Basically this is how you do a placebo trial. The science is telling us that these people are sick, but it is not due to radio towers, because having the radiation on or off is not making any statistically significant difference at all in their symptoms.
It is the same as when you do a dug trial with 1/2 the people getting sugar pills, and in a huge majority of *both* groups the people get better. You use statistics to find out the *true* efficacy of your medicine.
Basically - the point is the illness could be being caused by any number of other local-specific factors, but cell towers is not the cause.
What the OP is referring to is that the Sorcerer's Stone and the Philosopher's Stone are different names for the same thing, neither of which have anything to do with Harry Potter.
In NA the Sourcer's Stone is always referred to as such going back hundreds of years, it is just a different evolution of the language.
I don't have any idea what you mean by "VMWare Player doesn't work with my wireless card". VMWare doesn't know ANYTHING about your underlying networking hardware. All it uses is the IP stack.
If and when a laptop can get a nice big 24" screen or larger, can have ultra fast, high capacity hard drives with kick-ass 3D graphics and components I can upgrade...then I'll get one. I don't see that happening in the next 5 to 7 years.,
I think personally (with my layman's quantum physics background) what is more likely to happen than see the result "in the past", is that the process of the destruction of the first arriving photon when it is measured will cause the longer-arriving entangled photon to change such that the "observed value in the past" is NO LONGER the actual value the longer-taking photon will have when it reaches it's destination.
Thus both "sending a message into the past" AND avoiding a paradox simultaneously - because the sending of the message into the past changes the message being sent, which no longer makes it a message into the past.
IMO this fits with my personal view of reverse time travel as I understand relativity and quantum mechanics - time travel int othe past is totall ypossible n theory, but not reverseable. That is, if you travel into the past, you would never then reach the future from which you came; rather you would reach a different future since the quantum probabilities the universe will take are now different. T
Yeah but you're operating under a close proximity assumption here.
Say instead that the photon pulse for Device A is being fired are from Earth to Mars and then back again on a round trip, or around the earth many times in a flawless optical cable. Meanwhile Device B's laser is earth bound over a short distance. You can extend this range to whatever is needed to make the photons in Device A take 1 minute or longer to reach the detector.
You could then fiddle with Device A, see result in Device B way before Device A detects it's result, and have lots of time to turn off Device A, thus creating the paradox.
You're relying on the assumption that no one else on earth exists with similar ideals, which is a fallacy. Lots of people would prefer everyone had equal access to resources.
BTW, can you name one Communist country that wasn't totalitarian? You said they're 'mutually exclusive' however I have yet to see an instance where a Communist country was NOT totalitarian.
That is my whole point. Communism is the antithesis of capitalism, which are both economic ideologies, not political ones. Totalitarianism is the antithesis of democracy, which are political ideologies, not economic ones. But the general public is always grouping these things together when really they have nothing to do with each other than the fact that up to this point all communist societies have turned out to be totalitarian.
It is perfectly possible for a communist socienty to exist democratically if all residents endorse it. The problem lies in the transition because you have all these wealthy and/or powerful individuals who don't want to give up that power for the benefit of everyone else.
I should say so. If the State came along and said I had to operate an engine lathe because the State needed it thus, what do you think I would do?
This is a straw-man argument because in a true democratic communist society YOU would elect the people who run the state and local governments, so in effect it would be YOU who decide you want to operate the lathe.
The problem is, people confuse communism with dictatorship and/or totalitarianism when really, they are mutually exclusive.
There has never been any modern communist government in the past few hundred years.
A real communist country WOULD BE a democracy; in fact if you take democracy to it's logical course (where everyone has a say) you inevitably end up with a communist state.
A true communist country would have
- A democratically elected government with 100% transparency - 100% nationalized economy where all work equally and are compensated proportionally to their capabilities - Total freedom of expression and speech
You can't have any of these things without the others. The problem with reaching this goal, which all totalitarianist status that started out with the end goal of communism (Cuba, China, The USSR, North Korea) have encountered, is it is impossible to nationalize the enconomy while having a democratic government at the same time, because it is a violent process by necessity. So the government needs to have absolute power for awhile, so they can take over industries for the good of the people.
The way it is supposed to work is the government should weild absolute power for a period of time ONLY - say a few years - then totally revoke it and give it back to the people. The problem is once the government gets this power they don't give it up easily - in fact it usually gets worse.
This is why transitioning to true communism is so difficult - in fact it has never yet been archived. Hopefully someday we can all as a society put aside our differences and make it work for the good of the world.
Been using it for years. Very featureful - in fact has more features than you listed for Sharepoint. Also works in any web browser so remote access is built in.
Only thing missing is version control in the FileManager component. Sounds like a good feature request that would be easy to implement with RCS.
Any router would appear knocked down because all the spectrum is being flooded with ARP requests so every packet is having collisions.
People gotta remember WiFi is a shared medium - it is not switched. It follows the same principle as an old fashioned hub. Anyone can flood the whole hub knocking everyone else out with collisions if they want.
Any WiFi device can "bring down" a wireless access point. It is a shared medium, therefore it is an intrinsic property of the medium that any poorly-behaved device can knock all others off the network. No flaws int he network at all have to exist for this to happen. ANY wirleess device can be brought down trivially.
The only way to design it otherwise would be to have every wireless device allocate it's own communications frequency (which was not in interfering range of other used frequencies) at client negotiation time, so that communications didn't interfere with each other and they each had their own available bandwidth.
Too bad that would be totally unworkable in practice due to the extremely limited number of frequencies available, not to mention illegal since you're monopolizing the public spectrum.
There are already several websites that let you leave notes to people "in the air", so that when your GPS-enabled phone is in the proximity of them they appear on your screen.
Couple that with the ability to do location-aware search and I don't know how much more "hyper local" the web could possibly get.
Are you somehow trying to imply that a campus-wide network that supports THOUSANDS of wireless devices with no issues, is automatically the one to blame when 1-2 iPhones bring it down, without even knowing the details?
It's amazing the Apple fanboy-ism around here. I have seen MANY devices have flaws like this in my time. Everyone knew the iPhone, as a first gen product, was going to have it's problems. This is likely one of them.
And no matter what you seem to think you know about WiFi - one device can EASILY flood others off of an AP with a lot of ARP requests, because they will suck up all the available bandwidth for itself. It is a well known fact very easy to DOS a wireless access point in this way. You gotta remember WiFi is a shared medium every client doesn't have dedicated bandwidth by any stretch of the imagination. It is not hard at all to assume that this is a broken WiFi driver in the iPhone.
If Apple can't make hardware that works, and/or won't own up to their problems and fix them, then ban all iPhones from connecting to the university WiFi network via their MAC vendor and device ID portions. After all that is what the structure of a MAC is for - so the network admins know what kind of devices are being used.
Banning iPhones campus wide because they are faulty would trigger some nice nasty press for Apple and piss off a lot of owners of the device - I imagine they would fix the problem much faster (or at least respond to the ticket!)
Here's why the Zune sucks
on
Zune DRM Cracked
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It's much larger and heavier than an iPod. The interface is not as simple or intuitive, but clunky.
Even aside from that, at time of launch it cost more than a simmilar iPod!
The only thing the Zune ever had going for it was WiFi. And Microsoft botched that up so bad it's ridiculous (why no Zireless sync? Why no wirless purchase of music?)
The fact that they went to the trouble and expense to include WiFi but not include these basic features people would WANT it for is ridiculous. and indicates they did not do proper market research. The whole "WiFi share" idea is also retarded in a number of ways.
Slashdot Mirror
Basically this is how you do a placebo trial. The science is telling us that these people are sick, but it is not due to radio towers, because having the radiation on or off is not making any statistically significant difference at all in their symptoms.
It is the same as when you do a dug trial with 1/2 the people getting sugar pills, and in a huge majority of *both* groups the people get better. You use statistics to find out the *true* efficacy of your medicine.
Basically - the point is the illness could be being caused by any number of other local-specific factors, but cell towers is not the cause.
What the OP is referring to is that the Sorcerer's Stone and the Philosopher's Stone are different names for the same thing, neither of which have anything to do with Harry Potter.
In NA the Sourcer's Stone is always referred to as such going back hundreds of years, it is just a different evolution of the language.
Those kits were great :)
I need to run out and buy some; chances are they won't exist anymore by the time I have kids.
Just use NAT instead of bridging in your vmware config
I once considered writing a kernel emacs accelerator module, but later decided it would be easier to just run Linux inside of emacs!
I don't have any idea what you mean by "VMWare Player doesn't work with my wireless card". VMWare doesn't know ANYTHING about your underlying networking hardware. All it uses is the IP stack.
If and when a laptop can get a nice big 24" screen or larger, can have ultra fast, high capacity hard drives with kick-ass 3D graphics and components I can upgrade...then I'll get one. I don't see that happening in the next 5 to 7 years.,
Dell XSP M 2010
Nuff said. I assume you'll pick it up tomorrow?
I think personally (with my layman's quantum physics background) what is more likely to happen than see the result "in the past", is that the process of the destruction of the first arriving photon when it is measured will cause the longer-arriving entangled photon to change such that the "observed value in the past" is NO LONGER the actual value the longer-taking photon will have when it reaches it's destination.
Thus both "sending a message into the past" AND avoiding a paradox simultaneously - because the sending of the message into the past changes the message being sent, which no longer makes it a message into the past.
IMO this fits with my personal view of reverse time travel as I understand relativity and quantum mechanics - time travel int othe past is totall ypossible n theory, but not reverseable. That is, if you travel into the past, you would never then reach the future from which you came; rather you would reach a different future since the quantum probabilities the universe will take are now different. T
Thus no paradoxes are created.
Yeah but you're operating under a close proximity assumption here.
Say instead that the photon pulse for Device A is being fired are from Earth to Mars and then back again on a round trip, or around the earth many times in a flawless optical cable. Meanwhile Device B's laser is earth bound over a short distance. You can extend this range to whatever is needed to make the photons in Device A take 1 minute or longer to reach the detector.
You could then fiddle with Device A, see result in Device B way before Device A detects it's result, and have lots of time to turn off Device A, thus creating the paradox.
You're relying on the assumption that no one else on earth exists with similar ideals, which is a fallacy. Lots of people would prefer everyone had equal access to resources.
Just make an alias for the site via any of the hundreds of free web redirectors around. TinyURL.com being one example.
BTW, can you name one Communist country that wasn't totalitarian? You said they're 'mutually exclusive' however I have yet to see an instance where a Communist country was NOT totalitarian.
That is my whole point. Communism is the antithesis of capitalism, which are both economic ideologies, not political ones. Totalitarianism is the antithesis of democracy, which are political ideologies, not economic ones. But the general public is always grouping these things together when really they have nothing to do with each other than the fact that up to this point all communist societies have turned out to be totalitarian.
It is perfectly possible for a communist socienty to exist democratically if all residents endorse it. The problem lies in the transition because you have all these wealthy and/or powerful individuals who don't want to give up that power for the benefit of everyone else.
I should say so. If the State came along and said I had to operate an engine lathe because the State needed it thus, what do you think I would do?
This is a straw-man argument because in a true democratic communist society YOU would elect the people who run the state and local governments, so in effect it would be YOU who decide you want to operate the lathe.
So then what is the natural refuge of people who want everyone as equals including themselves?
It sure as hell isn't modern democracy/capitalism based society.
The problem is, people confuse communism with dictatorship and/or totalitarianism when really, they are mutually exclusive.
There has never been any modern communist government in the past few hundred years.
A real communist country WOULD BE a democracy; in fact if you take democracy to it's logical course (where everyone has a say) you inevitably end up with a communist state.
A true communist country would have
- A democratically elected government with 100% transparency
- 100% nationalized economy where all work equally and are compensated proportionally to their capabilities
- Total freedom of expression and speech
You can't have any of these things without the others. The problem with reaching this goal, which all totalitarianist status that started out with the end goal of communism (Cuba, China, The USSR, North Korea) have encountered, is it is impossible to nationalize the enconomy while having a democratic government at the same time, because it is a violent process by necessity. So the government needs to have absolute power for awhile, so they can take over industries for the good of the people.
The way it is supposed to work is the government should weild absolute power for a period of time ONLY - say a few years - then totally revoke it and give it back to the people. The problem is once the government gets this power they don't give it up easily - in fact it usually gets worse.
This is why transitioning to true communism is so difficult - in fact it has never yet been archived. Hopefully someday we can all as a society put aside our differences and make it work for the good of the world.
So run it on port 8080 or something else. There is nothing magical about port 80 that you have to run a website on it.
Sounds like eGroupware to me.
Been using it for years. Very featureful - in fact has more features than you listed for Sharepoint. Also works in any web browser so remote access is built in.
Only thing missing is version control in the FileManager component. Sounds like a good feature request that would be easy to implement with RCS.
Any router would appear knocked down because all the spectrum is being flooded with ARP requests so every packet is having collisions.
People gotta remember WiFi is a shared medium - it is not switched. It follows the same principle as an old fashioned hub. Anyone can flood the whole hub knocking everyone else out with collisions if they want.
It's wireless. Any device can "bring down" everyone else by flooding it with anything. It's a shared medium.
Any WiFi device can "bring down" a wireless access point. It is a shared medium, therefore it is an intrinsic property of the medium that any poorly-behaved device can knock all others off the network. No flaws int he network at all have to exist for this to happen. ANY wirleess device can be brought down trivially.
The only way to design it otherwise would be to have every wireless device allocate it's own communications frequency (which was not in interfering range of other used frequencies) at client negotiation time, so that communications didn't interfere with each other and they each had their own available bandwidth.
Too bad that would be totally unworkable in practice due to the extremely limited number of frequencies available, not to mention illegal since you're monopolizing the public spectrum.
Umm.. I live 'in Canada" and I don't even think I know a single person whose "main TV" does not accept component.
Pretty much any 25" or larger TV made since 1998 has component inputs.
http://local.google.com/ perhaps?
There are already several websites that let you leave notes to people "in the air", so that when your GPS-enabled phone is in the proximity of them they appear on your screen.
Couple that with the ability to do location-aware search and I don't know how much more "hyper local" the web could possibly get.
Are you somehow trying to imply that a campus-wide network that supports THOUSANDS of wireless devices with no issues, is automatically the one to blame when 1-2 iPhones bring it down, without even knowing the details?
It's amazing the Apple fanboy-ism around here. I have seen MANY devices have flaws like this in my time. Everyone knew the iPhone, as a first gen product, was going to have it's problems. This is likely one of them.
And no matter what you seem to think you know about WiFi - one device can EASILY flood others off of an AP with a lot of ARP requests, because they will suck up all the available bandwidth for itself. It is a well known fact very easy to DOS a wireless access point in this way. You gotta remember WiFi is a shared medium every client doesn't have dedicated bandwidth by any stretch of the imagination. It is not hard at all to assume that this is a broken WiFi driver in the iPhone.
If Apple can't make hardware that works, and/or won't own up to their problems and fix them, then ban all iPhones from connecting to the university WiFi network via their MAC vendor and device ID portions. After all that is what the structure of a MAC is for - so the network admins know what kind of devices are being used.
Banning iPhones campus wide because they are faulty would trigger some nice nasty press for Apple and piss off a lot of owners of the device - I imagine they would fix the problem much faster (or at least respond to the ticket!)
It's much larger and heavier than an iPod. The interface is not as simple or intuitive, but clunky.
Even aside from that, at time of launch it cost more than a simmilar iPod!
The only thing the Zune ever had going for it was WiFi. And Microsoft botched that up so bad it's ridiculous (why no Zireless sync? Why no wirless purchase of music?)
The fact that they went to the trouble and expense to include WiFi but not include these basic features people would WANT it for is ridiculous. and indicates they did not do proper market research. The whole "WiFi share" idea is also retarded in a number of ways.
OR just don't install .Net on your client PCs?
.Net are very remote unless you use it in house.
The odds that any of your client PCs need