Even still, its unlikely that a single shot would ricochet along for a kilometer. Heck, most shotguns don't have that kind of range in the open, much less inside a confined space where every ricochet means lost energy for the pellets.
That requires assuming that the design is the same. Who's to say that Intel has kept the same design, with absolutely no improvements? If I was an engineer at Intel, I'd certainly be looking at adding new features now that space has become available.
As for protecting our trade routes, we were giving guns and ammo along with medical supplies to the British during that time and that is why the Germans attacked our ships.
And why were we giving guns and ammo to the Brits? That's right, they were protecting our trade routes.
World War I did work, it ceased the violence...
The main reason that the violence ceased was that both sides were nearing their economic limits. Neither side had the resources to continue the struggle. You can't go on losing millions of men per year and still hope to have a sound economy. The entry of the US hastened the end, but it would have ended one way or another around that time.
The reasoning for entering the war was sound.
What was the reasoning for entering that war? The US had no horse in that race.
World War II was more straight forward but no one was bringing the war to American soil.
American soil was invaded. The Japanese invaded the Philippines, which were under American control at the time. They also invaded the Aleutian islands, hoping to get the natural resources there.
While your argument holds at normal scales, at the nano-scale, even small differences in size can make large differences in the chemical and electrical properties of a substance. Therefore, it is possible that the change in size from 65 to 45 nm could create significant technical challenges that require real innovation to overcome.
World War I didn't work. The victorious Allies, in an attempt to teach Germany and Austria a lesson, imposed penalties so harsh that both economies were crippled for the entire interbellum period, greasing the rails for a demagogue to take power. The Allies also did a horrible job in splitting up the Balkans, the Middle East, and numerous other portions of the world that had been previously ruled by Germany/Austria. Heck, if it hadn't been for the Treaty of Versailles, we probably wouldn't have had the bloodshed in the Balkans that we did. After World War I, the US entered one of its most isolationist periods because the American public could see that the US had wasted thousands of lives and billions of dollars for little strategic gain.
World War II was different. It much more about self-defense. Japan could (and did) attack US soil. Germany was on the verge of owning the vital Atlantic trade routes. America had to fight or submit.
Nope. You forgot to account for the fact that inflation is exponential too. Given the rates I've seen for no-fee accounts around here, you'll be lucky if your money isn't shrinking (in terms of purchasing power).
I believe that the music industry are capable of spending a lot of money on developing a sufficient good watermark technology, also one that will survive multiple reencoding attempts.
The music industry also spent a lot of money on DRM technology. Look at how far that got them.
My view is that either the watermark will be audible (detectable by analog means) or not. If the watermark is not audible, then re-encoding the files should get rid of it. If the watermark is audible, then you can filter out the affected frequencies. As long as the watermark doesn't overwrite the music (and if it did, what would be the point), then there's ways to get rid of it.
The problem is that its almost never that cut-and-dried. You don't know (e.g. 100% probability) that something catastrophic will happen. You just think that something might happen if the conditions are sufficiently bad.
The real scenario would go as follows:
IT: We have some really old hardware that's about to die.
BC: So what?
IT: Well, probably nothing will happen, but there's a 25% chance that it'll cause a cascade failure that'll bring down LAX.
BC: Only a 25% chance? You're asking us to spend $LOTS for a problem that might never occur? We'll fund it next year.
The letter and spirit of copyright law both indicate that copyrights cannot be owned. Rather, they can be held for a limited time, and in that time one may have an exclusive right to copy that is subject to certain restrictions (such as Fair Use).
All the same thing apply to Patents as well, yet patents are considered Intellectual Property.
You show the suits and bean counters how much it costs the company if the system failed and time was spent recovering that system.
That's very difficult to do, and your estimates of the costs will be called into question. Its often impossible to predict how long it'll take to diagnose and fix a problem unless you've already diagnosed and fixed a similar problem.
Making this kind of estimate also places you into a lose-lose position. If your estimate was high, then management sees you as "chicken little" and will be more likely to dismiss further concerns as more fearmongering. If your estimate was low, then the blame for the outage will cascade down onto you for not showing/convincing management that new equipment was needed.
The offending party (Capitol Records), has already been notified in an official manner by the court. The follow-up e-mail by Ms. Foster's attorneys is simply a courtesy. They'd be within their rights to pursue collection even without informing Capitol Records first, as it is Capitol's obligation to pay Ms. Foster.
And that's exactly why this law is bad. In a situation where specialized knowledge is warranted (like with security tools), the average person is not going to have enough background knowledge on these matters to tell if they're being duped by the prosecution. And unless the defendant has the money and will to hire an attorney specializing in these matters, he won't be able to counter the sensationalistic claims of the prosecutor.
When the majority of people think that "hackers" are using "computer codes" to "botnet" their computers in order to "steal their private information", there's very little chance of their being fair trials in this area. Simply put, there is no reasonable man standard here, because the "reasonable man" has no way of questioning the veracity of the prosecution's claims.
The problem with thorium, as with all nuclear fission, is that eventually you'll still get waste that's unusable for energy production, but still emitting enough radiation to be dangerous. As the waste sits in this phase for quite a time (I've heard spans on the order of centuries) you have to find landfill locations that are stable enough to hold spent fuel for extremely long spans of time. Its the lack of space to store waste, rather than lack of fuel that's the limiting factor with nuclear fission.
With fusion, though, all outputs are stable; therefore waste isn't a concern.
Your analogy is flawed. The thing that for-pay cable and for-pay music allowed was control. With cable, you gained control over what you saw (and the more you payed, the more control you got by getting more channels). Same thing with purchased music vs. radio. With radio you were at the mercy of what the station played. If you bought your own music you could decide what to listen to yourself.
The problem with music piracy (and to a lesser extent with web radio) is that you get the higher level of control associated with paid tiers of service for free. This takes away significantly from the added value that owning a CD provides. Whether I pirate a song or buy the CD I gain the same level of control over my music and piracy costs a whole lot less. The reason that the music and industry is scared is that the loss of the ability to charge for greater levels of controls takes away significantly from their ability to provide added value. In fact, it darn well invalidates their entire business model.
That's not to say that this is a bad thing. After all, the buggy-whip manufacturer's business model was invalidated by the advent of the autmobile, and no one is shedding tears for them. Business evolves, and the RIAA companies are filling a rapidly shrinking market with no clear progression to a new business model. Therefore they're trying their best to buy time with lawsuits and intimidation while they figure out what they will evolve into.
Previously, you had to break up your textures into blocks and manually load them as the player moved into the area covered by those textures. This new technology allows you to create one large texture for the entire level and have the game engine automatically break up the texture into blocks and dynamically load them for you.
It makes programming easier, because its one less thing to keep track of.
The openSUSE End User Frontend offers distribution users easy access to all software, which has been built in the openSUSE Build Service. You can easily search for software for your distribution. This includes all openSUSE, SUSE Linux Enterprise and foreign distributions (Fedora, Mandriva, Debian, Ubuntu).
How is this different than apt-get, or even just using Google to search for packages?
Once nice side-effect of unit testing is that it helps you communicate the code's intended use. In effect, a unit test behaves as executable documentation, showing how you expect the code to behave under the various conditions you've considered. Team members can look at the test for examples of how to use your code.
As for "digging out the the module test", there's no digging if you have your tests placed in the same module as your code, and use configuration management to strip out the tests when you release code.
Tests can be a form of documentation too. A proper suite of unit tests will show exactly what a method does. If the method does something different than expected then the tests will fail.
I don't even think the military-industrial complex got the dollars, or at least not the majority. I think they went to contras and other South American freedom fighters. No, the contras were financed by secret arms sales to Iran. That's why the scandal is called Iran/Contra. I think the vast majority of the "Star Wars" funding was wasted on mismanagement, much like the Iraq War funding today...
What do you mean "appeared to"? Are you saying that the billions of dollars the Reagan Administration borrowed by issuing treasury bills are imaginary or something?
From http://zfacts.com/p/318.html - original source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/hi st.pdf The traditional pattern of running large deficits only in times of war or economic downturns was broken during much of the 1980s. In 1982 [Reagan's first budget year], partly in response to a recession, large tax cuts were enacted. However, these were accompanied by substantial increases in defense spending. Although reductions were made to nondefense spending, they were not sufficient to offset the impact on the deficit. As a result, deficits averaging $206 billion were incurred between 1983 and 1992. These unprecedented peacetime deficits increased debt held by the public from $789 billion in 1981 to $3.0 trillion (48.1% of GDP) in 1992.
You don't remember Ronald Reagan, who basically ran on civil rights and limitations on federal government power, and who actually popularized "The scariest words in the English Language: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
Are we thinking about the same history? Is this the same Reagan that increased government spending to levels that were unmatched for twenty years? The same guy who (nearly) single handedly added trillions of dollars to the national debt? Or are we talking about the Reagan that set the bar for government corruption with Iran/Contra?
The problem with absolute lassiez-faire economics as espoused by Adam Smith, Ayn Rand and the Austrian school is that it assumes perfect market conditions - e.g. perfect information, and zero cost of comparison shopping. In practice, these do not exist. No one has the time to collect perfect information, and the cost of comparison shopping is most definitely non-zero (if nothing else, it costs me time). The lack of these two conditions in practice creates a power imbalance in favor of the producers, as they have more information about market conditions than the consumers they are selling to.
Also, in a free market, there is an incentive for producers to collude and form a cartel to increase their share of the economic gain.
Finally, this discussion ignores externalities like pollution and infrastructure costs entirely. The best practical way to "internalize" externality costs is through some kind of government intervention (usually taxes or user fees).
I'm not saying that government is the solution for everything. I am saying that there are certain instances where the "invisible hand" does not encourage necessary investment. In those cases, government should intervene.
The other problem with GUI configuration is debugging. With text-based configuration you can grep or use a text editor to search for the setting you want to change. Searching for a particular setting with a GUI is more difficult unless you have a photographic memory and can remember the exact location of the checkbox/radiobutton/whatever that needs to be changed.
Slashdot Mirror
So, no, the original article was in Imperial measurements, but the summary converts it to km for the sake of having a round number.
Even still, its unlikely that a single shot would ricochet along for a kilometer. Heck, most shotguns don't have that kind of range in the open, much less inside a confined space where every ricochet means lost energy for the pellets.
That requires assuming that the design is the same. Who's to say that Intel has kept the same design, with absolutely no improvements? If I was an engineer at Intel, I'd certainly be looking at adding new features now that space has become available.
As for protecting our trade routes, we were giving guns and ammo along with medical supplies to the British during that time and that is why the Germans attacked our ships.
And why were we giving guns and ammo to the Brits? That's right, they were protecting our trade routes.
World War I did work, it ceased the violence...
The main reason that the violence ceased was that both sides were nearing their economic limits. Neither side had the resources to continue the struggle. You can't go on losing millions of men per year and still hope to have a sound economy. The entry of the US hastened the end, but it would have ended one way or another around that time.
The reasoning for entering the war was sound.
What was the reasoning for entering that war? The US had no horse in that race.
World War II was more straight forward but no one was bringing the war to American soil.
American soil was invaded. The Japanese invaded the Philippines, which were under American control at the time. They also invaded the Aleutian islands, hoping to get the natural resources there.
While your argument holds at normal scales, at the nano-scale, even small differences in size can make large differences in the chemical and electrical properties of a substance. Therefore, it is possible that the change in size from 65 to 45 nm could create significant technical challenges that require real innovation to overcome.
So you're saying World War I and II didn't work?
World War I didn't work. The victorious Allies, in an attempt to teach Germany and Austria a lesson, imposed penalties so harsh that both economies were crippled for the entire interbellum period, greasing the rails for a demagogue to take power. The Allies also did a horrible job in splitting up the Balkans, the Middle East, and numerous other portions of the world that had been previously ruled by Germany/Austria. Heck, if it hadn't been for the Treaty of Versailles, we probably wouldn't have had the bloodshed in the Balkans that we did. After World War I, the US entered one of its most isolationist periods because the American public could see that the US had wasted thousands of lives and billions of dollars for little strategic gain.
World War II was different. It much more about self-defense. Japan could (and did) attack US soil. Germany was on the verge of owning the vital Atlantic trade routes. America had to fight or submit.
Nope. You forgot to account for the fact that inflation is exponential too. Given the rates I've seen for no-fee accounts around here, you'll be lucky if your money isn't shrinking (in terms of purchasing power).
I believe that the music industry are capable of spending a lot of money on developing a sufficient good watermark technology, also one that will survive multiple reencoding attempts.
The music industry also spent a lot of money on DRM technology. Look at how far that got them.
My view is that either the watermark will be audible (detectable by analog means) or not. If the watermark is not audible, then re-encoding the files should get rid of it. If the watermark is audible, then you can filter out the affected frequencies. As long as the watermark doesn't overwrite the music (and if it did, what would be the point), then there's ways to get rid of it.
The real scenario would go as follows:
The letter and spirit of copyright law both indicate that copyrights cannot be owned. Rather, they can be held for a limited time, and in that time one may have an exclusive right to copy that is subject to certain restrictions (such as Fair Use).
All the same thing apply to Patents as well, yet patents are considered Intellectual Property.
Surely management understands that redundancy is good.
No. In managements' eyes, redundancy is bad. You're paying twice as much, but you're not getting any extra functionality in return.
You show the suits and bean counters how much it costs the company if the system failed and time was spent recovering that system.
That's very difficult to do, and your estimates of the costs will be called into question. Its often impossible to predict how long it'll take to diagnose and fix a problem unless you've already diagnosed and fixed a similar problem.
Making this kind of estimate also places you into a lose-lose position. If your estimate was high, then management sees you as "chicken little" and will be more likely to dismiss further concerns as more fearmongering. If your estimate was low, then the blame for the outage will cascade down onto you for not showing/convincing management that new equipment was needed.
The offending party (Capitol Records), has already been notified in an official manner by the court. The follow-up e-mail by Ms. Foster's attorneys is simply a courtesy. They'd be within their rights to pursue collection even without informing Capitol Records first, as it is Capitol's obligation to pay Ms. Foster.
And that's exactly why this law is bad. In a situation where specialized knowledge is warranted (like with security tools), the average person is not going to have enough background knowledge on these matters to tell if they're being duped by the prosecution. And unless the defendant has the money and will to hire an attorney specializing in these matters, he won't be able to counter the sensationalistic claims of the prosecutor.
When the majority of people think that "hackers" are using "computer codes" to "botnet" their computers in order to "steal their private information", there's very little chance of their being fair trials in this area. Simply put, there is no reasonable man standard here, because the "reasonable man" has no way of questioning the veracity of the prosecution's claims.
The problem with thorium, as with all nuclear fission, is that eventually you'll still get waste that's unusable for energy production, but still emitting enough radiation to be dangerous. As the waste sits in this phase for quite a time (I've heard spans on the order of centuries) you have to find landfill locations that are stable enough to hold spent fuel for extremely long spans of time. Its the lack of space to store waste, rather than lack of fuel that's the limiting factor with nuclear fission.
With fusion, though, all outputs are stable; therefore waste isn't a concern.
Your analogy is flawed. The thing that for-pay cable and for-pay music allowed was control. With cable, you gained control over what you saw (and the more you payed, the more control you got by getting more channels). Same thing with purchased music vs. radio. With radio you were at the mercy of what the station played. If you bought your own music you could decide what to listen to yourself.
The problem with music piracy (and to a lesser extent with web radio) is that you get the higher level of control associated with paid tiers of service for free. This takes away significantly from the added value that owning a CD provides. Whether I pirate a song or buy the CD I gain the same level of control over my music and piracy costs a whole lot less. The reason that the music and industry is scared is that the loss of the ability to charge for greater levels of controls takes away significantly from their ability to provide added value. In fact, it darn well invalidates their entire business model.
That's not to say that this is a bad thing. After all, the buggy-whip manufacturer's business model was invalidated by the advent of the autmobile, and no one is shedding tears for them. Business evolves, and the RIAA companies are filling a rapidly shrinking market with no clear progression to a new business model. Therefore they're trying their best to buy time with lawsuits and intimidation while they figure out what they will evolve into.
Previously, you had to break up your textures into blocks and manually load them as the player moved into the area covered by those textures. This new technology allows you to create one large texture for the entire level and have the game engine automatically break up the texture into blocks and dynamically load them for you.
It makes programming easier, because its one less thing to keep track of.
How is this different than apt-get, or even just using Google to search for packages?
Tests can be a form of documentation too. A proper suite of unit tests will show exactly what a method does. If the method does something different than expected then the tests will fail.
What do you mean "appeared to"? Are you saying that the billions of dollars the Reagan Administration borrowed by issuing treasury bills are imaginary or something?
i st.pdf
From http://zfacts.com/p/318.html - original source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/h
The traditional pattern of running large deficits only in times of war or economic downturns was broken during much of the 1980s. In 1982 [Reagan's first budget year], partly in response to a recession, large tax cuts were enacted. However, these were accompanied by substantial increases in defense spending. Although reductions were made to nondefense spending, they were not sufficient to offset the impact on the deficit. As a result, deficits averaging $206 billion were incurred between 1983 and 1992. These unprecedented peacetime deficits increased debt held by the public from $789 billion in 1981 to $3.0 trillion (48.1% of GDP) in 1992.
You don't remember Ronald Reagan, who basically ran on civil rights and limitations on federal government power, and who actually popularized "The scariest words in the English Language: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
Are we thinking about the same history? Is this the same Reagan that increased government spending to levels that were unmatched for twenty years? The same guy who (nearly) single handedly added trillions of dollars to the national debt? Or are we talking about the Reagan that set the bar for government corruption with Iran/Contra?
The problem with absolute lassiez-faire economics as espoused by Adam Smith, Ayn Rand and the Austrian school is that it assumes perfect market conditions - e.g. perfect information, and zero cost of comparison shopping. In practice, these do not exist. No one has the time to collect perfect information, and the cost of comparison shopping is most definitely non-zero (if nothing else, it costs me time). The lack of these two conditions in practice creates a power imbalance in favor of the producers, as they have more information about market conditions than the consumers they are selling to.
Also, in a free market, there is an incentive for producers to collude and form a cartel to increase their share of the economic gain.
Finally, this discussion ignores externalities like pollution and infrastructure costs entirely. The best practical way to "internalize" externality costs is through some kind of government intervention (usually taxes or user fees).
I'm not saying that government is the solution for everything. I am saying that there are certain instances where the "invisible hand" does not encourage necessary investment. In those cases, government should intervene.
The other problem with GUI configuration is debugging. With text-based configuration you can grep or use a text editor to search for the setting you want to change. Searching for a particular setting with a GUI is more difficult unless you have a photographic memory and can remember the exact location of the checkbox/radiobutton/whatever that needs to be changed.