I think it would have take him years to get the same amout of money Google could offer him in only one check.
You assume that Google would only have to offer one check. It doesn't take a genius to adapt GPLed ad blocking software for iOS in xcode. If you offer a first check, then you'll need to offer 10 checks, then 100, then 1000...
And only one pain in the ass has to refuse the check...
What I don't like is the fact that Ahmed Mohamed didn't accomplish anything worth of presidential attention, yet he was invited to the White House.
1. You're not the President. 2. The person who is the President decided otherwise. 3. The world has no obligation to make you like it. 4. Ditto for a second term, post-midterm President.
Thanks for proving my point - "our brands" is clear proof that "Wi-Fi" is not itself a brand, but a trademark used by multiple brands.
Or proof that you don't understand grammar and the English language. Our = The Wi-Fi Alliance, not others. Brands = brands plural, such as the very first one listed, which is "Wi-Fi," in the presented list or registered and unregistered word marks. Where are these other "multiple brands" on the page, eh?
But I suspect you're actually a first year law student, so get prepared to flunk out - you're not as good as you think, and certainly incapable of coherent, consistent argument.
15 year of practice in BigLaw, but who's counting...
You're no good at logic, or even trolling. Buh-bye.
It was clear you'd never be convinced, if only because you'd reject any evidence to the contrary including the Wi-Fi Alliance's own materials. A third party reader, on the other hand...
And as a trademark, it's perfectly proper to use it as a generic reference to 802.11 so long as the uses are licensed and the term is not used to refer to wireless communications generally. Again, don't tell me my own business, boy.
You added a wholly unnecessary "normative" to what I've said. IEEE doesn't even use the term. Care to identify a non-normative IEEE technical specification?
Wi-Fi is a marketing term, like "Made for iPod," originally intended as an informative indication of compatibility.
By marketing term, you mean "brand name. Now it has become the name used for the technology by 95+% of people who refer to the technology.
Particularly in things relating to language, the majority rules. Deal with it.
Finally, "Wi-Fi" isn't a technology, it's an industry group's marketing term.
Therefore 802.11 isn't a technology. It's an industry group's technical specification. Be warned, there is always someone who can pick finer nits than you.
Yet what's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and that which we call Wi-Fi would still be used to wirelessly transmit donkey porn.
Making frogs legs jump did not cost $13.25 billion dollars. No single high speed data link on earth costs $13.25 billion dollars, or, being generous, the $5 billion capex involved in the facility, omitting the opex entirely.
I meant what I said. Ignoring the reason why I stated that there would not be a reasonable application does nothing to rebut that.
Let's presuppose that you could raise the collision energy of the LHC by 10^12 to cross this so-called "energy desert." If that only requires increasing cost by 10^2.... you're talking more than 1 trillion dollars. For this one science project.
In contrast to other projects such as space, proteomes, etc., there's precious little likelihood that there will be applications for the particles and forces discovered. The energies are simply too high to make these more than single-digit-off technologies. What's the Tevatron doing these days?
It's legal, and there are legitimate uses for it... but we're going to list off a bunch of scary hypotheticals, and insinuate how you'd be responsible for everything on the planet.
The idea to install Tor services in libraries emerged from Boston librarian Alison Macrina's Library Freedom Project, which aims to teach libraries how to "protect patrons' rights to explore new ideas, no matter how controversial or subversive, unfettered by the pernicious effects of online surveillance." (The Library Freedom Project is funded by Knight Foundation, which also provides funding to ProPublica.)
DHS spokesman Shawn Neudauer said the agent was simply providing "visibility/situational awareness,"and did not have any direct contact with the Lebanon police or library. "The use of a Tor browser is not, in [or] of itself, illegal and there are legitimate purposes for its use," Neudauer said, "However, the protections that Tor offers can be attractive to criminal enterprises or actors and HSI [Homeland Security Investigations] will continue to pursue those individuals who seek to use the anonymizing technology to further their illicit activity."
How dare someone counterbalance your legitimate use hypotheticals with scary illegitimate use hypotheticals by sending information to other people for use in public discussions and not directly contacting them with jackbooted thuggery.
This decidedly indirect jackbooted thuggery is perilously close to free speech, petitioning the government, and democracy. Only the "good" guys get to do that. Plus the only value judgment relevant to the library should be whether the service is legal, which it is...
Nuking the poles would release enough CO2 to start a warming process. This would cause more frozen CO2 to be released from the ground. Eventually you would start releasing water vapour. The initial kick from the thermonuclear bombs would likely start other feedbacks in the system.
Show me calculations, not seat-of-the-pants assumptions. Because here's a factually supported assumption: if the CO2 and water vapor froze out of the atmosphere to start with, pushing it back into the atmosphere isn't going to reverse the feedback loop that caused those gases to freeze out in the first place. Nevermind that, for millions-to-billions of years, what has remained in the atmosphere has been lost to space so that your near-surface reserves are likely far less than those that were present Mars crossed its tipping points.
Where is the extra CO2 and water going to come from to generate a net positive feedback?
I think if 4 billion humans dropped dead next week, we'd all be better off long-term. We're probably overdue for something like this anyway, given how little genetic diversity humans have.
Emphasis added.
The dead would not be better off in any term. Plus, you appear to assume that you'd remain among the living.
Will you demonstrate the courage of your conviction by leading the way and making a personal sacrifice? Because simply waiting for something to happen and the outcome to be determined by nature's lot does not make you more noble than anyone else -- everyone is already doing that whether consciously or not. The difference appears to be that you're hoping for it to happen.
You think a business that makes 10-20 % margins on 20 milllion in revenue gives a fuck about whether they can hire a 5000$ electrician during a 50,000 renovation? The layout is set up for business purposes, and hasn't hinged on any of this nonsense you're BS'ing in many decades.
You think a business that makes 10-20 % gross margins cares? Yes... because the net margin on that business is less than 2%. When your net profit just about paces the rate of inflation, you care about everything.
The problem is that we have valuable die real-estate being taken up by this shit when additional L1/L2 cache, a core, or other SIMD instruction sets would be better. The market is full of DSP chips, why this, and why on the fucking die!
Because a separate chip, additional chip-to-chip interconnect, and additional PCB-type lithography is far more expensive than on-die lithography?
For instance, USB 3 really took off when Intel integrated USB3 into their chipsets. With the 6-series chipsets, USB 3 was a more expensive feature requiring a separate chip - NEC, Asmedia, etc. - and you pretty much would only find it on premium or gamer motherboards. With the 7-series chipsets, it was everywhere.
Intel is trying to incorporate more cheap-to-provide features to support their existing consumer price point and give you a reason to upgrade. You're free to buy chips with more cores or more L3 cache -- they're on socket LGA 2011 and they'll cost far more than a DSP using a far smaller quantity of this "valuable die real-estate" (254 mm2 versus 356 mm2 for the 22nm Haswell parts).
Dude, have you ever walked around with two phones? It's inconvenient.
All the time. I call them "personal phone" and "work phone." Because work does not need access to my personal emails, contact lists, apps, etc.
Meantime, please let me know how "it's inconvenient" can be used as an affirmative defense to complying with workplace policies or, in this case, the actual law. There are hordes of people not named Clinton who'd like to be able to play that card...
Yes, it's a book for people who don't know science.
Well you've certainly taught him, you professional hard sci-fi writer...
He wrote a fictional novel for entertainment. Critiquing other's work under standards it was never intended to meet is easy. Demonstrating that you can do it better is infinitely harder.
For example: You complain about the hydrazine-to-water conversion because it might yield 15% more water by volume in an ideal process? And you're insulted because the author didn't walk through calculations of density and mass-to-mole conversion, but instead made a like-versus-like comparison in units that a casual reader would understand with 1 significant figure of precision?
Hint: You think and write like an engineer. Engineers are not his audience.
Attempt to write something better. Then, watch it die miserably since, given your writing sample, you're not going to have an appreciably-sized, paying audience for that mess.
[A]lthough modern handguns were not in common use at the time of enactment of the Second Amendment, their basic function has not changed: many are readily adaptable to military use in the same way that their predecessors were used prior to the enactment.
Thank you Second Circuit. I look forward to exercising my right to bear swords, pikes, and various firearms with accompanying bayonets. All these being Napoleonic melee weapons in common use at the time of enactment of the second amendment. When I open carry these arms (note: the second amendment is not restricted to "firearms"), I fully expect you to back me to the hilt despite the fact that most people consider them to be more threatening and deadly than a taser.
Go look up "straw man" then maybe you'll get a clue.
You need to stop telling others what to do and start explaining your own arguments in your own words. As we've asked you repeatedly to do.
So far all we have is you claiming that all those people were sublte trolls and then running away from your own claims like poor and less skilled version of Donald Trump.
I would far prefer a reliable 13Mbps that covers a while multi-acre lot than 54Mbps that I can't even use at one end of my house.
It doesn't matter because if they open up a new band with more range then you'll just have more stations to compete with because you can fight for spectrum with people who are farther away.
That comment wasn't insightful. It was a small piece of knowledge drowned in Three Stooges-level hyperbole.
Even if we accept for sake of argument that any band with more range will "just have more stations to compete with because you can fight for spectrum with people who are farther away," it's a new band.
That new band increases the bandwidth available within the area. Traffic exhanged along the new band in not exchanged along the old bands, which matters for all.
Jesus Christ. 5GHz equipment is not magical simply because it has a lower effective range. It's an entirely alternate band with a larger number of independent channels than 2.4GHz. It's highly recommended precisely because it's an alternate band that currently has less congestion.
"yet in your mind they were all definitely trolls. Why is that?"
isn't a straw man to you?
All of it. Because I am literate. Let me illustrate:
Whatever happened to the subtle trolls (yes they did exist) that had - on the surface at least - had very convincing arguments?
Perhaps they [the subtle trolls] weren't trolls at all, and simply had different opinions than you do. They [the subtle trolls] were subtle and had convincing arguments, yet in your mind they [the subtle trolls] were all definitely trolls. Why is that?
The problem is one of your own creation -- they [the subtle trolls] are not all subtle trolls? "Subtle trolls (yes they did exist)" includes non-trolls? Because the last time I checked, when you craft a category based upon a combination of characteristics, everything within the category should have each of the characteristics. Hence all subtle trolls would be subtle and would also be trolls.
You're unintentionally conceding his point -- not all "subtle trolls" are trolls -- for reasons that you now recognize but are unwilling to admit. Properly labeling someone as a troll requires that you know their intent, yet if they're being subtle you pretty much cannot know their intent. There is no strawman because you yourself set up the category, and he's merely questioning your ability to accurately apply use it without being overinclusive.
How about first you explain why so many people are fond of straw men.
GP is not required to explain others' reasons for doing what they do. I suspect he was motivated by the fact that you wrote "Whatever happened to the subtle trolls (yes they did exist) that had - on the surface at least - had very convincing arguments."
A strawman argument requires that the person responding changes the proposition and then refutes the changed proposition rather than the addressing the actual point of argument. GP neither changed your proposition nor directly refuted it - instead he questioned your premise. You literally claimed that subtle trolls existed and had superficially convincing arguments.
but i get to punch you in the face after you shoot me...right ?
.70 ft-lbs per pellet, and there could be more than 1 based upon spead versus apparent cross-section of the drone. All you have to do is destablize the drone to get most to automatically shut down.
As to your question - yes. From a standing position 2 yards away. (:P) Distance tables are handy.
I'm offering to give you that actual experience. The shells and Mossberg 500 are sitting in a gun safe about 25 yards away, along with my other firearms.
Slashdot Mirror
You assume that Google would only have to offer one check. It doesn't take a genius to adapt GPLed ad blocking software for iOS in xcode. If you offer a first check, then you'll need to offer 10 checks, then 100, then 1000...
And only one pain in the ass has to refuse the check...
1. You're not the President.
2. The person who is the President decided otherwise.
3. The world has no obligation to make you like it.
4. Ditto for a second term, post-midterm President.
Or proof that you don't understand grammar and the English language. Our = The Wi-Fi Alliance, not others. Brands = brands plural, such as the very first one listed, which is "Wi-Fi," in the presented list or registered and unregistered word marks. Where are these other "multiple brands" on the page, eh?
15 year of practice in BigLaw, but who's counting...
It was clear you'd never be convinced, if only because you'd reject any evidence to the contrary including the Wi-Fi Alliance's own materials. A third party reader, on the other hand...
Loser.
Or your research skills simply suck.
"Our brands", straight from the horse's mouth.
And as a trademark, it's perfectly proper to use it as a generic reference to 802.11 so long as the uses are licensed and the term is not used to refer to wireless communications generally. Again, don't tell me my own business, boy.
Registered trademarks are a subset of brand names. Don't tell me my own business, boy.
You added a wholly unnecessary "normative" to what I've said. IEEE doesn't even use the term. Care to identify a non-normative IEEE technical specification?
By marketing term, you mean "brand name. Now it has become the name used for the technology by 95+% of people who refer to the technology.
Particularly in things relating to language, the majority rules. Deal with it.
Therefore 802.11 isn't a technology. It's an industry group's technical specification. Be warned, there is always someone who can pick finer nits than you.
Yet what's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and that which we call Wi-Fi would still be used to wirelessly transmit donkey porn.
Making frogs legs jump did not cost $13.25 billion dollars. No single high speed data link on earth costs $13.25 billion dollars, or, being generous, the $5 billion capex involved in the facility, omitting the opex entirely.
I meant what I said. Ignoring the reason why I stated that there would not be a reasonable application does nothing to rebut that.
While the money representing the $13.25 billion that the LHC project required may be infinite, the labor and resources that it represents is not.
Let's presuppose that you could raise the collision energy of the LHC by 10^12 to cross this so-called "energy desert." If that only requires increasing cost by 10^2.... you're talking more than 1 trillion dollars. For this one science project.
In contrast to other projects such as space, proteomes, etc., there's precious little likelihood that there will be applications for the particles and forces discovered. The energies are simply too high to make these more than single-digit-off technologies. What's the Tevatron doing these days?
How dare someone counterbalance your legitimate use hypotheticals with scary illegitimate use hypotheticals by sending information to other people for use in public discussions and not directly contacting them with jackbooted thuggery.
This decidedly indirect jackbooted thuggery is perilously close to free speech, petitioning the government, and democracy. Only the "good" guys get to do that. Plus the only value judgment relevant to the library should be whether the service is legal, which it is...
Show me calculations, not seat-of-the-pants assumptions. Because here's a factually supported assumption: if the CO2 and water vapor froze out of the atmosphere to start with, pushing it back into the atmosphere isn't going to reverse the feedback loop that caused those gases to freeze out in the first place. Nevermind that, for millions-to-billions of years, what has remained in the atmosphere has been lost to space so that your near-surface reserves are likely far less than those that were present Mars crossed its tipping points.
Where is the extra CO2 and water going to come from to generate a net positive feedback?
Emphasis added.
The dead would not be better off in any term. Plus, you appear to assume that you'd remain among the living.
Will you demonstrate the courage of your conviction by leading the way and making a personal sacrifice? Because simply waiting for something to happen and the outcome to be determined by nature's lot does not make you more noble than anyone else -- everyone is already doing that whether consciously or not. The difference appears to be that you're hoping for it to happen.
You think a business that makes 10-20 % gross margins cares? Yes... because the net margin on that business is less than 2%. When your net profit just about paces the rate of inflation, you care about everything.
Because a separate chip, additional chip-to-chip interconnect, and additional PCB-type lithography is far more expensive than on-die lithography?
For instance, USB 3 really took off when Intel integrated USB3 into their chipsets. With the 6-series chipsets, USB 3 was a more expensive feature requiring a separate chip - NEC, Asmedia, etc. - and you pretty much would only find it on premium or gamer motherboards. With the 7-series chipsets, it was everywhere.
Intel is trying to incorporate more cheap-to-provide features to support their existing consumer price point and give you a reason to upgrade. You're free to buy chips with more cores or more L3 cache -- they're on socket LGA 2011 and they'll cost far more than a DSP using a far smaller quantity of this "valuable die real-estate" (254 mm2 versus 356 mm2 for the 22nm Haswell parts).
All the time. I call them "personal phone" and "work phone." Because work does not need access to my personal emails, contact lists, apps, etc.
Meantime, please let me know how "it's inconvenient" can be used as an affirmative defense to complying with workplace policies or, in this case, the actual law. There are hordes of people not named Clinton who'd like to be able to play that card...
Well you've certainly taught him, you professional hard sci-fi writer...
He wrote a fictional novel for entertainment. Critiquing other's work under standards it was never intended to meet is easy. Demonstrating that you can do it better is infinitely harder.
For example: You complain about the hydrazine-to-water conversion because it might yield 15% more water by volume in an ideal process? And you're insulted because the author didn't walk through calculations of density and mass-to-mole conversion, but instead made a like-versus-like comparison in units that a casual reader would understand with 1 significant figure of precision?
Hint: You think and write like an engineer. Engineers are not his audience.
Attempt to write something better. Then, watch it die miserably since, given your writing sample, you're not going to have an appreciably-sized, paying audience for that mess.
Thank you Second Circuit. I look forward to exercising my right to bear swords, pikes, and various firearms with accompanying bayonets. All these being Napoleonic melee weapons in common use at the time of enactment of the second amendment. When I open carry these arms (note: the second amendment is not restricted to "firearms"), I fully expect you to back me to the hilt despite the fact that most people consider them to be more threatening and deadly than a taser.
You need to stop telling others what to do and start explaining your own arguments in your own words. As we've asked you repeatedly to do.
So far all we have is you claiming that all those people were sublte trolls and then running away from your own claims like poor and less skilled version of Donald Trump.
That comment wasn't insightful. It was a small piece of knowledge drowned in Three Stooges-level hyperbole.
Even if we accept for sake of argument that any band with more range will "just have more stations to compete with because you can fight for spectrum with people who are farther away," it's a new band.
That new band increases the bandwidth available within the area. Traffic exhanged along the new band in not exchanged along the old bands, which matters for all.
Jesus Christ. 5GHz equipment is not magical simply because it has a lower effective range. It's an entirely alternate band with a larger number of independent channels than 2.4GHz. It's highly recommended precisely because it's an alternate band that currently has less congestion.
Back at ya, unsubtle troll.
All of it. Because I am literate. Let me illustrate:
The problem is one of your own creation -- they [the subtle trolls] are not all subtle trolls? "Subtle trolls (yes they did exist)" includes non-trolls? Because the last time I checked, when you craft a category based upon a combination of characteristics, everything within the category should have each of the characteristics. Hence all subtle trolls would be subtle and would also be trolls.
You're unintentionally conceding his point -- not all "subtle trolls" are trolls -- for reasons that you now recognize but are unwilling to admit. Properly labeling someone as a troll requires that you know their intent, yet if they're being subtle you pretty much cannot know their intent. There is no strawman because you yourself set up the category, and he's merely questioning your ability to accurately apply use it without being overinclusive.
Got it, non-genius? Or perhaps subtle troll?
GP is not required to explain others' reasons for doing what they do. I suspect he was motivated by the fact that you wrote "Whatever happened to the subtle trolls (yes they did exist) that had - on the surface at least - had very convincing arguments."
A strawman argument requires that the person responding changes the proposition and then refutes the changed proposition rather than the addressing the actual point of argument. GP neither changed your proposition nor directly refuted it - instead he questioned your premise. You literally claimed that subtle trolls existed and had superficially convincing arguments.
All in all a poor attempt at a red herring.
As to your question - yes. From a standing position 2 yards away. (:P) Distance tables are handy.
I'm offering to give you that actual experience. The shells and Mossberg 500 are sitting in a gun safe about 25 yards away, along with my other firearms.
Blowhard.
Source.
I can keep this up all day. Vague references to your so-called "hunting experience" don't trump actual data.