I bought HL2, the game play is great, the development is great, and the story is great. It is an amazing overall game. In fact, I love the whole HL series. I have nearly every game. But that stopped with HL2. Because of Stream (and I got a slow PC) I haven't bought any of the latest mods.
I don't have a state of the art PC, so the game took forever to install and LOAD. I actually uninstalled after one or two gameplays and quickly found a hacked version. Hey I have a legal key, why shouldn't I be able to obtain a hacked copy. BTW, I knew about the hacked version, and had access to it before the game hit the stores, but I liked the game so much that I was willing to wait and actually spend money supporting it.
Anyway, the hacked version took less than half the time to find, download, AND install than it took to get the legal one to just install!! Now Valve, you are obviously doing SOMETHING wrong when the hacked version is so much better than the commercially available one! Also, this isn't just me, a LOT of CS fans left because of Stream. Whole clans disbanded because the whole experience was ruined by Stream.
Actually, in almost all jurisdictions in the United States, merchants are allowed to detain suspected shoplifters. They can't tackle the guy or anything as that could mean counter suit in terms of assault and battery, but they have the right to detain them in other ways.
Wait, I am confused. Lets assume that AT&T does sub the price (not cost) of the iPhone. This just means that Apple actually charges more for the iPhone than AT&T charges the end users. More immediate revenue (profit?) for Apple and hopefully even more profit for AT&T through longterm customer relations.
But I fail to see where unlocking the iPhone damages the contract or AT&T's profitability. Currently (AKAIK) there is only one source of supply for the iPhone, and that is along with AT&T's contract (however long). The source isn't Apple, or AT&T but the contract. No contract, no iPhone.
So, if you want an iPhone, you need to buy the contract. You (and here is the key) break the contract, then you have to pay a cancellation fee. This life of the contract OR this fee pays off the sub that AT&T paid to Apple AND provides some profit addition to AT&T. Of course the numbers may be setup such that AT&T actually sees good profits from peripheral POS (like accessories, data plans...) and the cancellation fee may not be enough to bring in as much profit as a staying customer, but that just means AT&T needs to play with the cancellation fee to be comfortable with the ratios of how many people leave or are forced to stay or never sign up.
My point is that every time someone buys an iPhone, the sub that AT&T paid to Apple is compensated by either the contract or the cancellation fee. If that is not the case, then that just means the AT&T needs to play with the numbers a little. And they are the monopoly for iPhones in the US.
Of course this may effect future contracts for Apple in other nations, but I don't believe by much. Those providers in other countries will also become monopolies in their regions. And if the total price in obtaining an iPhone for the consumer (contract/cancellation, charged price,...) is too high, then a few of them might look overseas to AT&T unlocked phones. But the chances are, total price of the AT&T unlocked phone plus the shipping/handle costs will probably make the overseas option more expensive.
So unlocking iPhones doesn't really do anything other than create secondary/micro markets that attach additional value added costs to the iPhone. Infact, if AT&T really played the numbers right, they might even see more profits as they will be selling more contracts per US customer and have indirect access to overseas individuals without actually operating there. These profits will only be elevated by their first mover advantages.
The fiberglass over foam actually holds up pretty well. It may crack, but won't break off into pieces that go flying all over the place (if it was going fast enough to do that, then it would be making a ruckus like an airplane propeller).
And it is probably far more inefficient than a normal bicycle. Constantly pulling air from in front of you faster than it is flying by your whole vehicle in order to create thrust has to be less efficient.
Also, bicycling is the most efficient mode of transport there is. More efficient than walking/running on two or four legs. The thing that runs these three modes is the most efficient, flexible engine we have at our disposal; the human body. What puts the bike ahead is the terrain. Legs are designed for multiple terrains and thus aren't optimized to any one. Bikes on the other hand; well if you know your physics, it doesn't get much simpler than a wheel rolling over a flat surface.
I could go on with the inertia involved and such, but I think I got the point across. Google it, its fun stuff.
So because I am better or more efficient at deriving value out of a service/good, I should be punished more than someone who is less efficient or worse at deriving value from the same service/good? Ok....
As long as I am not purposely hurting others, at the end of the day, how I derive that value is really irrelavent.
It isn't a matter of benefit, but rather a personal act of deriving. The former implies the state provides/gives unfairly more value to the rich rather than to the poor (in which case I would agree with you). Which is BS, the state doesn't provide jack. It reallocates while taking its own transaction cost cut and then some. Here, all customers are allocated the same service/good. The later (derives) implies personal action and drive to generate productive value for society from the service/good.
If the poor guy wanted to derive more value from the infrastructure, then he should strive and struggle to do so (getting a higher paying job being just one of many options).
Yeah, but with that strategy, look what you end up with: - A bunch of dying ex-Linux companies/entities whose Linux community and (some) customers have shunned them for doing deals with MS. - A trimmed down but more focused and unified Linux community. There will still be that chaos of the bazzar, but those with weak constitutions will leave.
For bucket_brigade who said: "...less distros would only do good to linux.."
Yeah, good luck with that, there are always people with too much time, creativity, drive, and/or curiosity to create replacements... I mean additions to the growing list.
TV is around 25-30 fps which totally sucks for gaming, but is doable. 1080p is 60 fps, which is very good and quite comfortable for most players. But for hardcore games, they need a min of 50 fps. Their game play gets effected by frame rates under 80 fps.
For me, when I was a hardcore gamer, my game play got effected when the frame rates dropped below 60 fps, beyond which I couldn't tell the difference. Today (am not on campus with access to the high end gaming PC, so I am stuck with my personal 6 year old PC), I don't play as much and I would like more than 40 fps, but happly put up with 30 fps. I stop playing if the rate ever falls below 25 fps as that becomes unbareable.
Now, include the fact that with more powerful graphics cards you can pump more graphics into the game environment while (very important) maintaining the fps, that 10% seems quite nice for a hardcore gamer (assuming that 10% translates into the game, very few benchmarks do).
I have a friend who has a $4000 PC (minus upgrading over time and HDTV) and a very fast high speed connection. _He_ thinks the Xbox360 next to it looks like crap, and I... can tell there is a difference. He is a bachelor making over 90k/year... what do you expect.
I had a project that required me to start and stop a Flash application from a very slightly modified UNIX daemon process in Mac OSX. I was unable to figure this out going through the command line.
I can do "open flash_application.swf" in a command shell from the daemon process, but the "open" command detaches completely from the shell and doesn't provide any type of handle to the launched application. What I would love would be to use the original UNIX code that simply does a "kill $flash_pid" but unfortunately, "open" doesn't shoot back the pid.
You seemed to know a bit about Max OSX, so I ask here. Google gives me a LOT of false positives that go something like... "how to do... without... command line" the exact opposite of what I need.
Thanks in advance.
PS: For those who don't know: open is equivalent to double click on the file, the OS automatically finds the assigned application and runs it feeding the file. And fyi, the application can't be run from the command line and fed the file manually, the shell doesn't see it as a command line executable nor does it attach the application to the user GUI screen if required.
I would think the swiping points would still just require you to swipe the physical card. But point of sales like online and pizza delivery might ask for the continously changing password (synched with the credit card authorization server) in addition to the card number. Basically, the point is to prove the purchaser actually has the physical card in order to purchase something instead of a string of _static_ numbers and names.
This is great technology that should have gone into effect a LOT sooner. My only concern is that I don't trust VeriSign
Wow, that was impressive. Oh before I type more, I COMPLETELY agree.
We are not fighting some nation that is hell bent on destroying us, but rather unified ideas of hate from a multitude of angles. Now we can go out and eliminate every hateful body out there, but that requires massive resources and every hateful fire we stamp out only fuels much more. Eventually one of us will die out and end the fight with massive sacrifices to the other side. I think this is what we are currently doing and it is nothing but a prideful action that will in the long run hurt us more than doing nothing from the beginning.
I am not saying we should do nothing (far from it), but we really should look to other avenues to resolve this as the current one is horrible. We need to look at removing the hatred and forming alliances where both parties are dependent on each other for mutual benefits.
I agree with Afgan, but Iraq was clearly a mistake. Just look at the world, as you stated, we went from a nation that was lent the sorrowful feelings of nearly EVERY nation out there for 9/11, but today, most nations see us as the school yard bully who picks on anyone he feels like or worse an enemy that should either be avoided or confronted.
Clearly we did something wrong, and we should work on correcting that, because if we don't, our kids or grandkids will be fighting their own Al Qaedas.
Similarly, if a movie or show isn't available in my market, it doesn't justify piracy because the distributor for one reason or another didn't make it available.
I will argue against that. First lets call a spade a spade and not mix things up. We are talking about copyright infringement, not moral/ethical issues and definitly NOT stealing (people love to equate the two on the grounds of morality, but it pisses me off that they deal out vastly different degrees of punishment upon the guilty of each).
Copyrights are a social contract between producers and society, the later will assist (NOT gaurantee) the former in obtaining profits so as to encourage a healthy and growing existance of the former in the HOPE the former will continue to create works FOR the later. The emphisis is on the benefit of the later, NOT the former.
If for one reason or another, the producer is unable/unwilling to provide a work protected by society at its true value; society or elements of it have every right to seek other means of obtaining the work at its true value. Of course producers are a part of society and they can sue copyright infringers, but that just reduces down to a cost of obtaining the work by certain means. Legality is an issue of cost, not morality.
Consumers will look at their options and always choose the least costly method, therefore producers need to make sure that the profitable path is that method by either adjusting their price or adjusting the price of alternatives through lawsuits, legislation, regulations, etc. The two paths effect each other and both have points of diminishing returns; so one needs to balance them properly.
I am not providing excuses here, but just showing the basic ground rules that exist.
Enron lied to analysts, google won't talk to analysts. Both companies show very little respect for teh average stockholder. The only difference is that google's motto is "do no evil," so it isn't unreasonable to expect more from google.
Analysts have very little to do with a company respecting the average stockholder. In Enron's case, the analysts were atleast half as at fault as the Enron execs (Enron only did like 40% of the damage, there were others like banks/investors, a lawfirm, an auditor, and the analysts). When you look at the numbers and they seem to say "we are only making profits from getting a LOT of loans" WHO in their right mind would rate that a "MUST BUY"? Of course their excuse was "But the execs told us they were making money". What kind of retarded logic is that? The company says they are doing fine even though the numbers don't add up and you take their word for it? What are they going to tell you, "We are doing horrible and we don't have enough money to pay off the interest let alone the lenders and stockholders!"
In the end, a reporter who didn't know jack about financial reports noticed revenue was directly related to debt or some form of it and said "huh"?
IMO, the less analysts know, the better. Meeting analysts' expectations was the core problem with Enron, WorldCom, and many of the restatements that companys have put out in the last 4 years (*). Analysts should use the financial statements as their source and present their analysis on them. And the financial statements should be completely transparent. Press releases and such do nothing but cause people to run around like headless chickens or rabbits on high.
*If you didn't meet the numbers, your company died for atleast a quarter. So that ended up being the most important thing for a company at the cost of everything else. If you met today's numbers, the numbers for tomorrow went even higher. Execs would start off cooking the books and lead to out right fraud just to please some moron's expectation of the company.
As I understand it, it isn't the "less" energy reaching the Earth that is the problem. It is the less energy leaving the Earth. The Earth reflects a tremendous amount of energy, and it has a temperature regulation effect. Now with the gases, the energy that reaches the planet gets converted to useless heat, radiates out, but gets reflected back by greenhouse gases. Basically whatever energy that is coming in is trapped here and the earth isn't cooling off as quickly as it should to maintain the temperature conditions we currently have.
I don't know what you are doing, but I am able to run _three_ vnc kde desktops with firefox and openoffice open all the time. And this is on a P2 350MHz w/ 256/512 MB.
And if I took out the disk buffering, I use <256 Mb all together. After a few days (>5), firefox and openoffice expand and the total ends up ~500Mb. Then a quick restart of the app brings it back down.
And no, it isn't dead slow. _Relatively_, it is faster than my XP.
DON'T MOD people as "informative" when they got their basic math completely off.
Their equation gives ~4.592. Which itself is completely wrong! But I guess if you are going to mess up, you might as well make sure you really did mess up.
The really first poster was right. It is roughly ~1.9 times that of earth.
...(thus making it public knowledge),...
Ummm, I think that is the whole point. The EU wants those interface protocols (not code) to be completely open for everyone to use just as freely as MS is able to. Its another matter to lose ownership and have it fall into the public domain.
[i] Why a commercial company should be forced to dismantle and hand itself over to open source.[/i]
It isn't being ordered to do that. MS is a monopoly. Not necessarely illegal, but hurts the consumers just the same. In order to mitigate that unnecessary damage, monopolies are usually regulated.
In this case, the EU doesn't want this company, especially since it is foreign, to hinder any competition in the market. MS does that, or has the power to do that, very well with its control over proprietary protocols and desktop dominance. The EU wants to dismantle this control to create an even playing field, so that anyone (including open source) can implement their own tools to use those communication channels as well as MS. The hope is that the market will foster more competition and thus benefit the consumer.
They aren't ordering MS to turn over all its code and copyrights. Just the way they setup (not implemented) certain communication components.
Of course with Politics out and above swinging maddly, they probably shot a bit high. They learned from our DOJ, if you shoot at the target, MS will nudge it just enough to miss. The EU is shooting really high and hoping after all the delays, back and forth mumbling, and what not, the arrow will at the least hit the edge of the target.
What I use tunneling (putty) for is vnc and other services. I just tunnel my remote (login from) host ports through the login and into the localhost (login into).
Now what is SOCKS5 proxy, Dynamic tunneling?
Thx
On another similar topic. I been trying to tunnel on an old Mac 9.2. It has MacSSH. My ssh server uses SSH2. I can login to the server using putty, linux, and even Mac OS X. But even though I can login to the campus SSH2 (from there I can go to mine), I can't seem to get to my ssh2 directly. No matter what I try! Any Mac users out there?
You can approximate a non-linear system using multiple linear prices. You might have A*x1^3+B*x2^2+SUM(KiXi). But the A and B terms can be broken down to multiple linear lines so that Ax1^3 = SUM(Aj*x1j) and Bx2^2 = SUM(Bj*x2j). It wouldn't be too hard because you are dealing with integers. You can't have half a unit, you got one fighting or not.
Anyway, that could become too complex. You would probably have a simple dummied down approach. Although the answer is optimized for the simple problem, it will give you much insight into the input parameters that you can use in your overall strategy (like there is a really high chance I will win this battle with half my troops...). It would definetly give you a major leg up against a human opp who needs to what you do AND what the program is doing.
Slashdot Mirror
I know what you mean. I HATE Stream. It is a POS.
I bought HL2, the game play is great, the development is great, and the story is great. It is an amazing overall game. In fact, I love the whole HL series. I have nearly every game. But that stopped with HL2. Because of Stream (and I got a slow PC) I haven't bought any of the latest mods.
I don't have a state of the art PC, so the game took forever to install and LOAD. I actually uninstalled after one or two gameplays and quickly found a hacked version. Hey I have a legal key, why shouldn't I be able to obtain a hacked copy. BTW, I knew about the hacked version, and had access to it before the game hit the stores, but I liked the game so much that I was willing to wait and actually spend money supporting it.
Anyway, the hacked version took less than half the time to find, download, AND install than it took to get the legal one to just install!! Now Valve, you are obviously doing SOMETHING wrong when the hacked version is so much better than the commercially available one! Also, this isn't just me, a LOT of CS fans left because of Stream. Whole clans disbanded because the whole experience was ruined by Stream.
Actually, in almost all jurisdictions in the United States, merchants are allowed to detain suspected shoplifters. They can't tackle the guy or anything as that could mean counter suit in terms of assault and battery, but they have the right to detain them in other ways.
Wait, I am confused. Lets assume that AT&T does sub the price (not cost) of the iPhone. This just means that Apple actually charges more for the iPhone than AT&T charges the end users. More immediate revenue (profit?) for Apple and hopefully even more profit for AT&T through longterm customer relations.
But I fail to see where unlocking the iPhone damages the contract or AT&T's profitability. Currently (AKAIK) there is only one source of supply for the iPhone, and that is along with AT&T's contract (however long). The source isn't Apple, or AT&T but the contract. No contract, no iPhone.
So, if you want an iPhone, you need to buy the contract. You (and here is the key) break the contract, then you have to pay a cancellation fee. This life of the contract OR this fee pays off the sub that AT&T paid to Apple AND provides some profit addition to AT&T. Of course the numbers may be setup such that AT&T actually sees good profits from peripheral POS (like accessories, data plans...) and the cancellation fee may not be enough to bring in as much profit as a staying customer, but that just means AT&T needs to play with the cancellation fee to be comfortable with the ratios of how many people leave or are forced to stay or never sign up.
My point is that every time someone buys an iPhone, the sub that AT&T paid to Apple is compensated by either the contract or the cancellation fee. If that is not the case, then that just means the AT&T needs to play with the numbers a little. And they are the monopoly for iPhones in the US.
Of course this may effect future contracts for Apple in other nations, but I don't believe by much. Those providers in other countries will also become monopolies in their regions. And if the total price in obtaining an iPhone for the consumer (contract/cancellation, charged price,...) is too high, then a few of them might look overseas to AT&T unlocked phones. But the chances are, total price of the AT&T unlocked phone plus the shipping/handle costs will probably make the overseas option more expensive.
So unlocking iPhones doesn't really do anything other than create secondary/micro markets that attach additional value added costs to the iPhone. Infact, if AT&T really played the numbers right, they might even see more profits as they will be selling more contracts per US customer and have indirect access to overseas individuals without actually operating there. These profits will only be elevated by their first mover advantages.
The fiberglass over foam actually holds up pretty well. It may crack, but won't break off into pieces that go flying all over the place (if it was going fast enough to do that, then it would be making a ruckus like an airplane propeller).
And it is probably far more inefficient than a normal bicycle. Constantly pulling air from in front of you faster than it is flying by your whole vehicle in order to create thrust has to be less efficient.
Also, bicycling is the most efficient mode of transport there is. More efficient than walking/running on two or four legs. The thing that runs these three modes is the most efficient, flexible engine we have at our disposal; the human body. What puts the bike ahead is the terrain. Legs are designed for multiple terrains and thus aren't optimized to any one. Bikes on the other hand; well if you know your physics, it doesn't get much simpler than a wheel rolling over a flat surface.
I could go on with the inertia involved and such, but I think I got the point across. Google it, its fun stuff.
So because I am better or more efficient at deriving value out of a service/good, I should be punished more than someone who is less efficient or worse at deriving value from the same service/good? Ok....
As long as I am not purposely hurting others, at the end of the day, how I derive that value is really irrelavent.
It isn't a matter of benefit, but rather a personal act of deriving. The former implies the state provides/gives unfairly more value to the rich rather than to the poor (in which case I would agree with you). Which is BS, the state doesn't provide jack. It reallocates while taking its own transaction cost cut and then some. Here, all customers are allocated the same service/good. The later (derives) implies personal action and drive to generate productive value for society from the service/good.
If the poor guy wanted to derive more value from the infrastructure, then he should strive and struggle to do so (getting a higher paying job being just one of many options).
Yeah, but with that strategy, look what you end up with:
- A bunch of dying ex-Linux companies/entities whose Linux community and (some) customers have shunned them for doing deals with MS.
- A trimmed down but more focused and unified Linux community. There will still be that chaos of the bazzar, but those with weak constitutions will leave.
For bucket_brigade who said: "...less distros would only do good to linux.."
Yeah, good luck with that, there are always people with too much time, creativity, drive, and/or curiosity to create replacements... I mean additions to the growing list.
I don't have the Mac in front of me, but it is the Flash Standalone Player. I will try what you said, thx.
Ok, lets get those refresh rates more reasonable.
TV is around 25-30 fps which totally sucks for gaming, but is doable. 1080p is 60 fps, which is very good and quite comfortable for most players. But for hardcore games, they need a min of 50 fps. Their game play gets effected by frame rates under 80 fps.
For me, when I was a hardcore gamer, my game play got effected when the frame rates dropped below 60 fps, beyond which I couldn't tell the difference. Today (am not on campus with access to the high end gaming PC, so I am stuck with my personal 6 year old PC), I don't play as much and I would like more than 40 fps, but happly put up with 30 fps. I stop playing if the rate ever falls below 25 fps as that becomes unbareable.
Now, include the fact that with more powerful graphics cards you can pump more graphics into the game environment while (very important) maintaining the fps, that 10% seems quite nice for a hardcore gamer (assuming that 10% translates into the game, very few benchmarks do).
I have a friend who has a $4000 PC (minus upgrading over time and HDTV) and a very fast high speed connection. _He_ thinks the Xbox360 next to it looks like crap, and I... can tell there is a difference. He is a bachelor making over 90k/year... what do you expect.
I had a project that required me to start and stop a Flash application from a very slightly modified UNIX daemon process in Mac OSX. I was unable to figure this out going through the command line.
... command line" the exact opposite of what I need.
I can do "open flash_application.swf" in a command shell from the daemon process, but the "open" command detaches completely from the shell and doesn't provide any type of handle to the launched application. What I would love would be to use the original UNIX code that simply does a "kill $flash_pid" but unfortunately, "open" doesn't shoot back the pid.
You seemed to know a bit about Max OSX, so I ask here. Google gives me a LOT of false positives that go something like... "how to do... without
Thanks in advance.
PS: For those who don't know: open is equivalent to double click on the file, the OS automatically finds the assigned application and runs it feeding the file. And fyi, the application can't be run from the command line and fed the file manually, the shell doesn't see it as a command line executable nor does it attach the application to the user GUI screen if required.
I would think the swiping points would still just require you to swipe the physical card. But point of sales like online and pizza delivery might ask for the continously changing password (synched with the credit card authorization server) in addition to the card number. Basically, the point is to prove the purchaser actually has the physical card in order to purchase something instead of a string of _static_ numbers and names.
This is great technology that should have gone into effect a LOT sooner. My only concern is that I don't trust VeriSign
Great, now they are going to use your post as absolute proof.
Wow, that was impressive. Oh before I type more, I COMPLETELY agree.
We are not fighting some nation that is hell bent on destroying us, but rather unified ideas of hate from a multitude of angles. Now we can go out and eliminate every hateful body out there, but that requires massive resources and every hateful fire we stamp out only fuels much more. Eventually one of us will die out and end the fight with massive sacrifices to the other side. I think this is what we are currently doing and it is nothing but a prideful action that will in the long run hurt us more than doing nothing from the beginning.
I am not saying we should do nothing (far from it), but we really should look to other avenues to resolve this as the current one is horrible. We need to look at removing the hatred and forming alliances where both parties are dependent on each other for mutual benefits.
I agree with Afgan, but Iraq was clearly a mistake. Just look at the world, as you stated, we went from a nation that was lent the sorrowful feelings of nearly EVERY nation out there for 9/11, but today, most nations see us as the school yard bully who picks on anyone he feels like or worse an enemy that should either be avoided or confronted.
Clearly we did something wrong, and we should work on correcting that, because if we don't, our kids or grandkids will be fighting their own Al Qaedas.
Similarly, if a movie or show isn't available in my market, it doesn't justify piracy because the distributor for one reason or another didn't make it available.
I will argue against that. First lets call a spade a spade and not mix things up. We are talking about copyright infringement, not moral/ethical issues and definitly NOT stealing (people love to equate the two on the grounds of morality, but it pisses me off that they deal out vastly different degrees of punishment upon the guilty of each).
Copyrights are a social contract between producers and society, the later will assist (NOT gaurantee) the former in obtaining profits so as to encourage a healthy and growing existance of the former in the HOPE the former will continue to create works FOR the later. The emphisis is on the benefit of the later, NOT the former.
If for one reason or another, the producer is unable/unwilling to provide a work protected by society at its true value; society or elements of it have every right to seek other means of obtaining the work at its true value. Of course producers are a part of society and they can sue copyright infringers, but that just reduces down to a cost of obtaining the work by certain means. Legality is an issue of cost, not morality.
Consumers will look at their options and always choose the least costly method, therefore producers need to make sure that the profitable path is that method by either adjusting their price or adjusting the price of alternatives through lawsuits, legislation, regulations, etc. The two paths effect each other and both have points of diminishing returns; so one needs to balance them properly.
I am not providing excuses here, but just showing the basic ground rules that exist.
Enron lied to analysts, google won't talk to analysts. Both companies show very little respect for teh average stockholder. The only difference is that google's motto is "do no evil," so it isn't unreasonable to expect more from google.
Analysts have very little to do with a company respecting the average stockholder. In Enron's case, the analysts were atleast half as at fault as the Enron execs (Enron only did like 40% of the damage, there were others like banks/investors, a lawfirm, an auditor, and the analysts). When you look at the numbers and they seem to say "we are only making profits from getting a LOT of loans" WHO in their right mind would rate that a "MUST BUY"? Of course their excuse was "But the execs told us they were making money". What kind of retarded logic is that? The company says they are doing fine even though the numbers don't add up and you take their word for it? What are they going to tell you, "We are doing horrible and we don't have enough money to pay off the interest let alone the lenders and stockholders!"
In the end, a reporter who didn't know jack about financial reports noticed revenue was directly related to debt or some form of it and said "huh"?
IMO, the less analysts know, the better. Meeting analysts' expectations was the core problem with Enron, WorldCom, and many of the restatements that companys have put out in the last 4 years (*). Analysts should use the financial statements as their source and present their analysis on them. And the financial statements should be completely transparent. Press releases and such do nothing but cause people to run around like headless chickens or rabbits on high.
*If you didn't meet the numbers, your company died for atleast a quarter. So that ended up being the most important thing for a company at the cost of everything else. If you met today's numbers, the numbers for tomorrow went even higher. Execs would start off cooking the books and lead to out right fraud just to please some moron's expectation of the company.
As I understand it, it isn't the "less" energy reaching the Earth that is the problem. It is the less energy leaving the Earth. The Earth reflects a tremendous amount of energy, and it has a temperature regulation effect. Now with the gases, the energy that reaches the planet gets converted to useless heat, radiates out, but gets reflected back by greenhouse gases. Basically whatever energy that is coming in is trapped here and the earth isn't cooling off as quickly as it should to maintain the temperature conditions we currently have.
I don't know what you are doing, but I am able to run _three_ vnc kde desktops with firefox and openoffice open all the time. And this is on a P2 350MHz w/ 256/512 MB.
And if I took out the disk buffering, I use <256 Mb all together. After a few days (>5), firefox and openoffice expand and the total ends up ~500Mb. Then a quick restart of the app brings it back down.
And no, it isn't dead slow. _Relatively_, it is faster than my XP.
Or, it could be like Mercury or our moon. The rotation is synced with the revolution and only one side always faces the sun.
DON'T MOD people as "informative" when they got their basic math completely off. Their equation gives ~4.592. Which itself is completely wrong! But I guess if you are going to mess up, you might as well make sure you really did mess up. The really first poster was right. It is roughly ~1.9 times that of earth.
Wait, the formula is g = GM/r^2
Where; M = Mass of Earth, and r = radius of Earth
so 7.5*M = Mass of article's planet
and 2*r = Radius of article's planet
Finally:
Gravity of planet = G * 7.5*M/(2*r)^2
Which is what the original poster posted.
New g is =7.5/4 = 1.875 of earth. Livable for even us humans.
WHAT the F*** is THAT! I just wanted to know about the birds and the bees you blundering idiot!
Scientists now speculate the blooming of the plant is directly correlated to the farting of Saturn's moon Titan!
...(thus making it public knowledge),... Ummm, I think that is the whole point. The EU wants those interface protocols (not code) to be completely open for everyone to use just as freely as MS is able to. Its another matter to lose ownership and have it fall into the public domain.
[i] Why a commercial company should be forced to dismantle and hand itself over to open source.[/i]
It isn't being ordered to do that. MS is a monopoly. Not necessarely illegal, but hurts the consumers just the same. In order to mitigate that unnecessary damage, monopolies are usually regulated.
In this case, the EU doesn't want this company, especially since it is foreign, to hinder any competition in the market. MS does that, or has the power to do that, very well with its control over proprietary protocols and desktop dominance. The EU wants to dismantle this control to create an even playing field, so that anyone (including open source) can implement their own tools to use those communication channels as well as MS. The hope is that the market will foster more competition and thus benefit the consumer.
They aren't ordering MS to turn over all its code and copyrights. Just the way they setup (not implemented) certain communication components.
Of course with Politics out and above swinging maddly, they probably shot a bit high. They learned from our DOJ, if you shoot at the target, MS will nudge it just enough to miss. The EU is shooting really high and hoping after all the delays, back and forth mumbling, and what not, the arrow will at the least hit the edge of the target.
Ok... more questions arose from one :(
What I use tunneling (putty) for is vnc and other services. I just tunnel my remote (login from) host ports through the login and into the localhost (login into).
Now what is SOCKS5 proxy, Dynamic tunneling?
Thx
On another similar topic. I been trying to tunnel on an old Mac 9.2. It has MacSSH. My ssh server uses SSH2. I can login to the server using putty, linux, and even Mac OS X. But even though I can login to the campus SSH2 (from there I can go to mine), I can't seem to get to my ssh2 directly. No matter what I try! Any Mac users out there?
How do you use ssh (tunneling?) to bypass corporate firewalls?
You can approximate a non-linear system using multiple linear prices. You might have A*x1^3+B*x2^2+SUM(KiXi). But the A and B terms can be broken down to multiple linear lines so that Ax1^3 = SUM(Aj*x1j) and Bx2^2 = SUM(Bj*x2j). It wouldn't be too hard because you are dealing with integers. You can't have half a unit, you got one fighting or not.
Anyway, that could become too complex. You would probably have a simple dummied down approach. Although the answer is optimized for the simple problem, it will give you much insight into the input parameters that you can use in your overall strategy (like there is a really high chance I will win this battle with half my troops...). It would definetly give you a major leg up against a human opp who needs to what you do AND what the program is doing.