Given the technical specs that seems rather improbable. Analog systems are also highly device-dependent, so it's possible you were viewing different quality magnetic tape or machines.
You'd think that if Israel were behind the attack, they would realize they'd be the prime suspect, but I can't fathom why they would want to advertise it.
Deliberate ambiguity.
A blackhat hobbyist might, because they're looking for some sort of "look at how smart I am" personal credit, whereas that seems less likely for a government to do.
Probably less likely as the hobbyist will likely face severe criminal charges.
The embedded references could just as easily have been planted by someone unaffiliated with Israel, who also knew that Israel would be the prime suspect, and wanted to lead some trail to them.
Certainly. But at this level of game theory such predictions become useless, and we have to rely on the original evidence. Everything atop of that is speculation.
Competitive exclusion is a likely answer. We can narrow the emergence of life down to a couple of hundred million years. While that's a short time on an astronomical timescale, it's a very long time on a biological timescale. So once life emerged, it would have quickly spread to every potential habitat, leaving little opportunity for alternative chemistries gain a foothold.
It all depends on the infrastructure of the region. The U.S. has a good highway system, but the public transport is abysmal. You suggested 30 minutes to drive and park at the station and renting a car, but to anyone in a reasonably large city the concept of driving to a main station is ludicrous.
So rather than your overly conservative estimate, a more realistic scenario for a business trip would be: - Walk to the nearest subway in Shanghai and buy the ticket to the subway destination in Hangzhou from the machine. - Change from the subway to the express train at the central station. - Get on the subway at Hangzhou. - Put your feet up the whole time.
It appears you're likely correct with this one. But in any case I would recommend people who read this to judge people's intentions by what they do rather than by disputed quotes over what they might or might not have said.
"We must expel Arabs and take their places." – David Ben Gurion, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985.
"We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population." – David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978.
"If we thought that instead of 200 Palestinian fatalities, 2,000 dead would put an end to the fighting at a stroke, we would use much more force." – Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, quoted in Associated Press, November 16, 2000.
"I would have joined a terrorist organization." – Ehud Barak's response to Gideon Levy, a columnist for the Ha'aretz newspaper, when Barak was asked what he would have done if he had been born a Palestinian
In the real world QoS describes a bunch of techniques for prioritising packets according to some programmed criteria.
Bullshit. QoS describes prioritizing packets based on service quality. Even dumb routing algorithms need to be somehow programmed to drop packets. If you're using your hardware to make sure VOIP packets are preferred that's QoS.
If you use the same hardware to prefer your own service over a competitor that's network discrimination, not QoS. At the very least it's unnecessary, discriminatory and adds complexity to your system.
Sure it's a decent number of apps given that there is something like a quater of a million apps, but its a small percent of the whole.
No, I'm talking about the percentage. Sure, some might have been stupid, but if there are serious developers out there who invest in software, but have genuine trouble assessing whether or not the App will be rejected or not then that tells you there is a problem.
The sense of entitlement of some people these days is amazing.
The sense of Authority some Companies have and the submissive personality of their customers is amazing. Apple has to stick to law like anybody else, and if they're using anti-competitive tactics they deserve to be called out for the cheats they are. Customers and competitors are especially entitled to voice their opinion. That's the only way to get things to change.
When they find them, they remove them.
No they don't.
There are, what, 12 core apps, each pretty specific in the function it performs.
So what about all those calendar Apps? Map viewers? Weather apps? Note-taking apps? Clocks? Calculators? Voice recorders? With suggestive names such as Calculator+? There are hundreds of Apps out there that adress the flaws of the iPhone, most of them seem very welcome in the App store.
The others chose to delve into areas that are open to the whim of personal opinion, such as adult material, or 'obscene'.
I'm not arguing with this one. But it has to be said that this is where Apple is deliberately vague. They have double standards. If you're a successful print magazine you can get away with sexual content, if you aren't then even just suggestive stuff can throw you out.
That's the way it is with Apple. Often they make a stupid decision, and occaisonly this causes an uproar, making Apple backtrack on their original decision and that migt make them change their policy. Then a few weeks down the line they make another radical change in their EULAs or developer agreements which again stirs up the whole market.
The text you pasted from Wikipedia? Yeah, I read that. It confirms what I say.
The approaches are:
Stupid packet routing: Ben is making a phonecall, Bob is watching Youporn. The router says "first in first out". For every voice package Ben gets Bob gets a hundred porn packages. When the bandwidth is maxed out the router indiscriminately drops packages. Bob might still be getting faster-than-realtime video, but Ben's lost packages cause the audio to break up and can make the voice inaudible.
Smart QoS routing: The router sees that Ben's packages are VoIP packages, which it knows to prioritize. So when they arrive it makes sure they are processed quickly. The Result is that Ben can make his phone call, and this has little effect Bob's ressource-demanding video stream, which he's probably still receiving faster that real-time anyway. Everyone is happy.
Asshole biased routing: The ISP offers their own VOIP service. Ben isn't happy with the pricing and would rather use his own VOIP solution or that of a competitor. The ISP makes sure that their own service works flawlessly, but decides that they should slow or block all other voice traffic because that will encourage their customers to use their expensive solution. They might do the same for video providers, or online games. If they use any smart QoS system at all, it will discriminate against those who haven't payed extra.
You're wrong. Quality of service is about maintaining service quality for vulnerable or sensitive services, not discriminating against those who don't pay for "quality" and thus degrading service.
Given that 95% percent are accepted without any issue at all, leaving only 5% of questionable apps, the argument that Apple is rejecting apps willy nilly is not exactly a good reflection of reality.
That's like saying 95% of police Officers aren't corrupt. 5% being rejected is actually HUGE.
but the simple fact is that the majority of apps are rejected because the developer took a chance and ignored the agreement.
Yet if you look through the App store and you read the developer blogs, you find that the App store is rife with violations. There are so many retarded restrictions that if Apple had seriously enforced their policies a large portion of Apps should have vanished by now. This huge ambiguity leaves Apple to reign supreme. If your app generates sales and fits into their brand image chances are your violations will be ignored. But if they decide that they don't like your App for whatever reason they're sure to find some excuse for screwing you over.
Considering OWN lives over ENEMY lives is hardly immoral, unless you are of the persuasion that there is no difference.
"All men are created equal". A truly egalitarian society doesn't put preference on nationalities. Naturally, this is an impractical ideal in warfare, but accepting massive civilian casualties by reasoning that people of one nationality are inherently many times more valuable than than another is nationalistic, immoral and goes against (previously) developed and agreed rules of international conflict.
Imperial Japan was not at all like the country so beloved of the weaboo geek crowd who so staunchly defend it today
When will you understand that the people living under totalitarian or militaristic regimes are by and large just ordinary people who want to get on with their lives? You can't project your naive impressions upon an entire population, especially if your perceptions are skewed by years of media enemy-images.
I'm not an Apple fanboy, but you gotta hand it to them - less is usually more (cept for iTunes) when they're designing and making products. While everyone else is going super complex, with ATV you get 1 remote control with the minimal amount of buttons to control it.
That's fair enough (but certainly not unique to Apple), but it becomes a problem when the design and software restrictions start to specifically limit functionality of the device and we're left with a dumb machine with none of the upgradability, compatibility, choice and freedom that these computers can give us. This means that people have to buy a whole new device if they want extra functionality, but that of course suits Apple who envision iSheeple going out and buying iDevices every couple of upgrade cycles.
But it's like they inherited this M$ sorta view of the widest distribution of some whacky complex idea with some sort of specification and then leave it up to everyone else to implement it.
A model which has usually often been more successful and pioneering than monolithic markets and product design.
Kindle and the iPhone are good examples of how Google is not approaching product design & development.
Kindle is purpose-built device for reading books and Android devices are fully operable computers. The iPhone is neither, floating somewhere between the two approaches, moving to and fro every time Apple decides to change their EULAs or business partners in a way which shakes the market and upsets consumers and developers.
The stupidest thing on the planet - to me - is wanting to watch tv and using a keyboard, trackpad, and remote control to do it. If anything, the tv should be voice controlled or at least controlled by some sort of cool iPad device - something that gives the end user some eye candy/techno lust.
They give you a choice. A powerful remote that come bundled and is made by the industry leader Logitech, keyboards for those who want it and Android phones (maybe even iPhones) for those who have them. Logitech also make a range of remote controls so anybody will be able to find what they're looking for. Compare this to the typically crappy amount of choice and features on iDevices.
"Eyeballing" can be done in any unit you're accustomed to. Unless they have practice, most people are quite useless at it, no matter what system is used. And it only works for a limited range. You might be able to tell me the diameter of a shaft in inches, but be completely useless at estimating the dimensions of a room.
This is one place where I find the imperial tradition or using volume much more practical. Instead of using a highly resolved unit for which you need measuring instrument, you can save a lot of time by just scooping a cup into flour/sugar or whatever.
HDR photography can record the high dynamic range of a real scene, but when it's displayed on a monitor it would have to throw away most of the information to stay realistic. Compressing it to fit the range of the display not only falsifies the objective accuracy of the image but also changes the subjective impression as the eyes also adapt to light intensity. But that's what most people mean when they use the term "HDR", like with this video.
Yes it has. There are a few fringe diet-authors who like to point blame at cereals after the neolithic revolution. But the fact is that any plant-rich diet has a very significant amount of starch and sugars.
The reasoning is based around how starches interact with insulin, and the evidence is vast if you bother to look.
LOL. Apart from being a very mushy statement, they don't interact at all. When digested starch contributes to blood sugar which has an effect on insulin. That's it.
It's all down to heavy consumption. Period. Fat people eat too much. Starch and sugar is obviously a major part, but that doesn't change the simple equation.
Starch is a staple food which humans have always lived on. It's absolute consensus by nutritionists that starch is the major part of healthy diet. Why is it so fashionable to question this with no evidence or reasoning whatsoever?
Slashdot Mirror
Given the technical specs that seems rather improbable. Analog systems are also highly device-dependent, so it's possible you were viewing different quality magnetic tape or machines.
VHS was actually royalty free from pretty early on, effectively an open standard. Te same applies to compact cassettes.
Nuclear reactors are built with multiple redundancy to the point that failure is inconceivable.
Such redundancy is less likely with an enrichment facility, and some speculate that it has already caused explosions and massive failure.
You'd think that if Israel were behind the attack, they would realize they'd be the prime suspect, but I can't fathom why they would want to advertise it.
Deliberate ambiguity.
A blackhat hobbyist might, because they're looking for some sort of "look at how smart I am" personal credit, whereas that seems less likely for a government to do.
Probably less likely as the hobbyist will likely face severe criminal charges.
The embedded references could just as easily have been planted by someone unaffiliated with Israel, who also knew that Israel would be the prime suspect, and wanted to lead some trail to them.
Certainly. But at this level of game theory such predictions become useless, and we have to rely on the original evidence. Everything atop of that is speculation.
Competitive exclusion is a likely answer. We can narrow the emergence of life down to a couple of hundred million years. While that's a short time on an astronomical timescale, it's a very long time on a biological timescale.
So once life emerged, it would have quickly spread to every potential habitat, leaving little opportunity for alternative chemistries gain a foothold.
It all depends on the infrastructure of the region. The U.S. has a good highway system, but the public transport is abysmal. You suggested 30 minutes to drive and park at the station and renting a car, but to anyone in a reasonably large city the concept of driving to a main station is ludicrous.
So rather than your overly conservative estimate, a more realistic scenario for a business trip would be:
- Walk to the nearest subway in Shanghai and buy the ticket to the subway destination in Hangzhou from the machine.
- Change from the subway to the express train at the central station.
- Get on the subway at Hangzhou.
- Put your feet up the whole time.
Nuclear power is great for Heavy Metal, but I always ask my power company to switch me to green electricity before listening to Irish music.
It appears you're likely correct with this one. But in any case I would recommend people who read this to judge people's intentions by what they do rather than by disputed quotes over what they might or might not have said.
Unsubstantiated?
"We must expel Arabs and take their places."
– David Ben Gurion, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985.
"We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population."
– David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978.
"If we thought that instead of 200 Palestinian fatalities, 2,000 dead would put an end to the fighting at a stroke, we would use much more force."
– Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, quoted in Associated Press, November 16, 2000.
"I would have joined a terrorist organization."
– Ehud Barak's response to Gideon Levy, a columnist for the Ha'aretz newspaper, when Barak was asked what he would have done if he had been born a Palestinian
In the real world QoS describes a bunch of techniques for prioritising packets according to some programmed criteria.
Bullshit. QoS describes prioritizing packets based on service quality. Even dumb routing algorithms need to be somehow programmed to drop packets.
If you're using your hardware to make sure VOIP packets are preferred that's QoS.
If you use the same hardware to prefer your own service over a competitor that's network discrimination, not QoS.
At the very least it's unnecessary, discriminatory and adds complexity to your system.
Sure it's a decent number of apps given that there is something like a quater of a million apps, but its a small percent of the whole.
No, I'm talking about the percentage. Sure, some might have been stupid, but if there are serious developers out there who invest in software, but have genuine trouble assessing whether or not the App will be rejected or not then that tells you there is a problem.
The sense of entitlement of some people these days is amazing.
The sense of Authority some Companies have and the submissive personality of their customers is amazing. Apple has to stick to law like anybody else, and if they're using anti-competitive tactics they deserve to be called out for the cheats they are. Customers and competitors are especially entitled to voice their opinion. That's the only way to get things to change.
When they find them, they remove them.
No they don't.
There are, what, 12 core apps, each pretty specific in the function it performs.
So what about all those calendar Apps? Map viewers? Weather apps? Note-taking apps? Clocks? Calculators? Voice recorders? With suggestive names such as Calculator+? There are hundreds of Apps out there that adress the flaws of the iPhone, most of them seem very welcome in the App store.
The others chose to delve into areas that are open to the whim of personal opinion, such as adult material, or 'obscene'.
I'm not arguing with this one. But it has to be said that this is where Apple is deliberately vague. They have double standards. If you're a successful print magazine you can get away with sexual content, if you aren't then even just suggestive stuff can throw you out.
That's the way it is with Apple. Often they make a stupid decision, and occaisonly this causes an uproar, making Apple backtrack on their original decision and that migt make them change their policy.
Then a few weeks down the line they make another radical change in their EULAs or developer agreements which again stirs up the whole market.
The text you pasted from Wikipedia? Yeah, I read that. It confirms what I say.
The approaches are:
Stupid packet routing: Ben is making a phonecall, Bob is watching Youporn. The router says "first in first out". For every voice package Ben gets Bob gets a hundred porn packages. When the bandwidth is maxed out the router indiscriminately drops packages. Bob might still be getting faster-than-realtime video, but Ben's lost packages cause the audio to break up and can make the voice inaudible.
Smart QoS routing: The router sees that Ben's packages are VoIP packages, which it knows to prioritize. So when they arrive it makes sure they are processed quickly. The Result is that Ben can make his phone call, and this has little effect Bob's ressource-demanding video stream, which he's probably still receiving faster that real-time anyway. Everyone is happy.
Asshole biased routing: The ISP offers their own VOIP service. Ben isn't happy with the pricing and would rather use his own VOIP solution or that of a competitor. The ISP makes sure that their own service works flawlessly, but decides that they should slow or block all other voice traffic because that will encourage their customers to use their expensive solution.
They might do the same for video providers, or online games. If they use any smart QoS system at all, it will discriminate against those who haven't payed extra.
You're wrong. Quality of service is about maintaining service quality for vulnerable or sensitive services, not discriminating against those who don't pay for "quality" and thus degrading service.
Given that 95% percent are accepted without any issue at all, leaving only 5% of questionable apps, the argument that Apple is rejecting apps willy nilly is not exactly a good reflection of reality.
That's like saying 95% of police Officers aren't corrupt. 5% being rejected is actually HUGE.
but the simple fact is that the majority of apps are rejected because the developer took a chance and ignored the agreement.
Yet if you look through the App store and you read the developer blogs, you find that the App store is rife with violations. There are so many retarded restrictions that if Apple had seriously enforced their policies a large portion of Apps should have vanished by now.
This huge ambiguity leaves Apple to reign supreme. If your app generates sales and fits into their brand image chances are your violations will be ignored. But if they decide that they don't like your App for whatever reason they're sure to find some excuse for screwing you over.
Considering OWN lives over ENEMY lives is hardly immoral, unless you are of the persuasion that there is no difference.
"All men are created equal".
A truly egalitarian society doesn't put preference on nationalities. Naturally, this is an impractical ideal in warfare, but accepting massive civilian casualties by reasoning that people of one nationality are inherently many times more valuable than than another is nationalistic, immoral and goes against (previously) developed and agreed rules of international conflict.
Imperial Japan was not at all like the country so beloved of the weaboo geek crowd who so staunchly defend it today
When will you understand that the people living under totalitarian or militaristic regimes are by and large just ordinary people who want to get on with their lives? You can't project your naive impressions upon an entire population, especially if your perceptions are skewed by years of media enemy-images.
About the only thing some Cold War-era nukes would be good for would be a source of weapons-grade nuclear material.
Which would be the biggest problem solved.
No, this is just fundamentalist bullshit to cleanse your cognitive dissonance.
Not considering loss of lives makes you an immoral bastard. Putting on a superficial "total war" of "enemy civilian" badge changes nothing.
I'm not an Apple fanboy, but you gotta hand it to them - less is usually more (cept for iTunes) when they're designing and making products. While everyone else is going super complex, with ATV you get 1 remote control with the minimal amount of buttons to control it.
That's fair enough (but certainly not unique to Apple), but it becomes a problem when the design and software restrictions start to specifically limit functionality of the device and we're left with a dumb machine with none of the upgradability, compatibility, choice and freedom that these computers can give us. This means that people have to buy a whole new device if they want extra functionality, but that of course suits Apple who envision iSheeple going out and buying iDevices every couple of upgrade cycles.
But it's like they inherited this M$ sorta view of the widest distribution of some whacky complex idea with some sort of specification and then leave it up to everyone else to implement it.
A model which has usually often been more successful and pioneering than monolithic markets and product design.
Kindle and the iPhone are good examples of how Google is not approaching product design & development.
Kindle is purpose-built device for reading books and Android devices are fully operable computers.
The iPhone is neither, floating somewhere between the two approaches, moving to and fro every time Apple decides to change their EULAs or business partners in a way which shakes the market and upsets consumers and developers.
The stupidest thing on the planet - to me - is wanting to watch tv and using a keyboard, trackpad, and remote control to do it. If anything, the tv should be voice controlled or at least controlled by some sort of cool iPad device - something that gives the end user some eye candy/techno lust.
They give you a choice. A powerful remote that come bundled and is made by the industry leader Logitech, keyboards for those who want it and Android phones (maybe even iPhones) for those who have them. Logitech also make a range of remote controls so anybody will be able to find what they're looking for.
Compare this to the typically crappy amount of choice and features on iDevices.
The same applies to meat as to vegetables. Many proteins and nutrients aren't digestible without being cooked, which makes nutrition more difficult.
Actually, it's cookingfortyengineers.com
"Eyeballing" can be done in any unit you're accustomed to. Unless they have practice, most people are quite useless at it, no matter what system is used.
And it only works for a limited range. You might be able to tell me the diameter of a shaft in inches, but be completely useless at estimating the dimensions of a room.
This is one place where I find the imperial tradition or using volume much more practical. Instead of using a highly resolved unit for which you need measuring instrument, you can save a lot of time by just scooping a cup into flour/sugar or whatever.
HDR photography can record the high dynamic range of a real scene, but when it's displayed on a monitor it would have to throw away most of the information to stay realistic. Compressing it to fit the range of the display not only falsifies the objective accuracy of the image but also changes the subjective impression as the eyes also adapt to light intensity. But that's what most people mean when they use the term "HDR", like with this video.
Yes it has. There are a few fringe diet-authors who like to point blame at cereals after the neolithic revolution.
But the fact is that any plant-rich diet has a very significant amount of starch and sugars.
The reasoning is based around how starches interact with insulin, and the evidence is vast if you bother to look.
LOL. Apart from being a very mushy statement, they don't interact at all. When digested starch contributes to blood sugar which has an effect on insulin. That's it.
It's all down to heavy consumption. Period. Fat people eat too much. Starch and sugar is obviously a major part, but that doesn't change the simple equation.
Starch is a staple food which humans have always lived on. It's absolute consensus by nutritionists that starch is the major part of healthy diet. Why is it so fashionable to question this with no evidence or reasoning whatsoever?