It seems to me that telling a bunch of terrrorist wannabes how to blow up an aircraft should be illegal. It's like an adult giving a loaded gun to a child - the responsibility for anything that happens afterwards lies more with the adult than the child.
And before anyone says that the terrorists can google it themselves remember that Richard Reid seemed not to have a working bomb, and some of the 21/7 bombs failed to explode. Having the media talk endlessly about how to do it properly is a terrible idea.
Also there were some sporadic network problems - mostly attributed to poor Windows network stack implementation. (IOW, the network problems occurring with normal Windows installation under VMWare were occurring more often. E.g. Windows DHCP client was at times failing to get address from host Linux. That IE thing was at times failing to load pages properly or simply hanging. The usual WinXP/IE problems.)
"Investing" in Mozart was a good choice at the time - his operas WERE the popular music of his time. Investing in a Mozart opera would be like investing in a successful broadway show today.
Most of his operas weren't popular outside Vienna until after he died as far as I can tell.
In the preface, Dent writes: "When the first edition of this book was published in 1913 most of Mozart's operas were almost completely unknown" in England. No doubt this also was true in the United States and much of the rest of the world: At the mention of Mozart's name, turn-of-the-century operagoers would recall Don Giovanni (K. 527) and possibly Le nozze di Figaro (K. 492). Die Zauberflöte (K. 620) they may have known, too, but only in Italian as Il Flauto Magico. That was about it. The rest of Mozart's stage works -- Idomeneo (K. 366), Die Entführung aus dem Serail (K. 384), La clemenza di Tito (K. 621) -- had virtually disappeared.
Partly it's because the world was just less connected then, but I still think you could find better artistic investments even then in the sense that their popularity peaked a bit sooner, inside one person's lifetime.
In general, something which takes more than twenty years to become popular is a lost cause commercially. It's not unreasonable to suggest that this will tend to direct funds to ephemera.
You could argue that Mozart is 'better' than say Britney Spears because people still listen to Mozart after 200 years, whereas Ms Spears will no doubt be forgotten, and that has some merit. But since most of the popularity of Mozart happened sufficiently long after his death that an investor payoff was unlikely, that doesn't mean that it was rational to invest in his music over the contemporary equivalent of Britney, even if you were one of the few people that understood it immediatly. Listen to it maybe, but investing in it is a bad choice.
So almost by definition truely great works of art will always be underfunded compared to ones which are very popular in the short term, but forgotten in the long term.
Incidentally, one way to fix this economically would be to make copyright perpetual since that would mean that investors, or at least their descendents, would be able to be compensated for recognising genius before eveyone else did.
Adam Sandler movies are completely generic, I think we can agree on that.
Now if you compare the average box office take of a generic movie without Adam Sandler and one with him, it's plausible that the difference is more than $25 million. So putting him in a movie may be worth $25 million to the studio.
Whereas these maths prizes are based on some trust fund set up by a rich philanthropist. The economics are completely different. No matter how much money they give away, the prize will still be a success. Also for an unwordly person $1 million is probably just as good as $24 million. Both mean that you can concentrate on work without having to worry about looking for funding for the rest of your life.
Anyhow, you can't prove that solving the Poincare conjecture is absolutely more valuable (in any sense) that making a movie, even a bad one.
I yield to no one in my detestation of Bolshevism, and of the revolutionary violence which precedes it. I share with my right hon. and learned Friend (Sir E. Carson) many of his sentiments as to the world-wide character of the seditions and revolutionary movement with which we are confronted. But my hatred of Bolshevism and Bolsheviks is not founded on their silly system of economics, or their absurd doctrine of an impossible equality. It arises from the bloody and devastating terrorism which they practise in every land into which they have broken, and by which alone their criminal regime can be maintained. I have heard the hon. Member for Hull (Liuet.-Commander Kenworthy) speak on this subject. His doctrine and his policy is to support and palliate every form of terrorism as long as it is the terrorism of revolutionaries against the forces of law,loyalty and order.
Governments who have seized upon power by violence and by ursupation have often resorted to keep what they have stolen, but the august and venerable structure of the British Empire, where lawful authority descends from hand to hand and generation after generation, does not need such aid. Such ideas are absolutely foreign to the British way of doing things.
So essentially whilst the British state had the military means to put down a peaceful protest and people like Dyer would have had no qualms about using them, the politicians that lead it did. As Churchill pointed out, the reason he supported the English way of doing things rather than the Bolshevik or Nazi way was because the British one didn't depend on this sort of terrorism. And if any soldiers in India disagreed, the government would sack them.
If Ghandi had been fighting a more ruthless government which ruled solely through fear, the whole state from the politicians down to the soldiers and policemen would have been committed to wiping out his movement before it could gain support.
Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, he that is not with me is against me. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. Mr Savage remarks that according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be objectively pro-British. But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories. The Germans even run a spurious freedom station which serves out pacifist propaganda indistinguishable from that of the P.P.U. They would stimulate pacifism in Russia as well if they could, but in that case they have tougher babies to deal with. In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism.
I am not interested in pacifism as a moral phenomenon. If Mr Savage and others imagine that one can somehow overcome the German army by lying on ones back, let them go on imagining it, but let them also wonder occasionally whether this is not an illusion due to security, too much money and a simple ignorance of the way in which things actually happen. As an ex-Indian civil servant, it always makes me shout with laughter to hear, for instance, Gandhi named as an example of the success of non-violence. As long as twenty years ago it was cynically admitted in Anglo-Indian circles that Gandhi was very useful to the British government. So he will be to the Japanese if they get there. Despotic governments can stand moral force till the cows come home; what they fear is physical force. But though not much interested in the theory of pacifism, I am interested in the psychological processes by which pacifists who have started out with an alleged horror of violence end up with a marked tendency to be fascinated by the success and power of Nazism. Even pacifists who wouldnt own to any such fascination are beginning to claim that a Nazi victory is desirable in itself. In the letter you sent on to me, Mr Comfort considers that an artist in occupied territory ought to protest against such evils as he sees, but considers that this is best done by temporarily accepting the status quo (like Déat or Bergery, for instance?). a few weeks back he was hoping for a Nazi victory because of the stimulating effect it would have upon the arts.
Children would be should be given GUIDs, not numbers like that. That way you wouldn't need a central number generator, which would be vulnerable to anarchists.
The HTML entity for the symbol is , while the HTML entity for ® is ®. On a Microsoft Windows computer with American keyboard layout, alt+0153 types , while alt+0174 makes ®. On Macintosh computers, opt+2 for and opt+r for ®, and their Unicode encodings are 2122 in hexadecimal/8482 in decimal for and 00AE in hexadecimal/174 in decimal for ®.
Charming and amusing paragraph. This certainly is the encyclopedia made by Slashdot.
On Feb. 22, 1983, by refusing to grant certiorari, the Supreme Court let stand a decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that invalidated the trademark registration of the term "MONOPOLY" for Parker Brothers' ever-popular real estate board game. The 9th Circuit declared that the term "MONOPOLY" had become generic, i.e. had become a common descriptive name for that type of board game and thus no longer afforded trademark rights to Parker Brothers, the owner of the "MONOPOLY" trademark registration....
Parker Brothers no longer have a monopoly on the word monopoly.
Further, if a court rules that a trademark has become "generic" through common use (such that the mark no longer performs the essential trademark function and the average consumer no longer considers that exclusive rights attach to it), the corresponding registration may also be ruled invalid.
For example, the Bayer company's trademark "Aspirin" has been ruled generic in the United States, so other companies may use that name for acetylsalicylic acid as well (although it is still a trademark in Canada). Xerox for copiers and Band-Aid for adhesive bandages are both trademarks which are at risk of succumbing to genericide, which the respective trademark owners actively seek to prevent. In order to prevent marks becoming generic, trademark owners often contact those who appear to be using the trademark incorrectly, from web page authors to dictionary editors, and request that they cease the improper usage.
> I'm curious why making a VAX fast is such a problem?
I read that the calling convention specified a general call instruction which was architected to do a lot of stuff - build a stack frame, push registers and so on, so even an efficient implementation will be slow. Much of the time, you could get away with something much simpler.
>I would have thought the 16(if memory serves) orthogonal registers would have made a nice >target for compilers, contrary to the ridiculous number of (non-orthogonal) registers on x86..
x86 is orthogonal in protected mode, and register renaming helps with the low number of architectural registers. And if you're doing something intensive, you have SSE registers to use too. And x86-64 has more architectural registers anyway. So most of the architectural problems with the 8086 have been solved or mitigated.
I guess if the VAX had been as popular, something similar would have happened of course.
Still it might be kind of useful that these are universal dog cells - they can grow in any dog without triggering an immune response. I guess that's what 'downmodulates MHC antigen expression' means. Imagine if you had universal stem cells that could be used to 'repair' anyone.
Admittedly injecting people with things like this seems to have a high cancer risk, but maybe you could make a sort of anti-cancer with a much reduced hayflick limit rather than a much increased one. You could build in a safety measure too, like a sensitivity to a drug which is harmless to most cells. Maybe more than one drug actually, since they may develop drug resistance.
It'd be pretty cool if you could bring your consciousness along in the contagious cancer cells like the wolf did, not that I can think of how this could possibly work.
The Arm has single instruction PUSH and POP - even for multiple registers. You can use it as a function prolog/epilog. Even though it's a Risc chip, it actually does this stuff in fewer instructions than a x86. xxMFD instructions are more efficient too, since they're easy to turn into burst accesses to external memory.
; we need more than r0-r3 for computation, also we need to call functions so ; we must preserve R14 aka the link reg stmfd R13!, {r5-r6,r14} ; push some registers bl func ; call a function, overwriting the link reg ldmfd R13!, {r5-r6,pc} ; get them back and return to caller by setting pc to the old R14
Call can just store the return address in a register, and return can get it back from there.
If you need to nest calls, you can spill the register to a stack which you manage in software. MIPS is like this, even PUSH and POP instructions need to be synthesized out of a load or store followed by an increment or decrement.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you read Interview with the Fountainhead by Ayn Rice?
You could leave the cheese there, but occasionally punish mice for taking it.
You'd tell them that they had to pay $49.99 for the Deluxe Special Edition cheese which would be available in their country in 9 months.
Yup
e ason_2005___2006
http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3503355/Doctor_Who__S
Pah.
The starship Enterprise had that technology 40 years ago.
People that listen to METAL don't care about SILLY DETAILS like this.
Good.
It seems to me that telling a bunch of terrrorist wannabes how to blow up an aircraft should be illegal. It's like an adult giving a loaded gun to a child - the responsibility for anything that happens afterwards lies more with the adult than the child.
And before anyone says that the terrorists can google it themselves remember that Richard Reid seemed not to have a working bomb, and some of the 21/7 bombs failed to explode. Having the media talk endlessly about how to do it properly is a terrible idea.
Hmm, you know that reminds me of this
http://www.apolloniathisweek.com/issue_4/local2
"Investing" in Mozart was a good choice at the time - his operas WERE the popular music of his time. Investing in a Mozart opera would be like investing in a successful broadway show today.
Most of his operas weren't popular outside Vienna until after he died as far as I can tell.
E.g.
http://www.culturevulture.net/Opera/MarriageofFig
or
http://www.mozartproject.org/books/dent.html
Partly it's because the world was just less connected then, but I still think you could find better artistic investments even then in the sense that their popularity peaked a bit sooner, inside one person's lifetime.
In general, something which takes more than twenty years to become popular is a lost cause commercially. It's not unreasonable to suggest that this will tend to direct funds to ephemera.
Actually, another argument occured to me.
You could argue that Mozart is 'better' than say Britney Spears because people still listen to Mozart after 200 years, whereas Ms Spears will no doubt be forgotten, and that has some merit. But since most of the popularity of Mozart happened sufficiently long after his death that an investor payoff was unlikely, that doesn't mean that it was rational to invest in his music over the contemporary equivalent of Britney, even if you were one of the few people that understood it immediatly. Listen to it maybe, but investing in it is a bad choice.
So almost by definition truely great works of art will always be underfunded compared to ones which are very popular in the short term, but forgotten in the long term.
Incidentally, one way to fix this economically would be to make copyright perpetual since that would mean that investors, or at least their descendents, would be able to be compensated for recognising genius before eveyone else did.
Adam Sandler movies are completely generic, I think we can agree on that.
Now if you compare the average box office take of a generic movie without Adam Sandler and one with him, it's plausible that the difference is more than $25 million. So putting him in a movie may be worth $25 million to the studio.
Whereas these maths prizes are based on some trust fund set up by a rich philanthropist. The economics are completely different. No matter how much money they give away, the prize will still be a success. Also for an unwordly person $1 million is probably just as good as $24 million. Both mean that you can concentrate on work without having to worry about looking for funding for the rest of your life.
Anyhow, you can't prove that solving the Poincare conjecture is absolutely more valuable (in any sense) that making a movie, even a bad one.
Maybe the SEC is starting to ask Larry and Sergey awkward questions about some of those shares they sold.
0 0-1030_3-6030223.html
http://news.com.com/Google+co-founders+cash+in/21
An E1705... with a neat Dragon skin.
If it started to 'breath fire', could the legal department claim that you'd been warned I wonder?
http://lachlan.bluehaze.com.au/churchill/am-text.
So essentially whilst the British state had the military means to put down a peaceful protest and people like Dyer would have had no qualms about using them, the politicians that lead it did. As Churchill pointed out, the reason he supported the English way of doing things rather than the Bolshevik or Nazi way was because the British one didn't depend on this sort of terrorism. And if any soldiers in India disagreed, the government would sack them.
If Ghandi had been fighting a more ruthless government which ruled solely through fear, the whole state from the politicians down to the soldiers and policemen would have been committed to wiping out his movement before it could gain support.
E.g. the White Rose movement in Nazi Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose
http://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/pacifism/en
That's ridiculous!
Children would be should be given GUIDs, not numbers like that. That way you wouldn't need a central number generator, which would be vulnerable to anarchists.
Or hydrogen bombs in wartime of course.
http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/2AECC3FA-
And we may mock Wikipedia for it's arcane legalese but they mock us too -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trademark#slash
Actually this is kind of ironic
http://www.wordspy.com/words/genericide.asp
Parker Brothers no longer have a monopoly on the word monopoly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Maintainin
> I'm curious why making a VAX fast is such a problem?
I read that the calling convention specified a general call instruction which was architected to do a lot of stuff - build a stack frame, push registers and so on, so even an efficient implementation will be slow. Much of the time, you could get away with something much simpler.
>I would have thought the 16(if memory serves) orthogonal registers would have made a nice
>target for compilers, contrary to the ridiculous number of (non-orthogonal) registers on x86..
x86 is orthogonal in protected mode, and register renaming helps with the low number of architectural registers. And if you're doing something intensive, you have SSE registers to use too. And x86-64 has more architectural registers anyway. So most of the architectural problems with the 8086 have been solved or mitigated.
I guess if the VAX had been as popular, something similar would have happened of course.
Still it might be kind of useful that these are universal dog cells - they can grow in any dog without triggering an immune response. I guess that's what 'downmodulates MHC antigen expression' means. Imagine if you had universal stem cells that could be used to 'repair' anyone.
Admittedly injecting people with things like this seems to have a high cancer risk, but maybe you could make a sort of anti-cancer with a much reduced hayflick limit rather than a much increased one. You could build in a safety measure too, like a sensitivity to a drug which is harmless to most cells. Maybe more than one drug actually, since they may develop drug resistance.
It reminds of the Doctor Who episode "Tooth and claw"
o r_Who)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tooth_and_Claw_(Doct
It'd be pretty cool if you could bring your consciousness along in the contagious cancer cells like the wolf did, not that I can think of how this could possibly work.
Maybe you should start a group to campaign against Fascismophobia.
It's just a new form of racism!!!11!
On an ARMNo need for any monkey business on the ARM as you'd expect.
Call can just store the return address in a register, and return can get it back from there.
If you need to nest calls, you can spill the register to a stack which you manage in software. MIPS is like this, even PUSH and POP instructions need to be synthesized out of a load or store followed by an increment or decrement.
And MIPS.
g old1.asp
Development started on the i960, the MIPS port was next and the x86 one was the done later
http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winserver2k3_