Since everyone affected by this already bought their music, none. At least in the short term, they're saving money by not keeping the servers up, and as for the long term, those who bought music from MS aren't likely to switch to any other OS, so I'd say they're not likely to lose a penny.
The GP didn't say 8% of its own *weight*, they said *volume*. And the Buckyballs store it at 8% of it's normal volume, hence "concentrated", not expanded as you seem to be implying. The GP (GGP now) made a mistake. Read the summary, buckyballs can store 8% of their *weight* (although should have said mass). And to actually answer your parent's question, Hydrogen is so small it can escape from any container currently known, at a rate high enough that makes it impractical for long-term storage.
You are technically correct that a Turing machine is deterministic; however, so are the random number generators in computers. In fact, one could build a Turing machine to output pseudorandom numbers the same way a computer does, since computers are no more powerful than a Turing machine. There cannot be true randomness (to the extent of human knowledge) without measuring quantum states. My point was merely to show that there are algorithms which one cannot prove will halt.
Using the input as your RNG's seed and depending on the implementation of the RNG, there could very well be some input for which the TM never halts. Could we prove it? Probably, but the point is there is SOME Turing machine (algorithm) that may or may not halt, but we (or at least another Turing machine) cannot prove it.
I have 1 GB of RAM, and I rarely use it all up. Of course, I don't play ram-hungry games or use Vista; Those two and maybe compiling large programs are all I can think of that would need more than a gig of ram to function at a reasonable speed.
As a side note on the compiling, I'm doing a thesis on memory paging, and the largest trace we have is of compiling a linux kernel: over 4 million distinct pages, each page 4kB for a total footprint over 16GB.
"Daddy, why doesn't my Nintendo DS do online play?"
Whoops, some consumer devices don't support WPA. It's easy enough to switch from WPA to WEP. The point the GP was making is that routers are starting to ship pre-secured.
I don't support this law, but I have to take issue with you on a couple points.
So, who it going to determine whether the access was on purpose, or the more likely alternative, accidental? No one will, because this will never become a law. Sure, because we all know politicians in general are benevolent, loving creatures who care deeply about their constituents.
Some people specifically operate unsecured wireless networks as a service to the community, is that going to be outlawed? When you operate your wireless network "unsecured... as a service to the community" you are authorizing people to use it, and this bill would prohibit unauthorized use.
You seem to have a rather poor understanding of Turing recognizability vs. decidability.
The Halting problem you refer to is Turing-recognizable, but not Turing-decidable. That means that there EXIST programs for which a turing machine can't tell you for sure whether or not they will halt, for instance, int i = 0; while(i -lt 99){ i = (int)(rand() * 100) }. However, it can RECOGNIZE programs that do complete (in a finite amount of time), such as int main(){}. Therefore, it is not impossible, as you claim, to prove any code correct. There are some programs which can be proven correct, and there are some programs which cannot. I would think a simple voting machine counter would be easily provable (on event: if(verify()) votes[choice]++;, with a few similarly simple configuration events), and if there were something complex enough to make it unproveable, I would be very suspicious of the company that made them.
Both tallies are out by 1 count. Could it be the one is counting from zero and the other from one?
Actually, the Republican tally was heavy one vote, while the Democratic tally was light one vote. Thus, your proposed explanation doesn't wash. Actually, the Dems were heavy one and the Republicans were missing a vote.
Actually, I was thinking of America. 170 years would be when FDR started seizing executive power the president shouldn't have, and the presidents since have been grabbing more power since. Less than 100 years was referring to Lincoln and his repeal of Habeas Corpus, which some say is the start of the trend, but I generally disagree with that view.
Because sending a corpse to Mars would be a huge waste of payload on an un-manned mission. Outside of science fiction, we can't freeze people and revive them.
They actually did that to a dog, and in theory it could be extended to humans. It's sort of like cloning. We're on the edge of the technology, but it won't be extended to humans in the foreseeable future.
I would love to go found a colony on Mars. Get a dozen men, a dozen women, make sure there's a doctor or two, an engineer or two, and forbid any lawyers or CEOs. It'd be just like the Mayflower... Only without the natives and smallpox...
If it weren't for those, the screen could be an inch bigger.
The screen won't magically become bigger if you remove the speakers. It would require selecting a larger LCD, and that means it would cost more. At the very least, it would cost more to add a larger screen than you would save by removing the speakers. You would then have to issue headphones with each OLPC, and probably have to replace them as they are lost/damaged/stolen.
The target audience isn't the average/. geek. He's actually talking about the Eeepc, not the OLPC. Yes, it would cost more for the bigger screen, but no, Asus would not have to provide headphones, and certainly wouldn't have to replace them after they're lost/damaged/stolen.
Average CS starting is 51k, Comp Eng is 56k, actually. Source? What years, locations, and education levels does that cover? And does that count high schoolers making $10/hr doing web design over the summer?
I'm graduating with a BA in CS this year, and barely looking at any CS jobs below 85k, and there are plenty above.
To me, maths dictates that if the patent office hired 12,000 examiners this year and did so for the next 5 years, the problem described would begin to decrease at year 3 and disappear at year 5. That would be an achievement by US standards. Why don't these officials just do this grade 9 math? That would cost them more money. People are still going to apply for patents no matter how long it takes, so they really aren't losing much (financially) by keeping the backlog, whereas it would cost them ~600-700k/yr in salary to do what you suggest to kill the backlog.
"Just rubber stamp it. The judicial branch will sort it out for us."
Is that what it's going to come down too[sic]? Unfortunately, yes. Since job performance is entirely based on number of applications processed, the examiners have very little incentive to do a good job, so unless they have a clear reason to reject an application in the first 5-10 pages, they'll likely just grant it. The problem then REALLY comes when the judicial branch says, "the patent office granted it, so if it's not patentable they can sort it out," which is what they have been doing for some time now. That's part of the reason it's so difficult to get a patent overturned: both branches say the other should do it.
I wonder how efficiency ratings are measured? If it's number of patents processed, then there is an incentive to rubber stamp applications (pass a lot, fail a lot, or come up with a semi-random scheme).
Really though, with the years you've invested in your engineering degree would you want to go straight to a paper shuffling job right out of school?
IIRC, they're expected/required to process 5 applications a week (avg 8 hrs/app), probably averaged over some time frame, regardless of how long the application is. And yes, both your concerns are valid: because of the quota, there's no incentive to do a good job, just to do it quickly; and the people that would know the most about this are least likely to want to do it.
No, patents have their place or the founding fathers would have forbade them altogether. The current problems stem largely from
(1) business method patents
(2) software patents
(3) genome patents
(4) the patenting process (including the difficulty and cost of overturning a patent, compared to getting an obvious patent through)
(5) patent trolls abusing (4).
Patents on physical inventions which are clearly new, innovative, and unique are fine.
If it were made of carbon, it would likely be diamond; however that is quite unlikely. It's most likely iron with some nickel mixed in like our core. And it probably is solid because of the pressure.
The population is growing by a large amount, not lowering. It's basically the opposite of what you are saying. Now it's growing, but we were the reason they became so endangered in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Another so-far-ignored advantage of pagers is the ability to hand them off...
Although I do think pagers are a better choice, I feel compelled to point out that one can (and some hospitals do) hand off an on-call cell phone too.
Wrong on all counts. Did you ever even look at the actual numbers? It looks like you just pulled them all out of your ass.
Senate: 98 for, 1 against (Feingold D,WI)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313
House: 357 for, 66 against.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll398.xml
How much money are they losing on this idiocy?
Since everyone affected by this already bought their music, none. At least in the short term, they're saving money by not keeping the servers up, and as for the long term, those who bought music from MS aren't likely to switch to any other OS, so I'd say they're not likely to lose a penny.The GP didn't say 8% of its own *weight*, they said *volume*. And the Buckyballs store it at 8% of it's normal volume, hence "concentrated", not expanded as you seem to be implying. The GP (GGP now) made a mistake. Read the summary, buckyballs can store 8% of their *weight* (although should have said mass). And to actually answer your parent's question, Hydrogen is so small it can escape from any container currently known, at a rate high enough that makes it impractical for long-term storage.
You are technically correct that a Turing machine is deterministic; however, so are the random number generators in computers. In fact, one could build a Turing machine to output pseudorandom numbers the same way a computer does, since computers are no more powerful than a Turing machine. There cannot be true randomness (to the extent of human knowledge) without measuring quantum states. My point was merely to show that there are algorithms which one cannot prove will halt.
Using the input as your RNG's seed and depending on the implementation of the RNG, there could very well be some input for which the TM never halts. Could we prove it? Probably, but the point is there is SOME Turing machine (algorithm) that may or may not halt, but we (or at least another Turing machine) cannot prove it.
I have 1 GB of RAM, and I rarely use it all up. Of course, I don't play ram-hungry games or use Vista; Those two and maybe compiling large programs are all I can think of that would need more than a gig of ram to function at a reasonable speed.
As a side note on the compiling, I'm doing a thesis on memory paging, and the largest trace we have is of compiling a linux kernel: over 4 million distinct pages, each page 4kB for a total footprint over 16GB.
Whoops, some consumer devices don't support WPA. It's easy enough to switch from WPA to WEP. The point the GP was making is that routers are starting to ship pre-secured.
You seem to have a rather poor understanding of Turing recognizability vs. decidability.
The Halting problem you refer to is Turing-recognizable, but not Turing-decidable. That means that there EXIST programs for which a turing machine can't tell you for sure whether or not they will halt, for instance, int i = 0; while(i -lt 99){ i = (int)(rand() * 100) }. However, it can RECOGNIZE programs that do complete (in a finite amount of time), such as int main(){}. Therefore, it is not impossible, as you claim, to prove any code correct. There are some programs which can be proven correct, and there are some programs which cannot. I would think a simple voting machine counter would be easily provable (on event: if(verify()) votes[choice]++;, with a few similarly simple configuration events), and if there were something complex enough to make it unproveable, I would be very suspicious of the company that made them.
Actually, the Republican tally was heavy one vote, while the Democratic tally was light one vote. Thus, your proposed explanation doesn't wash. Actually, the Dems were heavy one and the Republicans were missing a vote.
So quick to assume a republican bias, tsk tsk.
Damn, you beat me to it.
Actually, I was thinking of America. 170 years would be when FDR started seizing executive power the president shouldn't have, and the presidents since have been grabbing more power since. Less than 100 years was referring to Lincoln and his repeal of Habeas Corpus, which some say is the start of the trend, but I generally disagree with that view.
Been there, done that. Only worked ~170 years (or arguably less than 100).
Because sending a corpse to Mars would be a huge waste of payload on an un-manned mission. Outside of science fiction, we can't freeze people and revive them.
They actually did that to a dog, and in theory it could be extended to humans. It's sort of like cloning. We're on the edge of the technology, but it won't be extended to humans in the foreseeable future.Then it would be a one-way trip for two (or more) wouldn't it?
see also: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062827/
I would love to go found a colony on Mars. Get a dozen men, a dozen women, make sure there's a doctor or two, an engineer or two, and forbid any lawyers or CEOs. It'd be just like the Mayflower... Only without the natives and smallpox...The screen won't magically become bigger if you remove the speakers. It would require selecting a larger LCD, and that means it would cost more. At the very least, it would cost more to add a larger screen than you would save by removing the speakers. You would then have to issue headphones with each OLPC, and probably have to replace them as they are lost/damaged/stolen.
The target audience isn't the average
I'm graduating with a BA in CS this year, and barely looking at any CS jobs below 85k, and there are plenty above.
Is that what it's going to come down too[sic]? Unfortunately, yes. Since job performance is entirely based on number of applications processed, the examiners have very little incentive to do a good job, so unless they have a clear reason to reject an application in the first 5-10 pages, they'll likely just grant it. The problem then REALLY comes when the judicial branch says, "the patent office granted it, so if it's not patentable they can sort it out," which is what they have been doing for some time now. That's part of the reason it's so difficult to get a patent overturned: both branches say the other should do it.
Really though, with the years you've invested in your engineering degree would you want to go straight to a paper shuffling job right out of school?
IIRC, they're expected/required to process 5 applications a week (avg 8 hrs/app), probably averaged over some time frame, regardless of how long the application is. And yes, both your concerns are valid: because of the quota, there's no incentive to do a good job, just to do it quickly; and the people that would know the most about this are least likely to want to do it.
No, patents have their place or the founding fathers would have forbade them altogether. The current problems stem largely from
(1) business method patents
(2) software patents
(3) genome patents
(4) the patenting process (including the difficulty and cost of overturning a patent, compared to getting an obvious patent through)
(5) patent trolls abusing (4).
Patents on physical inventions which are clearly new, innovative, and unique are fine.
If it were made of carbon, it would likely be diamond; however that is quite unlikely. It's most likely iron with some nickel mixed in like our core. And it probably is solid because of the pressure.
The population is growing by a large amount, not lowering. It's basically the opposite of what you are saying. Now it's growing, but we were the reason they became so endangered in the first place.