In fact, it's the lowest side possible--that's the jurisdictional amount threshold for filing a claim in Federal court. IMO it supports the idea that she's not in it for the money.
Who needs bankname.bank.phisher.com? Even if this new XTLA-TLD gets implemented, my mom and my grandma will still click on www.bankname.com.
It's the same as those image captchas BofA uses. It's a nice touch, but if one day you went to the site and it just asked you for a username/password, would you really think something was amiss?
It may be possible that Apple is trying to set precedent with this excuse. If enough people buy (i.e., not complain about paying for) the 802.11n enabler, then they can just blame SOX again when they charge $50 next year to "unlock" the 3G capabilities of the iPhone.
Nobody's saying Apple doesn't have a right to charge for unlocking features. It's the claim that they're doing it because of SOX (meanwhile insulting the intelligence of anyone who has ever received a new feature from a free firmware update) that smells foul.
Well, kind of a "damned if you do" situation. They're trying to embrace open source and they're putting their money where their mouth is. I guess they could have continued to charge $9/mo for an account (now free), kept the client proprietary and said "screw you" to open source, and people here would bitch about how they were selling out.
I'm sure if they're planning on making their big money-maker a free service, they've already got some ideas behind the veil on how they'll keep the revenue flowing (and just didn't want to prematurely divulge it to a bunch of students in an IS class).
A senior developer from Linden spoke at my class a few months back, and he told us about their plans to open source the client, and eventually the server system - i.e., you will eventually be able to use your own hardware to run a SL land server over the internet. The question isn't whether it will happen, it's when. Will it affect their business model? Of course. But according to the developer, the goal is to open-source everything they can, and if the business model has to change, then it'll change.
Unfortunately I don't have Real installed to watch this nullity explanation, but I think you're way off base with "imaginary" (now, better known as "complex") numbers. Being able to do math with complex numbers is one of the major reasons all those electrical circuits in your computer and home work. it's a logical construct and has significant practical purpose. As for nullity? Who knows.
Btw, am I the only person who thinks that a pacemaker or any kind of truly mission critical device that "attempts to divide by zero" will not "simply crash?" You'd figure there would be some kind of failsafe in the code that goes at least a step beyond the old B-Movie "THIS DOES NOT COMPUTE...OVERLOAD! OVERLOAD! ARGHHHH...."
As a graduating law student, I've read a number of these. Yau makes a lot of claims, which may very well be true, but what struck me was the section about how there has been "no battle" over priority for the Poincare proof.
In it, he claims there was never any battle, and that his paper merely established the "first complete proof applying [Perelman's] and Professor Hamilton's work." But if I understand my mathematics nomenclature correctly, isn't that the exact act of trying to establish priority? He's actually saying, "I've (or my students have) PROVED the theorem, Perelman and Hamilton have both done work allowing me to do so." Of course, since what Perelman did is considered by many mathematicians to actually BE the first complete proof, Yau's letter essentially confirms what he's being accused of doing. The fight is about who has the first complete proof, not how much recognition Perelman should have been received in the paper.
Legally, this sounds like a lot of hot air. The letter isn't a legal document, and well-established precedents in defamation law protect journalists in cases such as this where the event is easily newsworthy and the people involved have become public figures. Yau is relying less on any legal basis he has, and more on being able to use the letter as evidence that he's outraged by his portrayal in the article.
Re:University of California?
on
Guitar Hero Hacks
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I guess a big difference is that "University of California" is actually real.
Isn't saying "a project at the University of California" kind of like referring to the "country of Europe"?
Lots of schools and lots of profs do this. Wharton has a general no-laptop policy, and they even designed their new building so the classrooms don't have AC outlets at the desks. While I think it's a little narrow-minded to simply label profs as "luddites" or "technophobes," in classes where I can't bring my thinkpad, I trasncribe word for word on paper instead, and in the process avoid eye-contact even more because I can't "touch-write" and it takes longer.
So I'm not up in arms about such a policy, I also don't think it serves the (commonly-cited) purpose profs think it serves.
I love Nokia UI, but when I was in Japan, all I saw were big, flat, rectangular flip-phones with massively high-resolution internet-text-ready screens.
I walked into a store in Akiba and saw a tiny flaccid Nokia booth showing off a 68xx phone, which I actually want, and after comparing the build and the low-res screen, walked away wondering, "who are the poor suckers who thought this thing would sell in the Japanese market?"
Finding out it was Vodaphone was disappointing. Finding out they're folding from the Jp market brings to me a sense of rightness with the world.
But are they getting paid for it? Even more, if it required the damned ball to be sent to them and back every time it's sold, then how well would this process work, anyways? As long as qualified experts are getting the ball for examination, why would they need DNA to verify its authenticity, can't they just verify it with other mundane and proven ways?
The process of how this would need to work if you had to send the ball out to the NFL sounds pretty ineffective to me.
If they don't tell anyone, I guess they're willing to go around testing all 10,000 footballs everyone is thinking about bidding for on ebay.
They should just include it and sell subscriptions
on
No Anti-Virus in Vista
·
· Score: 1
Why not just one-up Symmantec? Include the antivirus, and every copy of Vista comes with a free 3-month subscription to Microsoft Antivirus. Afterwards, constantly annoy the user by popping up a screen to renew the subscription for $9/mo or $59 for the year. That should result in way more subscribers (low hanging fruit) than selling a separate package or.net/live offering.
Re:Interesting... How much extra battery life?
on
Undervolting a Laptop
·
· Score: 3, Informative
My own tests with Arctic Silver 5 on 15" Thinkpad T42p:
1.8GHz at 1.340V (default): Idle 40C. Load 58C. (Approx).
1.8Ghz at 1.134V: Idle 39C (there won't be much difference at idle). Load 51C.
600Mhz at 0.980V (default): Idle 35C. Load 41C.
600Mhz at 0.700V: Idle 35C. Load 39C.
I don't remember what the exact difference was in battery life, but I think I got about 30 minutes more out of a 12-cell battery (from 4.5 hours to 5 hours).
Oh, one more thing: undervolting is generally SAFER than overclocking, or overvolting to overclock. Providing less power to the CPU can cause errors or crashes, but it won't fry your CPU like overclocking/overvolting will!
Undervolting is NOT underclocking. You run the same clock speed, you just provide the CPU with less juice.
You do NOT need to underclock to undervolt, though if you're trying to hit a super-low voltage, a lower clockspeed will let you do it.
It can be perfectly safe. If you undervolt, and successfully run a Prime95 torture test for 24 hours, you're pretty much set. I'm currently running a 1.8Ghz Dothan Thinkpad at 1.134V (default at 1.8 is 1.340), and 0.700v at 600Mhz (default is 0.980 volts). That's on par or lower than those 1.0Ghz ULV Pentium-Ms!
It's more like taking a Mercedes (Porsche? Let's go with something that implicates experience/luxury rather than blazing speed) and and putting a Chevy pickup truck chassis on it. It may not be pretty, but sometimes you just need to haul stuff.
I wonder if that 50ms flash judgment is at all affected by the length of time it takes to initially load the page for viewing. What good is a 50ms impression if you end up sitting there waiting for 10-20 seconds as each element progressively loads? By the time the page is done, very often any positive initial impression will definitely have changed.
After reading about the future and potential of networked minds, it's hilarious to load up this page and see a near-random ASCII grid with the caption "The collective conscious is trying to create 'a bucket'". Now that's putting things in perspective.
Slashdot Mirror
In fact, it's the lowest side possible--that's the jurisdictional amount threshold for filing a claim in Federal court. IMO it supports the idea that she's not in it for the money.
$75,000 (or rather, "in excess of") is the minimum "jurisdictional amount" of damages you must claim to bring a case in federal court.
It doesn't sound like she's after the money, she just wants justice (and her degree).
It's the same as those image captchas BofA uses. It's a nice touch, but if one day you went to the site and it just asked you for a username/password, would you really think something was amiss?
I do this as well. All of my shortcuts are two- or TLA to save time, and I try to keep my desktop clear of permanent icons.
ff = firefox
ps = photoshop
Another benefit is that accessories and applets already in your Windows directory automatically work too:
calc, cmd, regedt32, dfrg.msc, etc...
It may be possible that Apple is trying to set precedent with this excuse. If enough people buy (i.e., not complain about paying for) the 802.11n enabler, then they can just blame SOX again when they charge $50 next year to "unlock" the 3G capabilities of the iPhone. Nobody's saying Apple doesn't have a right to charge for unlocking features. It's the claim that they're doing it because of SOX (meanwhile insulting the intelligence of anyone who has ever received a new feature from a free firmware update) that smells foul.
Well, kind of a "damned if you do" situation. They're trying to embrace open source and they're putting their money where their mouth is. I guess they could have continued to charge $9/mo for an account (now free), kept the client proprietary and said "screw you" to open source, and people here would bitch about how they were selling out. I'm sure if they're planning on making their big money-maker a free service, they've already got some ideas behind the veil on how they'll keep the revenue flowing (and just didn't want to prematurely divulge it to a bunch of students in an IS class).
A senior developer from Linden spoke at my class a few months back, and he told us about their plans to open source the client, and eventually the server system - i.e., you will eventually be able to use your own hardware to run a SL land server over the internet. The question isn't whether it will happen, it's when. Will it affect their business model? Of course. But according to the developer, the goal is to open-source everything they can, and if the business model has to change, then it'll change.
You're right of course. I was too fast with my reply, and now it's archived for all time.
Unfortunately I don't have Real installed to watch this nullity explanation, but I think you're way off base with "imaginary" (now, better known as "complex") numbers. Being able to do math with complex numbers is one of the major reasons all those electrical circuits in your computer and home work. it's a logical construct and has significant practical purpose. As for nullity? Who knows.
Btw, am I the only person who thinks that a pacemaker or any kind of truly mission critical device that "attempts to divide by zero" will not "simply crash?" You'd figure there would be some kind of failsafe in the code that goes at least a step beyond the old B-Movie "THIS DOES NOT COMPUTE...OVERLOAD! OVERLOAD! ARGHHHH...."
In it, he claims there was never any battle, and that his paper merely established the "first complete proof applying [Perelman's] and Professor Hamilton's work." But if I understand my mathematics nomenclature correctly, isn't that the exact act of trying to establish priority? He's actually saying, "I've (or my students have) PROVED the theorem, Perelman and Hamilton have both done work allowing me to do so." Of course, since what Perelman did is considered by many mathematicians to actually BE the first complete proof, Yau's letter essentially confirms what he's being accused of doing. The fight is about who has the first complete proof, not how much recognition Perelman should have been received in the paper.
Legally, this sounds like a lot of hot air. The letter isn't a legal document, and well-established precedents in defamation law protect journalists in cases such as this where the event is easily newsworthy and the people involved have become public figures. Yau is relying less on any legal basis he has, and more on being able to use the letter as evidence that he's outraged by his portrayal in the article.
Isn't saying "a project at the University of California" kind of like referring to the "country of Europe"?
So I'm not up in arms about such a policy, I also don't think it serves the (commonly-cited) purpose profs think it serves.
I walked into a store in Akiba and saw a tiny flaccid Nokia booth showing off a 68xx phone, which I actually want, and after comparing the build and the low-res screen, walked away wondering, "who are the poor suckers who thought this thing would sell in the Japanese market?"
Finding out it was Vodaphone was disappointing. Finding out they're folding from the Jp market brings to me a sense of rightness with the world.
Stephen J. Gould whoops with triumph in his grave.
The process of how this would need to work if you had to send the ball out to the NFL sounds pretty ineffective to me.
If they don't tell anyone, I guess they're willing to go around testing all 10,000 footballs everyone is thinking about bidding for on ebay.
Why not just one-up Symmantec? Include the antivirus, and every copy of Vista comes with a free 3-month subscription to Microsoft Antivirus. Afterwards, constantly annoy the user by popping up a screen to renew the subscription for $9/mo or $59 for the year. That should result in way more subscribers (low hanging fruit) than selling a separate package or .net/live offering.
1.8GHz at 1.340V (default): Idle 40C. Load 58C. (Approx).
1.8Ghz at 1.134V: Idle 39C (there won't be much difference at idle). Load 51C.
600Mhz at 0.980V (default): Idle 35C. Load 41C.
600Mhz at 0.700V: Idle 35C. Load 39C.
I don't remember what the exact difference was in battery life, but I think I got about 30 minutes more out of a 12-cell battery (from 4.5 hours to 5 hours).
Oh, one more thing: undervolting is generally SAFER than overclocking, or overvolting to overclock. Providing less power to the CPU can cause errors or crashes, but it won't fry your CPU like overclocking/overvolting will!
Undervolting is NOT underclocking. You run the same clock speed, you just provide the CPU with less juice.
You do NOT need to underclock to undervolt, though if you're trying to hit a super-low voltage, a lower clockspeed will let you do it.
It can be perfectly safe. If you undervolt, and successfully run a Prime95 torture test for 24 hours, you're pretty much set. I'm currently running a 1.8Ghz Dothan Thinkpad at 1.134V (default at 1.8 is 1.340), and 0.700v at 600Mhz (default is 0.980 volts). That's on par or lower than those 1.0Ghz ULV Pentium-Ms!
Despite the switch to Intel CPUs, the time honored tradition of "Apple benchmarks" continues :)
It's more like taking a Mercedes (Porsche? Let's go with something that implicates experience/luxury rather than blazing speed) and and putting a Chevy pickup truck chassis on it. It may not be pretty, but sometimes you just need to haul stuff.
I wonder if that 50ms flash judgment is at all affected by the length of time it takes to initially load the page for viewing. What good is a 50ms impression if you end up sitting there waiting for 10-20 seconds as each element progressively loads? By the time the page is done, very often any positive initial impression will definitely have changed.
I'm going to stop short of crying "Dupe!" but the articles linked were posted a few months ago:
4 5245&tid=172&tid=123&tid=219
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/28/17
After reading about the future and potential of networked minds, it's hilarious to load up this page and see a near-random ASCII grid with the caption "The collective conscious is trying to create 'a bucket'". Now that's putting things in perspective.