference is now the Party has merged with big business in a way reminiscent of Musolinis 'Corporate State'. Of course on the upside there is no longer mass starvation, but the system is actually much less free than a country with free markets and free elections and oddly much farther from socialism. I suspect it's not that efficient either even if the inefficiencies can be hidden in the short term by threatening anyone who points them out.
The police are probably twitter sockpuppets.
The state government of Kerala is led by the Communist party?
I don't disagree with you on democracy.
The problem with the German approach is it doesn't work properly. The US has been far more liberal in allowing extremist groups free speech and they are politically marginalised. In Germany the far left and far right seem to have increased influence since reunification.
I could accept some sort of draconian restrictions on extremist groups if they are close to taking power - like the British crackdown on the Union of Fascists just before WWII or the one on the far right and violent Islamists now. However the current legal attack on the BNP and the Islamists is based on enforcing laws against incitement against individuals. The German idea of banning political symbols and parties seems to me to be highly counterproductive.
Essentially the UK approach makes it safer to organise as a non violent political party but less safe to incite violence. Essentially the BNP is allowed to organise provided its spokesmen don't cross the line into incitement in public speeches. Sinn Fein seems to have made the transition from a political party which gave at least tacit support for terrorism to one which is now wholly inside the political process and their violent 'Unionist' opponents have done the same. Now I hate the BNP, murderous Northern Irish sectarian parties, the Islamists and the Commies but I can see that the UK way of allowing them to operate as legal parties is better than the German one.
The German approach of outright bans actually does the opposite - it forces non violent extremists out of the political system and into the violent territory outside it because it all extremist parties are equally illegal, regardless of whether they incite violence or not. Also in the German model there is no way for mainstream parties to negotiate with parties that oppose the constitution, even though in the UK it was this negotiation that brought the Northern Irish sectarians into that system in the end by convincing them that disowning the terrorists was in their interests. And terrorists that have been disowned by their political allies can be dealt with as a law enforcement problem.
Hmm, an overpowerful state murders dissidents. That state is destroyed by foreign military action. Its successor sets up a Constitution Protection department to keep an eye on dissidents and limit their free speech. What could possibly go wrong.
Since before the dawn of time, Man has dreamed of the laser cannon - even when Woman said it was dumb and that the costumes on Star Trek were ridiculous.
The ancient Hebrews called it "Uriel" - "the flame of God". The Romans had an entire god (Apollo) devoted to the laser cannon and its many uses. The Greeks dreamed of Prometheus stealing the laser cannon of Zeus and giving it to mortals. In Norse mythology, the end of Ragnarok is marked by the wolf Skoll consuming the last remaining laser cannon and condemning the world to a laser cannon-less eternal night.
Today, the laser cannon is at last ours. Thank you, Northrop-Grumman, and thank you, US military-industrial complex. The spirits of countless millennia stand in silent awe at what you have wrought.
Dude, that's like a prayer for War Nerds. In which spirit
"When we encounter aliens, they will respect us not for our literature and society but for our death ray technology"
You'd need VB Pro though. VB Express has a license that explicitly prohibit using it to control terrorist death rays.
It could be worse, I got shown a picture of a horse with its mouth open and a comment about British people having bad teeth too.
The 360 is packed full of DRM and it works. Last I heard you can crack the old kernel and play pirated games but new games will only run on the new kernel which has not been cracked. Upgrading and downgrading is pain.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=uxjpmc8ZIxM
On the PC pretty much any new game will be on pirate bay with the DRM stripped out in a week or so. I personally buy games but clearly 90% of people don't. It's much less hassle to pirate on a PC than an Xbox 360, and actually less hassle than buying the game. Check Pirate Bay and download whatever you want. No need to drive to the store or cough up your $50 per game.
In the long run games companies will only release new games on consoles, and consoles will be locked down as effectively as cell phones are so cracking them will be impossible. Sad really.
You could chemically castrate them. Oh, wahh, civil liberties and so on. But face it, it would work. Actually it sort of makes you wonder what would happen if we had drugs to regulate testosterone. My guess is you could do a sort of chemical castration lite on kids that bully and reverse it later.
A laptop in S3 does need to keep SDRAM powered but you can put the SDRAM chips into a mode called Self Refresh. As the name suggests they refresh themselves internally. Refresh is quite a slow process, you need to refresh the entire chip every 64ms. In self refresh you could make the chip sleep for 64ms, wake up and do a refresh cycle and then go back to sleep. The external interface can stay powered down because in self refresh mode you can't access the SDRAM contents from the outside world. Because of these possibilities and furious competition to make low power chips modern SDRAM tends to be pretty low power in self refresh mode. These chips use 5mW -
http://download.micron.com/pdf/technotes/TN4810_B.pdf
That's each, an a typical laptop SIM might have 8 chips on it, so maybe you need 40-100mW for the whole laptop which is by no means negligable, but bear in mind an active laptop needs tens of watts. So a laptop in S3 is plausibly using 1% of the power of a laptop which is on.
Looking at the parent post you can actually work out the percentage. He said he left the laptop on for a weekend, say 30 hours and it was 20% depleted. That means he could have left it for 150 hours before it was completely depleted. An average laptop manages around 2 hours battery life, so you can see S3 is about 1% of the power of an active laptop.
So if you want to sleep for less than a week, S3 is quite safe. Vista has a hybrid sleep mode that writes the memory to disk and then goes into S3. If you press the power button before the battery runs out it does an S3 resume which is very quick. If the power fails it does an S4 resume i.e. it reads the memory contents back from disk which takes a bit longer.
You don't have to read all the memory off disk, only the pages that are in use. If the memory is literally free you could skip writing and reading it. And on a Windows OS lots of memory is used for disk caching so you could skip saving and restoring that too. You could even not store code pages, just the data.
Now I'm not sure whether all of these things are a good idea - particularly not storing code would make the machine very unresponsive after a resume as it paged stuff in in a storm of page faults - but the point is that you don't need to write all RAM to disk.
Did the voices tell you to write that?
But my private theory is that the Trek universe simply ran out of room for exciting new storylines, making people care less about future Trek extrapolations.
What about Star Trek: Fall of the Federation?
By developing countries he means India and China. You know, the countries that are actually developing and hence increasing their CO2 emissions.
I didn't quote I paraphrased. And there were several sources for this. One paragraph and the attribution seem to be conventional wisdom, the part about the commentary making points not present in any of the individual sources is my rule for academic stuff. Mostly because it makes it more interesting to write, but also because that's one of the things that separate quoting for critical purposes from plagiarism.
A long time ago when I was in an class someone told that all quotes had to be attributed and you could only quote one paragraph from each source, and you had to add some sort of original commentary tying the quotes together to make a point that was not present in any of them individually. Apparently in the US the rule of thumb is 300 words maximum and attribution. Now these are usually designed for safety rather than maximizing the amount you can quote. They are style rules too, so they vary from institution to institution. And actually it was ruled that quoting 300 words from Gerald Ford's biography, the crucial part about pardoning Nixon, was not fair use.
However if you've ever written anything formally you should have some idea about how to quote and not be at risk of a copyright lawsuit. You could probably work out a rule of thumb from research now.
From what I can tell this lexicon quoted way, way more than plausible fair use, didn't attribute and did not add original commentary. That's why the author was in trouble.
But in the end the public don't own Harry Potter. J K Rowling does, because she created it. She's already said there are other lexicons she is fine with, she just doesn't like this one. And the guy that wrote it did it in such a way that it is classed as a derivative work which means she can stop it being distributed. From what I've read it was so blatantly plagiarised that the case for it being a derivative work was easy to make. Plus he sold it.
It reminds me of a good quote from Victor Lewis Smith -"Imitation is the sincerest form of being an unoriginal thieving bastard" or the 4chan insult of newfag for people who solely exist to repost stuff by other people.
And note that fair use quoting is OK for satire and lexicons like this. But you must follow the rules to do it and add some original content. Really the only people who get clobbered are people without anything original to say.