I imagine if gravity can be described as information entropy between two bodies, that you'd see lots more research into manipulating gravity on local scales.
A day from solar zenith to solar zenith is about 360.97 degrees of a rotation... I've always thought it was a better measurement to consider a full rotation to be a "day".
It is indeed. Unless HDD makers were going to create firmware, and programmers made partition formats, which address each bit individually (which itself would require an enormous amount of space... much larger than the HDD in fact), you will always be unable to live without sectors. The subdivision idea is again relevant. Imagine if every part of the 20 acre plot had to be "addressable" down to the square inch.
A sector on a HDD is the minimum writeable space. Think of it as a lot in a subdevelopment. If each lot is 50,000 sq. ft. on a 20 acre plot, and you move to 60,000 sq. ft. lots instead, the plot is still 20 acres, but the development now has less lots on it.
In computers, larger sectors are often better for large files, while smaller sectors are better for smaller partitions and smaller files. If a sector is 4096 bytes, and you create a 1024 byte file, it still occupies 4096 bytes on the disk, as the HDD won't write anything else but that file to the sector. If you have files that are hundreds of megabytes though, you can access the file, with minimum wastage, by using fewer sectors, which reduces thrashing and similar issues.
The discrepancy between file sizes and sector sizes is what the difference is in Windows when you view a hard drive and it displays "size" and "size on disk". "Size" is the actual file size, while "size on disk" is the amount of space the file occupies on the hard drive.
Ah. I think most people didn't understand that distinction because you were going after Google, who make pretty much all their money off of... yup, text advertisements.
While war spending is inherently the worst kind of spending, (since you are borrowing money for something which is expended once such as ordinance, and unlike other spending has the PURPOSE of destroying wealth, instead of even the chance of creating it), actual war spending accounts for a small portion of our budget. It's just the largest item in the "discretionary" budget.
I'm of the opinion however that since Congress saw fit to steal from the non-discretionary budget to pay for the discretionary budget that it's foolish to act as if the budgets are very separate. Yes, to change FUNDING levels would require fundamentally altering programs in the non-discretionary budget, unlike Defense spending. But I take issue with people who point to ANY part of our budget as "the problem". It just displays their ignorance and/or naivety.
Defense spending should be slashed. And so should most other spending. The Federal government spends so much money on things they have no business spending money on.
Incidentally, funding NASA, which consistently brings new technology, advancement and understanding that can be appreciated not just by our citizens but by all humans, is perhaps one of the best places for the government to dump money.
But please, anyone who advocates cutting funding for a single part of the budget is either willfully ignorant, or completely self-serving in their own opinions. The budget is much more complex than that... please don't make yourself sound like a 16 year old rebel without a cause by pretending otherwise.
Or, as well, people with a non-novel product of superior quality but without the thousands of dollars to rocket to the top of google for generic searches.
Real life isn't shades of grey, real life is simply allowing yourself to be excluded from any standards which you hold others too. Thats a fairly universal human tendency... it didn't strike me as odd that you did that either.
Ah. So your version of the internet is full of people who's entire livelihood depends on being within the first ten results on google for the most generic search of their market.
As someone who owns a small business, that would doom me to utter and complete failure. As a small business I absolutely rely on targeted, relevant, awareness advertising to survive... because while I can spend $100 and get a few people interested in my product through internet advertising, I have to spend thousands of dollars before I hit the top ten results for my market on google, and thus see a return.
How, precisely, are you supposed to search for something that don't know exists? This is the primary function of advertising as a concept, (though not the primary function of the ads that I'm sure annoy you).
That's a silly analogy. With a plane ticket you are purchasing the right to board and use a portion of the operation of a vehicle. If you are unsatisfied you still received exactly what you paid for... the right to use the vehicle. No matter how rude the attendents were.
Conversely, if you purchase entertainment then are subsequently not entertained, not only are you dissatisfied, but you did not even receive the product which you purchased: a period of entertainment.
This is not a hard concept to understand, and it's ridiculous that you even attempted to use a plane analogy for this.
Actually there isn't. In the US, you can sue for a patent that has not been approved, get a judgment, and the other party can have the judgment vacated if the patent is shown to be unenforceable after the fact.
Canada has a similar system for patents, and Research in Motion found out. They were required to pay out a $700 million judgment on a patent that was found to unenforceable after the fact for technology in the BlackBerry. In that case, RIM was fined even after the fact that the patent had been rejected.
Similarly, you can sue for trademark infringement before you are actually granted your trademark if you have already begun the process.
As a note: the lost sales is a figure to determine the cost/benefit amounts for a company who is operating in the real world with real numbers. That information would no doubt be invaluable to many companies who invest in DRM or other similar (costly) schemes to prevent piracy.
It however has no bearing on the morality of pirating, which I personally believe is not a social issue but a personal one, as moral issues are very rarely a social issue unless they truly bring harm to someone, which again would be difficult to show.
I imagine that if reliable data showed the a 0% piracy rate produced virtually no new sales, most companies would completely abandon anti-piracy measures. Not because they take a moral stand one way or the other, but simply because they are a company operating on a profit basis, and the cost/benefit model shows them that fighting pirates is a stupid thing to do.
It's my understanding that most of the technology in the Nokia video is actually pretty well fleshed out, it would just take a trillion dollars to build it because we have no adequate ways to manufacture it.
So you call the actual Web Developer a "stupid ass" then proceed to register specific about things that have nothing to do with the topic at hand?
Your complete dismissal of javascript for form unless you are avoiding page-loads displays your lack of knowledge in the area. Simply put, I always use Javascript to assist in validating forms before they are submitted... and that actually is to avoid page-loads: error pages.
Again, in Drupal it's simple enough as having a mobile theme, using one of the many canned methods available to make sure that mobile users get to see it, and you're done. Since mobile browsers are simple, mobile themes are simple, and it's little extra work. This is part of the whole point of using a CMS, and if yours doesn't let you trivially support displaying ordinary content to mobile devices then it's pathetic.
Lets all bow down to Drupal!/sarcasm
As I noted in another post, and alluded to in the post you are replying to, the use of specific templates to manage a mobile version of the website is only adequate if every modularized component of the CMS also has the ability to export in a mobile version, and unless you write ALL of the custom functionality by hand, which is incredibly expensive (we're taking 5-6 figure sites) this is not going to happen.
In essence, you're bitching to a professional about a problem you don't understand suggesting a solution which doesn't work because layers upon layers of people have decided that it's not their job to make up for the inadequate hardware/software included on mobile devices.
And the worst part is that you're bitching by telling the professional that he's wrong, which in almost any field is a display of your own stupidity.
See, this only works if you use no modules/components/plugins/extentions/etc. with whatever rapid development framework you're working with, because I can guarantee you that the modularized code isn't going to export mobile friendly code. If I could trust extended pieces of code, I would simply manage layouts as you describe.
Most clients just aren't big enough to warrant all the small fires mobile development creates.
Look at all the OpenSource solutions to rapid web development.
Concrete
Joomla
SilverStripe
Etc.
None of those programs even have a core that's close to being mobile enabled, and no one using them is going to create one. I think the largest problem is simply that the tools most people use for their websites are too bloated, complicated and poorly written to create an effective mobile web.
For example, I have a client that I just last week had to broach the subject of a mobile enabled version of their Joomla 1.5 site with. They were adamant that a version that cellphones could use was absolutely important, but because of the HUGE framework Joomla uses, and the relatively small number of functions a mobile version would need to perform, I basically opted to build a very tiny CMS that would mirror the data from the Joomla database.
You may thumb your nose at web developers who create ridiculous sites and clearly don't know what the hell they're doing, but you are only displaying your own ignorance. Clients drive website development, not developers, and for the vast majority of clients mobile web is something they just don't care about. And because of that nearly all of the tools available exclude the mobile web.
As a web developer, I rarely have to touch the subject of the mobile web, and when I do I basically have to present my clients with two options: 1. you pay me a non-trivial sum to create a second version of your site just for the mobile web or 2. you are restricted to sites built in tools which are mobile web enabled.
I can tell you from years of experience, unless it's part of their business model clients go for option 3: fuck the mobile web.
Ummm... perhaps... I doubt the debt will be only $10 trillion in nominal terms in 10 years, considering the Net Present Value of the US government is about -$60 trillion.
Slashdot Mirror
I imagine if gravity can be described as information entropy between two bodies, that you'd see lots more research into manipulating gravity on local scales.
A day from solar zenith to solar zenith is about 360.97 degrees of a rotation... I've always thought it was a better measurement to consider a full rotation to be a "day".
Sector does have several definitions, but from reading the article I'm fairly certain they are talking about sector size, and not clusters.
It is indeed. Unless HDD makers were going to create firmware, and programmers made partition formats, which address each bit individually (which itself would require an enormous amount of space... much larger than the HDD in fact), you will always be unable to live without sectors. The subdivision idea is again relevant. Imagine if every part of the 20 acre plot had to be "addressable" down to the square inch.
A sector on a HDD is the minimum writeable space. Think of it as a lot in a subdevelopment. If each lot is 50,000 sq. ft. on a 20 acre plot, and you move to 60,000 sq. ft. lots instead, the plot is still 20 acres, but the development now has less lots on it.
In computers, larger sectors are often better for large files, while smaller sectors are better for smaller partitions and smaller files. If a sector is 4096 bytes, and you create a 1024 byte file, it still occupies 4096 bytes on the disk, as the HDD won't write anything else but that file to the sector. If you have files that are hundreds of megabytes though, you can access the file, with minimum wastage, by using fewer sectors, which reduces thrashing and similar issues.
The discrepancy between file sizes and sector sizes is what the difference is in Windows when you view a hard drive and it displays "size" and "size on disk". "Size" is the actual file size, while "size on disk" is the amount of space the file occupies on the hard drive.
Ah. I think most people didn't understand that distinction because you were going after Google, who make pretty much all their money off of... yup, text advertisements.
While war spending is inherently the worst kind of spending, (since you are borrowing money for something which is expended once such as ordinance, and unlike other spending has the PURPOSE of destroying wealth, instead of even the chance of creating it), actual war spending accounts for a small portion of our budget. It's just the largest item in the "discretionary" budget.
I'm of the opinion however that since Congress saw fit to steal from the non-discretionary budget to pay for the discretionary budget that it's foolish to act as if the budgets are very separate. Yes, to change FUNDING levels would require fundamentally altering programs in the non-discretionary budget, unlike Defense spending. But I take issue with people who point to ANY part of our budget as "the problem". It just displays their ignorance and/or naivety.
Defense spending should be slashed. And so should most other spending. The Federal government spends so much money on things they have no business spending money on.
Incidentally, funding NASA, which consistently brings new technology, advancement and understanding that can be appreciated not just by our citizens but by all humans, is perhaps one of the best places for the government to dump money.
But please, anyone who advocates cutting funding for a single part of the budget is either willfully ignorant, or completely self-serving in their own opinions. The budget is much more complex than that... please don't make yourself sound like a 16 year old rebel without a cause by pretending otherwise.
Or, as well, people with a non-novel product of superior quality but without the thousands of dollars to rocket to the top of google for generic searches.
Real life isn't shades of grey, real life is simply allowing yourself to be excluded from any standards which you hold others too. Thats a fairly universal human tendency... it didn't strike me as odd that you did that either.
Are you human? Then you're a hypocrite.
Ah. So your version of the internet is full of people who's entire livelihood depends on being within the first ten results on google for the most generic search of their market.
As someone who owns a small business, that would doom me to utter and complete failure. As a small business I absolutely rely on targeted, relevant, awareness advertising to survive... because while I can spend $100 and get a few people interested in my product through internet advertising, I have to spend thousands of dollars before I hit the top ten results for my market on google, and thus see a return.
How, precisely, are you supposed to search for something that don't know exists? This is the primary function of advertising as a concept, (though not the primary function of the ads that I'm sure annoy you).
I don't really care how you define it, I don't consider anything I pay a monthly fee for a "right".
No casino in Nevada would try this. The NGC would be all over them in a New York minute.
That's a silly analogy. With a plane ticket you are purchasing the right to board and use a portion of the operation of a vehicle. If you are unsatisfied you still received exactly what you paid for... the right to use the vehicle. No matter how rude the attendents were.
Conversely, if you purchase entertainment then are subsequently not entertained, not only are you dissatisfied, but you did not even receive the product which you purchased: a period of entertainment.
This is not a hard concept to understand, and it's ridiculous that you even attempted to use a plane analogy for this.
Christ, did they kill your dog?
Actually there isn't. In the US, you can sue for a patent that has not been approved, get a judgment, and the other party can have the judgment vacated if the patent is shown to be unenforceable after the fact.
Canada has a similar system for patents, and Research in Motion found out. They were required to pay out a $700 million judgment on a patent that was found to unenforceable after the fact for technology in the BlackBerry. In that case, RIM was fined even after the fact that the patent had been rejected.
Similarly, you can sue for trademark infringement before you are actually granted your trademark if you have already begun the process.
I was going to say... doesn't the US Postal Service also take temporary possession of your messages?
I guess the 4th Amendment doesn't apply unless there is an unbroken chain of ownership between private parties.
As a note: the lost sales is a figure to determine the cost/benefit amounts for a company who is operating in the real world with real numbers. That information would no doubt be invaluable to many companies who invest in DRM or other similar (costly) schemes to prevent piracy.
It however has no bearing on the morality of pirating, which I personally believe is not a social issue but a personal one, as moral issues are very rarely a social issue unless they truly bring harm to someone, which again would be difficult to show.
I imagine that if reliable data showed the a 0% piracy rate produced virtually no new sales, most companies would completely abandon anti-piracy measures. Not because they take a moral stand one way or the other, but simply because they are a company operating on a profit basis, and the cost/benefit model shows them that fighting pirates is a stupid thing to do.
It's my understanding that most of the technology in the Nokia video is actually pretty well fleshed out, it would just take a trillion dollars to build it because we have no adequate ways to manufacture it.
So you call the actual Web Developer a "stupid ass" then proceed to register specific about things that have nothing to do with the topic at hand?
Your complete dismissal of javascript for form unless you are avoiding page-loads displays your lack of knowledge in the area. Simply put, I always use Javascript to assist in validating forms before they are submitted... and that actually is to avoid page-loads: error pages.
Lets all bow down to Drupal! /sarcasm
As I noted in another post, and alluded to in the post you are replying to, the use of specific templates to manage a mobile version of the website is only adequate if every modularized component of the CMS also has the ability to export in a mobile version, and unless you write ALL of the custom functionality by hand, which is incredibly expensive (we're taking 5-6 figure sites) this is not going to happen.
In essence, you're bitching to a professional about a problem you don't understand suggesting a solution which doesn't work because layers upon layers of people have decided that it's not their job to make up for the inadequate hardware/software included on mobile devices.
And the worst part is that you're bitching by telling the professional that he's wrong, which in almost any field is a display of your own stupidity.
See, this only works if you use no modules/components/plugins/extentions/etc. with whatever rapid development framework you're working with, because I can guarantee you that the modularized code isn't going to export mobile friendly code. If I could trust extended pieces of code, I would simply manage layouts as you describe.
Most clients just aren't big enough to warrant all the small fires mobile development creates.
None of those programs even have a core that's close to being mobile enabled, and no one using them is going to create one. I think the largest problem is simply that the tools most people use for their websites are too bloated, complicated and poorly written to create an effective mobile web.
For example, I have a client that I just last week had to broach the subject of a mobile enabled version of their Joomla 1.5 site with. They were adamant that a version that cellphones could use was absolutely important, but because of the HUGE framework Joomla uses, and the relatively small number of functions a mobile version would need to perform, I basically opted to build a very tiny CMS that would mirror the data from the Joomla database.
You may thumb your nose at web developers who create ridiculous sites and clearly don't know what the hell they're doing, but you are only displaying your own ignorance. Clients drive website development, not developers, and for the vast majority of clients mobile web is something they just don't care about. And because of that nearly all of the tools available exclude the mobile web.
As a web developer, I rarely have to touch the subject of the mobile web, and when I do I basically have to present my clients with two options: 1. you pay me a non-trivial sum to create a second version of your site just for the mobile web or 2. you are restricted to sites built in tools which are mobile web enabled.
I can tell you from years of experience, unless it's part of their business model clients go for option 3: fuck the mobile web.
Actually, because of the reduced pressure, your blood would boil, not freeze.
Most people here are probably too old or too young to get that reference.
Ummm... perhaps... I doubt the debt will be only $10 trillion in nominal terms in 10 years, considering the Net Present Value of the US government is about -$60 trillion.