How about if you require t1 = t2 and t2 = t3 ? Then you have five equations and four unknowns.Maybe this would break due to special relativistic effects.
The comment below works almost as well as a reply to this:
It's not really any different to using a tractor to dig a hole instead of a spade. The same "ingredients" are going in, but the tedium and repetitive tasks are reduced or eliminated entirely.
Using an Arduino board just removes the tedium of soldering up the components to make the microcontroller tick, and lets you focus on the interesting bits, which are the hardware it's connected to and the software.
Everyone thinks there's more money in services than in software, even for business customers. It's a great thing that we have open source software, so we can use computers without paying recurring fees to N companies.
I should add; This isn't a great solution if you just want to get it done. Lots of work on the software and hardware side, especially if you want the internet connection. I would think of it as a fun project, but if you aren't interested in that kind of thing there are much better pre-made options
There's a piece of free software called "motion", which takes JPEG snapshots when something moves in the picture. It works reasonably well if you don't point it at vegetation that moves in the wind. You can also define an exclusion mask. The webcam may be damaged by the sunlight (the colours will change).
I used one for some weeks, just to take picture of "wildlife" like squirrels and cast.
If you' want to go cheap you could get a raspberry pi and an ordinary webcam, but you'd need a solar cell and a batter, which may be expensive. It may also be difficult to waterproof (but if it's cheap, it doesn't matter that much). A benefit would be that you could hook it up with a mobile data card and have access to live streaming and look over hte pictures daily.
I didn't defend the first generalisation well. The idea that a company can restrict an item for sale in a specific region may seem fair. The problem is that there are no "legal tools" for the company to prevent people from reselling the item anywhere once they have bought it legally. Then there is copyright, the standard choice of weapon when you can't get your way with other laws. The book manufacturer claims that the student is breaking a licence when re-selling books. There is nothing inherent to this about limiting sale to certain regions. If the manufacturer printed in big letters on the book "Not for sale to redheads", and someone imported a book and sold it to someone with red hair, that would be legally the same thing. Same with "Not for use on Tuesdays", etc. These examples wouldn't happen, but companies may try putting in "Not for resale" (at all) on CDs, phones, etc, and many people wouldn't care.
The case is regarding items manufacturered in foreign countries and intended for sale in those countries. NOT items manufactured in foreign countries intended for sale in the United States.
Seems like a valid generalisation to me. The point is that the manufacturer can prevent you from selling something you have in your hand, on US soil (but bought somewhere else).
The further generalisation to anything made of *parts* coming from other places, but sold as a complete item in the US also makes logical sense. If your Nexus Q that you bought from Google uses memory chips from China, and the chip has some copyrighted elements to it, the chip manufacturer could come after either you or Google if you sold it to someone else..
Sorry to nitpick, but I think the less politically correct "Ugliest" is better than rating the "attractiveness" of a dinosaur, or for any animal for that matter.
There are plenty of reason why fast transfers are useful. Copying files is one example. It's often a matter of faster is better, because you are often stuck waiting for it to complete (for example if I've ripped some CDs and want them on the laptop before leaving, or if I'm downloading some multi-GB data files to work remotely before I leave work). GbE is usually fast enough to max out the CPU or hard drive, but no wireless technology exists that is not a bottleneck.
For a home network, the 802.11ad will be the only network, so everything will be very fast. Because you said "client", I'll assume you're thinking of a larger network, and there is indeed a problem that anything beyond 1GbE isn't cheap or ubiquitous. If you only have 1Gbit of uplink, there's no point of having multi-Gb wireless, as it's not very common to transfer files between clients in an enterprise. If this tech really delivers, maybe we'll see enterprises bypassing their wired infrastructure and using 802.11ad as the backbone. It says that it's directional in TFA. It could also spur manufacturers of wired gear to make cheaper switches with 10 Gbit uplink (here I'm thinking about the huge market of medium businesses who don't have a massive fibre infrastructure already)
How do we even know that "mental energy" is a valid concept. I believe there are studies that show that variation helps the mind be creative, for example taking different routes to work and taking notice of the environment. Maybe concentration and thought is not a zero-sum game.
Please, can HSTS also get an option to limit the acceptable certificates for a domain? We have this: - There have been multiple breaches of CAs already. - Any CA can sign a certificate for any domain name
How about these options: - parent: accept any certificate which is signed by a certificate given in the "HSTS" header and stored on the user system. Option to require a direct descendent. - direct: specify just one allowable certificate. - You can specify multiple alternative certificates in the "HSTS" headers. If the parent or direct certificate expired and the browser didn't know about an alternative, it would fall back to accepting any valid certificate. Thus, people who forgot to update their "HSTS" headers wouldn't be SOL. There could be another flag to reject servers which didn't have any HSTS headers, even after all known certs expired.
Big companies could have an internal CA and require that as their parent. They would thus be completely immune to CA breaches. Small-time users could use the direct mode, and thus also be immune to all CA breaches. One could also set the CA root (e.g. VeriSign) as the parent, in which case they would be immune to all breaches except for the CA they chose, and it woudn't require intervention unless they change CA. My proposal should also work for self-signed certs, with the normal caveats.
That sounds like a bad idea anyway (not an expert here). btrfs comes with data checksums, so why not use those checksums for deduplication at write time, instead of doing it "occasionally" later? The checksums could be stored in a binary tree or a hash table. I think that's what ZFS does, and they don't have any patent problems.
Both the replies are correct, but the AC is more relevant. We can't measure the Hawking radiation from particle-antiparticle production and it most certainly doesn't come out in a jet. The article is behind a paywall, but I think they concluded that the black hole itself was spinning based on the gravitational effect on the jet. The distortion of spacetime is different for a spinning black hole and a stationary one.
I think Fox has the moral (relative) high ground here.
It's an interesting moral question, but I don't think the two actions should be compared to each other. Fox made a mistake and handled it somewhat badly but apologized. BuzzFeed made a concious decision to post something many people find objectionable, which possibly breaks the law and violates YouTube's ToS. On the other hand, they didn't trick anyone into viewing it, the people explicitly requested the video.
So tor fox it's about neutral, slightly careless. For BuzzFeed it's a question of how much free speech we should tolerate in private communication (as opposed to broadcast)
I'm not disagreeing about ear protectors, good idea
As for headphones, my Beyerdynamic DT 770 block a lot of sound, and I have the opposite problem some times. When I listen to "noisy" music at even moderate levels, I can't hear if someone speaks to me. You can also buy ear plugs that block sound, I use them at night and I'd say they reduce noise by about 15-20 dB, maybe not enough for the person who asked.
It sounds like a good physics/hacking project to do software noise cancellation.. Mount some microphones at fixed points, wire them up to PCI/PCIe sound cards, and write some software to produce sound waves in headphones (or even in speakers) to cancel the noise. One problem is that you have to know your head's position at a high precision, about 4 cm to go up to 8 kHz. You'd either need to track your head with a webcam, or maybe it's easier with fixed speakers positioned between you and the window. You're looking at a best case of 2 ms delay in the sound card + the time used to process in software, let's say 10 ms. That gives you 3.4 m min. distance between the mics and the speakers.The speakers would have to be of great quality to cancel loud bass from stereos, but the good news is that bass has a long wavelength, so directionality is not a problem. The bad news is that the time you have for signal processing is of the same order as the frequency of the bass sound, so you can't do any FFTs. Somehow just feed the low-frequency part back with an appropriate delay and inverted phase, and do some more fancy processing for the low frequency sound. If the sound only comes from the window, you could possibly do a lot with simply feeding all the sound back with an inverted phase, without any software. I wouldn't be able to do it, but maybe the original poster is a better hacker than I am.
It depends on how the letters are written... If someone gets a letter from the sheriff, the presumption may be that they have done something wrong, because AFAIK sheriffs don't send out informative letters all that often.
This makes the US government a technology leader, at least in one respect. Try to go v6 only some time, and watch all the "Cannot connect to server" messages.. Only big ones like Google and Facebook seem to be available on IPv6 (it certainly cuts down on distractions to remove the IPv4 default route, but I can't even get to my email)
Slashdot Mirror
How about if you require t1 = t2 and t2 = t3 ? Then you have five equations and four unknowns.Maybe this would break due to special relativistic effects.
Don't hold your breath.. The TV business already has thin margins, and the display manufacturers partly make it up on smaller screens.
The comment below works almost as well as a reply to this:
It's not really any different to using a tractor to dig a hole instead of a spade. The same "ingredients" are going in, but the tedium and repetitive tasks are reduced or eliminated entirely.
Using an Arduino board just removes the tedium of soldering up the components to make the microcontroller tick, and lets you focus on the interesting bits, which are the hardware it's connected to and the software.
Everyone thinks there's more money in services than in software, even for business customers. It's a great thing that we have open source software, so we can use computers without paying recurring fees to N companies.
I should add; This isn't a great solution if you just want to get it done. Lots of work on the software and hardware side, especially if you want the internet connection. I would think of it as a fun project, but if you aren't interested in that kind of thing there are much better pre-made options
There's a piece of free software called "motion", which takes JPEG snapshots when something moves in the picture. It works reasonably well if you don't point it at vegetation that moves in the wind. You can also define an exclusion mask. The webcam may be damaged by the sunlight (the colours will change).
I used one for some weeks, just to take picture of "wildlife" like squirrels and cast.
If you' want to go cheap you could get a raspberry pi and an ordinary webcam, but you'd need a solar cell and a batter, which may be expensive. It may also be difficult to waterproof (but if it's cheap, it doesn't matter that much). A benefit would be that you could hook it up with a mobile data card and have access to live streaming and look over hte pictures daily.
I didn't defend the first generalisation well. The idea that a company can restrict an item for sale in a specific region may seem fair. The problem is that there are no "legal tools" for the company to prevent people from reselling the item anywhere once they have bought it legally. Then there is copyright, the standard choice of weapon when you can't get your way with other laws. The book manufacturer claims that the student is breaking a licence when re-selling books. There is nothing inherent to this about limiting sale to certain regions. If the manufacturer printed in big letters on the book "Not for sale to redheads", and someone imported a book and sold it to someone with red hair, that would be legally the same thing. Same with "Not for use on Tuesdays", etc. These examples wouldn't happen, but companies may try putting in "Not for resale" (at all) on CDs, phones, etc, and many people wouldn't care.
The case is regarding items manufacturered in foreign countries and intended for sale in those countries. NOT items manufactured in foreign countries intended for sale in the United States.
Seems like a valid generalisation to me. The point is that the manufacturer can prevent you from selling something you have in your hand, on US soil (but bought somewhere else).
The further generalisation to anything made of *parts* coming from other places, but sold as a complete item in the US also makes logical sense. If your Nexus Q that you bought from Google uses memory chips from China, and the chip has some copyrighted elements to it, the chip manufacturer could come after either you or Google if you sold it to someone else..
"My job is rocket surgery!"
Sorry to nitpick, but I think the less politically correct "Ugliest" is better than rating the "attractiveness" of a dinosaur, or for any animal for that matter.
There are plenty of reason why fast transfers are useful. Copying files is one example. It's often a matter of faster is better, because you are often stuck waiting for it to complete (for example if I've ripped some CDs and want them on the laptop before leaving, or if I'm downloading some multi-GB data files to work remotely before I leave work). GbE is usually fast enough to max out the CPU or hard drive, but no wireless technology exists that is not a bottleneck.
For a home network, the 802.11ad will be the only network, so everything will be very fast. Because you said "client", I'll assume you're thinking of a larger network, and there is indeed a problem that anything beyond 1GbE isn't cheap or ubiquitous. If you only have 1Gbit of uplink, there's no point of having multi-Gb wireless, as it's not very common to transfer files between clients in an enterprise. If this tech really delivers, maybe we'll see enterprises bypassing their wired infrastructure and using 802.11ad as the backbone. It says that it's directional in TFA. It could also spur manufacturers of wired gear to make cheaper switches with 10 Gbit uplink (here I'm thinking about the huge market of medium businesses who don't have a massive fibre infrastructure already)
How do we even know that "mental energy" is a valid concept. I believe there are studies that show that variation helps the mind be creative, for example taking different routes to work and taking notice of the environment. Maybe concentration and thought is not a zero-sum game.
Please, can HSTS also get an option to limit the acceptable certificates for a domain?
We have this:
- There have been multiple breaches of CAs already.
- Any CA can sign a certificate for any domain name
How about these options:
- parent: accept any certificate which is signed by a certificate given in the "HSTS" header and stored on the user system. Option to require a direct descendent.
- direct: specify just one allowable certificate.
- You can specify multiple alternative certificates in the "HSTS" headers.
If the parent or direct certificate expired and the browser didn't know about an alternative, it would fall back to accepting any valid certificate. Thus, people who forgot to update their "HSTS" headers wouldn't be SOL. There could be another flag to reject servers which didn't have any HSTS headers, even after all known certs expired.
Big companies could have an internal CA and require that as their parent. They would thus be completely immune to CA breaches. Small-time users could use the direct mode, and thus also be immune to all CA breaches. One could also set the CA root (e.g. VeriSign) as the parent, in which case they would be immune to all breaches except for the CA they chose, and it woudn't require intervention unless they change CA. My proposal should also work for self-signed certs, with the normal caveats.
Now where do I post my suggestion ? ;)
That sounds like a bad idea anyway (not an expert here). btrfs comes with data checksums, so why not use those checksums for deduplication at write time, instead of doing it "occasionally" later? The checksums could be stored in a binary tree or a hash table. I think that's what ZFS does, and they don't have any patent problems.
It's people like this (troll) who make it hard to argue for universal free speech. So we're stuck with some lame subjective standard for harassment.
You trolled at least a couple of people, well done :)
Adobe already has an updater that can install code on all users' computers at will, so they don't need a Cloud service for that/
Both the replies are correct, but the AC is more relevant. We can't measure the Hawking radiation from particle-antiparticle production and it most certainly doesn't come out in a jet. The article is behind a paywall, but I think they concluded that the black hole itself was spinning based on the gravitational effect on the jet. The distortion of spacetime is different for a spinning black hole and a stationary one.
I think Fox has the moral (relative) high ground here.
It's an interesting moral question, but I don't think the two actions should be compared to each other. Fox made a mistake and handled it somewhat badly but apologized. BuzzFeed made a concious decision to post something many people find objectionable, which possibly breaks the law and violates YouTube's ToS. On the other hand, they didn't trick anyone into viewing it, the people explicitly requested the video.
So tor fox it's about neutral, slightly careless. For BuzzFeed it's a question of how much free speech we should tolerate in private communication (as opposed to broadcast)
I'm not disagreeing about ear protectors, good idea
As for headphones, my Beyerdynamic DT 770 block a lot of sound, and I have the opposite problem some times. When I listen to "noisy" music at even moderate levels, I can't hear if someone speaks to me. You can also buy ear plugs that block sound, I use them at night and I'd say they reduce noise by about 15-20 dB, maybe not enough for the person who asked.
It sounds like a good physics/hacking project to do software noise cancellation.. Mount some microphones at fixed points, wire them up to PCI/PCIe sound cards, and write some software to produce sound waves in headphones (or even in speakers) to cancel the noise. One problem is that you have to know your head's position at a high precision, about 4 cm to go up to 8 kHz. You'd either need to track your head with a webcam, or maybe it's easier with fixed speakers positioned between you and the window. You're looking at a best case of 2 ms delay in the sound card + the time used to process in software, let's say 10 ms. That gives you 3.4 m min. distance between the mics and the speakers.The speakers would have to be of great quality to cancel loud bass from stereos, but the good news is that bass has a long wavelength, so directionality is not a problem. The bad news is that the time you have for signal processing is of the same order as the frequency of the bass sound, so you can't do any FFTs. Somehow just feed the low-frequency part back with an appropriate delay and inverted phase, and do some more fancy processing for the low frequency sound. If the sound only comes from the window, you could possibly do a lot with simply feeding all the sound back with an inverted phase, without any software. I wouldn't be able to do it, but maybe the original poster is a better hacker than I am.
It depends on how the letters are written... If someone gets a letter from the sheriff, the presumption may be that they have done something wrong, because AFAIK sheriffs don't send out informative letters all that often.
If you're not already using SSL for your email, you're doing it wrong. And no, I don't mean webmail, but that's also good.
Why does the link in the summary point to an article about the FIFA football game? Has there been 211 comments and nobody has RTFA?
This makes the US government a technology leader, at least in one respect. Try to go v6 only some time, and watch all the "Cannot connect to server" messages.. Only big ones like Google and Facebook seem to be available on IPv6 (it certainly cuts down on distractions to remove the IPv4 default route, but I can't even get to my email)