I think you're missing his point. Sure, the hardware can be broken by software, but it is the responsibility of the hardware manufacturer to ensure that even if (say) you turn off the psu fan, it doesn't catch fire. Perhaps some sort of breaker circuit would work here. Similarly for other cases.
The High Energy Laser Area Defense System
So what's the other L for?
I swear, the military just loves acronyms, whether they make sense or not! And what's an area defense system?
Two pages of whining containing nothing but "Google pays their employees too much!" and "Nobody wants to work for me anymore"
How does this make them evil? This takes the cake:
It's largely that they're hiring up so many talented people, and the fact they're working on so many different things. It's harder for start-ups to do interesting stuff right now
So they're evil because they stifle innovation. And they stifle innovation by innovating. Sure makes a lot of sense
Get a grip, people!
This isn't about whether the tech was "allowed" to call the cops, but the fact that the cops didn't see fit to get a search warrant before searching the drive. The tech has a legitimate reason to be delving into files. The cops don't.
I could not open the link, probably/.ted
Coral is your friend. Here ya go
And no, its not the same. These guys want to do it without applying an electric field to the liquid. They're using mechanical force.
I'm certainly no expert on photography, but it seems to me that the maximum resolution doesn't have much to do with the size of the lens. However, larger lens allow more light in, so perhaps this is only useful in brightly lit areas?
Is there really a limitation on the lens size mentioned in the article?
Somewhat light on detail. So is the effective zoom limited only by the amount of liquid they can put between the squeezy-things?
Is the real innovation in the material of the lens or the method to make it deform to specification?
What would make infinitely more sense is if sponsors got to use the Olympic logo (and perhaps other olympic-related logos "team GB"? ) and non-sponsors don't.
Or is there already such a provision, and the sponsors want even more? If so, that's fucking pathetic.
First it says that NOW "Google only takes action when a trade marked term is used in the text of an ad - i.e. the trade marked term can still trigger the ad"
A few sentences onward, and there's this:
there had been a breach of the insurance firm's trade mark rights "solely with regard to those sponsored links that use GEICO's trade marks in their headings or text."
So does Google use Geico's trademarks in the ad text and headers or not?
They want to track people getting in and out of the designated ports of entry. Not track them everywhere they go.
Or is there some limiting law that visitor must have his/her visa with him/her all times when moving outdoors that I missed?
When did you last hear of a law-abiding terrorist (even if that was the point of this scheme, which it isn't)?
As long as this is done on the papers/documents the person is supposed to have, and not on their person, I suppose this is a step forward.
In a way, it isn't very different from giving a person a card that they swipe at the terminal instead of paper that a person has to read/stamp.
Now, if they start putting these on people, thats scary!
Slashdot Mirror
How long is it going to be before the *AA realises that suing everybody they can see isn't working? Cat and mouse game indeed.
I think you're missing his point. Sure, the hardware can be broken by software, but it is the responsibility of the hardware manufacturer to ensure that even if (say) you turn off the psu fan, it doesn't catch fire. Perhaps some sort of breaker circuit would work here. Similarly for other cases.
There are materials that are shiny to IR light, too..
As a corrollary, what happens when conventional air missiles miss their target? Do they just blow something else up?
The High Energy Laser Area Defense System
So what's the other L for?
I swear, the military just loves acronyms, whether they make sense or not! And what's an area defense system?
Two pages of whining containing nothing but "Google pays their employees too much!" and "Nobody wants to work for me anymore"
How does this make them evil? This takes the cake:
It's largely that they're hiring up so many talented people, and the fact they're working on so many different things. It's harder for start-ups to do interesting stuff right now
So they're evil because they stifle innovation. And they stifle innovation by innovating. Sure makes a lot of sense
I got the same error too. Try it again in a few minutes - that worked for me, at any rate
Anybody else think it was easier back in the day to get a foot in the door? Of course, this isn't unique to gaaming..
Get a grip, people!
This isn't about whether the tech was "allowed" to call the cops, but the fact that the cops didn't see fit to get a search warrant before searching the drive. The tech has a legitimate reason to be delving into files. The cops don't.
Glass has a viscosity (at room temp) of aproximately 10 to the 20th power poises
lead has an estimated viscosity of 10 to the 11th power poises So glass is more viscous than lead? wow!
I could not open the link, probably /.ted
Coral is your friend.
Here ya go
And no, its not the same. These guys want to do it without applying an electric field to the liquid. They're using mechanical force.
Not really. They are two different approaches. In fact, this article mentions that they're different from the electric-field-applying camp.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/Glas s/glass.html
Short answer: Don't know. Could be either.
I'm certainly no expert on photography, but it seems to me that the maximum resolution doesn't have much to do with the size of the lens. However, larger lens allow more light in, so perhaps this is only useful in brightly lit areas?
Is there really a limitation on the lens size mentioned in the article?
Somewhat light on detail. So is the effective zoom limited only by the amount of liquid they can put between the squeezy-things?
Is the real innovation in the material of the lens or the method to make it deform to specification?
It's like putting a gun to the head of the bacteria and pulling the trigger
Of course, they first make the bacteria an offer they can't refuse.
What would make infinitely more sense is if sponsors got to use the Olympic logo (and perhaps other olympic-related logos "team GB"? ) and non-sponsors don't.
Or is there already such a provision, and the sponsors want even more? If so, that's fucking pathetic.
First it says that NOW "Google only takes action when a trade marked term is used in the text of an ad - i.e. the trade marked term can still trigger the ad" A few sentences onward, and there's this: there had been a breach of the insurance firm's trade mark rights "solely with regard to those sponsored links that use GEICO's trade marks in their headings or text." So does Google use Geico's trademarks in the ad text and headers or not?
James Kenton Kane (born 22 October 1982 - 2005) better known as Jamie Kane was a British pop musician and was a member of boyband Boy*d Upp.
After the band split up, Kane launch a mildy successful solo career. He appeard on the covers of Top Of The Pops magazine and NME.
Kane was the subject of several scandals in his last year.
Kane died in a helicopter crash of the coast of the Netherlands.
External links
Official site
Fan site www.jamierules.co.uk
The article says it won't run at all on any firmware version above 1.5. He's not sure it'll run on 1.5, though. Have you tested this?
They want to track people getting in and out of the designated ports of entry. Not track them everywhere they go.
Or is there some limiting law that visitor must have his/her visa with him/her all times when moving outdoors that I missed? When did you last hear of a law-abiding terrorist (even if that was the point of this scheme, which it isn't)?
hmph. * after "they"
And as a nice side-effect, they can track you wherever you go. But you have nothing to hide, right? RIGHT?
*insert bad guys of the moment here
As long as this is done on the papers/documents the person is supposed to have, and not on their person, I suppose this is a step forward.
In a way, it isn't very different from giving a person a card that they swipe at the terminal instead of paper that a person has to read/stamp. Now, if they start putting these on people, thats scary!
They weren't "awarded" anything. The case was settled out of court. It doesn't change a thing (Except that Richter is a few million poorer)