Interesting point. I suspect the idea here is that a movie is a derivative of the movie's script. The remake's script is often not too much more than a translation, although some differences beyond language may be present. Thus the basic expression of the ideas is still close enough that the new script would infringe upon the original unless licensing was taken care of. Thus the final film is a derivitive of the new script, and may infringe upon the original script.
I'll freely admit this is pretty tenuous, but that appears to be the thinking in this case, despite appearing very questionable given the simple but common definition of copyright infringement I used (even in law textbooks the concept is introduced with very similar wording in many cases).
The simple fact is that plagiarism does not exist. Only in the academic world does the concept exist. In the real world, plagiarism itself is perfectly legal, and at worst is a moral/ethical failing.
Copyright infringement is what matters in the real world, and is orthogonal to plagarism. For example, it is not actually plagiarism to publish somebody else's work in its entiretly as the majority of a new work, as long as the original atuhor is credited. (One may still be failed in a class for doing so, as the assignment would quite likely fail the requirements, but that is a separate issue). But it very well may be copyright infringement to do so. On the other extreme, it is plagiarism to use somebody else's arguments, even if you completely rewrote them. However that would not be copyright infringement, since copyright only covers the expressions of ideas, not the ideas themselves.
Perhaps definitions would help show this: Plagiarism is "using somebody else's ideas without acknowledging the source. Copyright infringement is "using somebody else's expression of an idea without permission and in excess of the fair use or equivalent exceptions".
Now this book in questions sounds like it has plagiarism if the source of borrowed ideas was not mentioned on an acknowledgments page or similar location. It might also be copyright infringement, regardless of any crediting, since specific expressions of ideas were re-used without permission. Only the latter is actually a problem. Crediting the idea sources would be nice, but the law does not require it.
Google did not miss anything. They were well aware that Dalvik was largly unoptimized. They have been working on creating a JIT compiler for Dalvik, while this other company has been working on other improvements.
Is there any reason to think the two approaches are mutually exclusive? If like many people think, this involves improvements to the garbage collector, then some of those improvements may well still apply to the JIT, which from the sound of it may have hardly touched the garbage collector at all.
Besides speed should hopefully become less of an issue once people migrate to Ruby 1.9 with YARV and eventually 2.0 which will hopefully have a decent JIT over top of the YARV bytecode (or something else perhaps) that should help significantly with the speed issues.
(Especially if said JIT offers an unsafe optimization mode that makes certain documented assumptions about the code, like not changing the integer arithmetic methods, and other similar cases, the detecting of which can add significant overhead which many programs don't need, since they don't do that.)
Indeed, it varies by person. I've pretty much never taken down any notes in any of my classes, with the exception of the odd liberal arts class with no text, so the lecture is the primary source of material. I have no need to write down the formulas, since when I do the homework I will have them in the book. By the time I've finished the homework I probably have them memorized, but it does not matter since any class with a significant number of formulas allows for an equation sheet for the exams.
I spend the class listening and confirming my understanding of the material, even though it is usually the first time I am hearing it. (Since I don't pre-read the textbooks, since the lectures invariably are structured under the assumption that nobody really read the text.) I always have some understanding of the material, and I adjust it and strengthen it based on the lecture.
The only notes I'm likely to take are thinks likes dates and locations of exams that are not in the regular class schedule, on rare occasion (2-3 a semester) a diagram I find particularly interesting, and that's about it. What I remember from the lectures plus the experience form the homework is pretty much all I ever need in an exam. In the cases where I would need more, the professor allows more, like an open-book exam.
What Paypal does is actually very similar to what many banks do at least from the user's perspective. Both hold money in accounts, and provide ways to transfer money. Banks provide checks and debit cards for this purpose.
I will admit that Paypal does not offer loans, nor does it over things like savings accounts, but from a user experience they are very similar to a bank where they have only a checking account.
If Paypal does not bother to invest the money sitting dormant in accounts, then many regulations would have only minimal impact on them, since they would be keeping full reserves rather than fractional reserves. The regulations we really want are those that prevent banks from freezing accounts for no valid reason, and from interfering with valid transactions. The procedures already in place for banks on both of these points would really help protect users.
I will admit though that overall Paypal's primary purpose is more like that of American Express than a bank, but the way they do it is debit based rather than credit based, meaning a whole bunch of regulations that would not apply to AmEx could be applicable.
Is that actually the case? Some other posts mentioned one incident with push button transmission control that allegedly stopped working when the ECU crashed. That would make shifting into neutral impossible if it was actually the case. I am far from familiar enough with the automobile in question, or vehicle regulations to know if you or the other person are mistaken, or if you both are correct and the car violates regulation.
Logically speaking, the functionality desired is quite possible for a windows manager. Take an x screen, and draw a line down the center. Have the Window manager forbid applications from crossing the line, so they are constrained to their half of the screen. But allow apps to be dragged between both halfs. Now implement virtual desktops on each half, which are independent of each other.
All of that is quite feasible for a window manager to do. Now the last step is to change this so that the split automatically occurs at the shared edge of two monitors. Still quite possible.
I suspect most exiting window manages could have this functionality hacked in within a few days, if they don't already have support for the basic concept, but are just failing to expose it.
Yes, and as I understand it, it is possible to deliberately exclude such cards when doing transaction processing. In fact I believe by law those cards are debit only, and unlike most debit cards they cannot be processed as though they were a credit card, but must be processed as debit. If that is in fact the case, by requiring processing as a credit card for such transactions would work just fine.
But I may be mistaken. I an certainly not an expert in the credit card industry.
All too true, although in the case of internet, phone, and television options, blaming specific government regulations (as opposed to government regulation in general) would largely be correct. Ideally the grandparent would have far more than three high speed options.
In the ideal case, NYC Cable Co-op, would own the cable, and all 6 or so cable companies nationwide would offer service over it, since they could, all having the exact same costs associated with offering service, which NYC Cable Co-op sets be able to recover the costs of the cable. Since in a Co-op the the company would be responsible to the very people who use it, it would be effectively required to charge only what is needed to cover costs.
DSL is actually a rather poor model though, since the DSLAMS are distance limited, and each company needs equipment at that location, meaning that additional competitors for DSL may end up raising the cost. But if we replaced twisted pair phone-lines with optical fiber, then we could achieve a similar set-up to cable, where each company only needs to have equipment at a small number of locations in the city, and we could perhaps get as many as 10-20 internet-over-fiber companies.
That would result in say 16-26 different internet offerings, which means that there is a damn good chance the services would deliberately choose to differentiate themselves, giving users a real possibility of actual choice.
Now, I will admit that that is all theoretical, and I may have missed one or more practical considerations, and that further, it really seems like there is no good way to transition to such a system from the current mess even assuming such a system is a good idea. (I tend to think it is, but that is hardly proof that it would work).
The descriptions of this are very inaccurate. The way this works is that you buy the art, but are basically perpetually obligated to sell the art to anybody who is willing to pay more for it than the current possessor paid. The way this works is by eBay action where the initial selling price is set to the last sale price. If nobody buys the work by the end of the auction period, it relists itself.
The idea of selling weekly is very naive. Rather it is always sold within 7 days of somebody willing to pay more than the current listing price, which defaults to the purchase price.
Further, once every four months, the work of art may be re-assessed by the current collector, as to the expected market value. The current owner may choose any listing price that does not exceed the new assessment. This is a bit of a gamble though, as if the assessment is for less than the price paid, the current collector could be forced to sell for a loss, depending on the auction results.
But the basic idea is that this is an object that you are required to sell to anybody who is willing to pay more for it than you did.
Interesting. However, it would be nice if they opened that up for individuals (sole proprietorships) which having only one stakeholder may be run however he or she deems fit, including functioning like a non-profit. Getting official non-profit status may be prohibitively difficult for many one-man non-profits.
Also I'm not a fan of the rather large list of prohibited items. I would rather see them just replace the list with a prohibition on illegal, and grey area items, and on items where special regulations exists where Google checkout may have difficulties.
Pretty much everything on the list is already either illegal, grey-area, or regulated in a way that could cause problem when isong google checkout, with the exception of the "Adult goods and services" category[1], and "Academic paper-writing and test-taking services"[2].
[1] These items are often regulated such that those under the age of 18 may not purchase them, however having a valid credit card implies that the person in question is at least 18. In fact that is the only method of age verification still in common use on the internet.
[2] While these pretty much have no legitimate use, they are generally not illegal, although use of the services in the most common manner may qualify as fraud.
Keep in mind that the metal pieces don't attenuate cell phone signals badly enough to prevent them from working. We have a signal in the roughly 13 centemeter wavelength. There are plenty of areas much bigger than that that have no metal components in a typical car. It would certainly be possible for enough signal to make it to the area under the drivers seat where the ECU can be found in many vehicles.
You don't need a wide spectrum for a EM pulse weapon to be effective. The microwave band is actually quite effective at destroying electronics, in addition to working as a pain-inducing less than lethal weapon, if you choose the right frequencies. And making a directional microwave gun is reasonably easy, Create a large scaled magnetron, and use say a parabolic reflecting dish. Voila. Having a portable power source for the gun is a bit tricker, but still quite possible.
Off Topic: I just tried the netalyzr with some interesting results. When I run it under Firefox 3.6 I get terrible results for HTTP caching. Of note is that the "diretly and explicitly" request tests for strongly and weekly uncachable data fail. When I run it under Chrome I get the expected results of no indication of an HTTP cache. So I suspect Firefox may be interfering with the HTTP caching tests.
I would like to suggest another port test, for port 6667, the default port for Internet Relay Chat. Since many Botnet viruses use IRC for command and control, some ISPs have blocked port 6667 in the hopes that by preventing the infections from phoning home, the machines will not function as zombies.
The There is no legal entity created by treaty named ISS, nor is there the space station a UN agency or Organization, nor has the ISS been granted Observer Status at the UN, so it does not qualify for the int TLD.
Sure, My university has a subscription. Let me give you the numbers:
Test subjects: All 75 test group members had confirmed PTSD as the primary diagnosis, using the standard structured clinical interviews for PTSD. There were many variations as to cause of PTSD some from combat others from before they became soldiers. 69 test subjects were male, and 5 were women.
Control group: 250 members from the general public in the same age range as the test subjects. 151 men, 49 women. Complete nurological histories, and multiple interview examinations were performed to help exclude general public members with latent PTSD.
The test with the paramters used by the team had the following results:
According to the paper this is 97.3% Sensitivity 87.6% Specificity 92.4% Accuracy Chi squared-statistic: 189.8 P value:.001 phi coefficient:.765 odds ratio: 254.3
Sure, but you don't need to show a cassette deck, with the same style of buttons as on a real tape deck for people to be able to recognize those symbols. Simple command buttons with those symbols works just as well. While it may help to have the same sort of markings on the equalizer panel as you would find on a real high-end stereo system, having photo-realistic sliders gives no real benefit.
IP QOS covers many use cases. But it's implementation and set of classes may not be quite ideal. Here i describe the common modes I think an IP QOS replacement should probably have.
Most traffic should be at standard. Only specialty traffic should be marked otherwise.
There are a few types of other traffic though.
You have applications that require high bandwidth, but don't care about latency or jitter (variation in latency), and dropped packets are not too big a deal. Torrents are a prime example. I would much rather have 5% of my torrent packets dropped than 5% of almost any other packet. (Call this unreliable bulk)
You have applications that require high bandwith, but don't care about latency, though may benefit from low jitter, and where dropped packets are more important. A common example of this is adaptive bitrate streaming video. As long as you have enough bandwidth and few dropped packets, the latency really does not matter too much. If all packets are delayed by a constant amount, all packets will still arrive just in time. But jitter can cause problems resulting in dropping down to a lower bitrate, as can dropped packets. (Call this reliable bulk)
You have applications that require low latency, but also low bandwidth, and packet dropping is a problem. Games are the canonical example. I'm not really sure what the impact of jitter is on online games, perhaps they can tolerate a latency that varies, as long as it stays low enough, or perhaps that causes problems. (Call this low-latency)
Finally you have an especially problematic class of applications that require high bandwidth and low latency, and also have issues with packet dropping. These are applications like VOIP, or especially things like video conferencing. (call this say, Real Time).
If it were not for real time mode and reliable bulk mode it would be easy to set up a system where any attempt to game it would result in worse service than classifying things right. The following is how that could be set-up in the absence of that mode:
Unreliable bulk has no particular benefits worth attempting to game. Routers would attempt to keep bandwidth high for these, even if that means high latency. Any application willing to tolerate high latency and a reduced reliability in exchange for higher bandwidth than standard packets would be encouraged to use this.
Standard mode also has nothing worth gaming. It has lower latency than unreliable bulk, and would be more reliable, but may have a reduced sustainable bandwidth compared to bulk, since the router would be trying to keep reasonable latency on these packets, and would drop packets if reasonable latency for them cannot be kept (remember that dropping packets like that is expected, and is how applications determine the speed at which they can send packets.)
For low latency mode packets, the router would attempt to keep very low latency on these packets, but would maintain a fairly low bandwidth limit. In the event that the bandwidth utilized becomes too high the packets would be reclassified between standard and bulk. As a result, only low bandwidth applications would benefit from this classification, preventing it from being abused.
Obviously most of differences there-in would be most noticeable when there is network congestion. At other times the various modes would be rather similar. Also note that this model is nuetral, it does not care what is in a packet, where it is coming from, or where it is going. Any application can use whichever mode it wants to send packets, but there are tradeoffs for the different modes. None of the modes is superior to the others, they just have different trade-offs.
However, I have been unable to fit what I am calling real-time mode packets, and reliable bulk packets into this model in such a way that applications that don't need them would not benefit from marking their packets as such.
Windows 7 does not need a separate defragmenter, unless perhaps you want to defragment the MFT (I'm not sure if the Windows 7 defragmenter does. The windows defrag AP supported it since XP, or so I've heard, but the XP defrag tool did not support it. Perhaps the Win7 tool does.)
For anti-virus one can get away with using Microsoft security essentials, which is completely free (but licensed only for home and home-based business use). It's not the best in detection but it has caught quite a few attempts at drive-by virus infestations on my system (ones that would not have worked anyway, since they targeted IE flaws, or other similar things). It has much less resource utilization than any other virus scanner, thanks to its use of certain OS hooks, meaning it does not bog down the system like Norton or McAfee's offerings, and it is also far easy to find and install than the other free anti-virus offerings.
Windows 7 allegedly comes with MPEG-4 Part 2 ASP (DivX, and friends) and MPEG-4 AVC (a.k.a. H.264) so you may not need a codec pack, although I'll admit that I have not tested this.
Game tie in movies have honestly never interested me, in the same way that sports games have never interested me. I did make an exception for the N64 Goldeneye, but that was by RARE when they were a Nintendo shop, not to mention the fact that it was the best game on the n64 at the time it was released.
I suppose you should consider extending your policy to included games based on TV shows, unless you have found any to be any good.They seem to be getting somewhat common.
You are probably thinking of tomsrtbt, which fits on a standard 3.5 inch floppy, but is greater than 1440 KiB in size. It requires low-level formatting a floppy to "1.7 MB" rather than the standard 1.44 MB. All 3.5 High Density floppy drives can support formatting a diskette like that, and obviously if they can format it like that, they can read it.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting point. I suspect the idea here is that a movie is a derivative of the movie's script.
The remake's script is often not too much more than a translation, although some differences beyond language may be present. Thus the basic expression of the ideas is still close enough that the new script would infringe upon the original unless licensing was taken care of. Thus the final film is a derivitive of the new script, and may infringe upon the original script.
I'll freely admit this is pretty tenuous, but that appears to be the thinking in this case, despite appearing very questionable given the simple but common definition of copyright infringement I used (even in law textbooks the concept is introduced with very similar wording in many cases).
The simple fact is that plagiarism does not exist. Only in the academic world does the concept exist. In the real world, plagiarism itself is perfectly legal, and at worst is a moral/ethical failing.
Copyright infringement is what matters in the real world, and is orthogonal to plagarism. For example, it is not actually plagiarism to publish somebody else's work in its entiretly as the majority of a new work, as long as the original atuhor is credited. (One may still be failed in a class for doing so, as the assignment would quite likely fail the requirements, but that is a separate issue). But it very well may be copyright infringement to do so. On the other extreme, it is plagiarism to use somebody else's arguments, even if you completely rewrote them. However that would not be copyright infringement, since copyright only covers the expressions of ideas, not the ideas themselves.
Perhaps definitions would help show this: Plagiarism is "using somebody else's ideas without acknowledging the source.
Copyright infringement is "using somebody else's expression of an idea without permission and in excess of the fair use or equivalent exceptions".
Now this book in questions sounds like it has plagiarism if the source of borrowed ideas was not mentioned on an acknowledgments page or similar location. It might also be copyright infringement, regardless of any crediting, since specific expressions of ideas were re-used without permission. Only the latter is actually a problem. Crediting the idea sources would be nice, but the law does not require it.
Google did not miss anything. They were well aware that Dalvik was largly unoptimized. They have been working on creating a JIT compiler for Dalvik, while this other company has been working on other improvements.
Is there any reason to think the two approaches are mutually exclusive? If like many people think, this involves improvements to the garbage collector, then some of those improvements may well still apply to the JIT, which from the sound of it may have hardly touched the garbage collector at all.
Besides speed should hopefully become less of an issue once people migrate to Ruby 1.9 with YARV and eventually 2.0 which will hopefully have a decent JIT over top of the YARV bytecode (or something else perhaps) that should help significantly with the speed issues.
(Especially if said JIT offers an unsafe optimization mode that makes certain documented assumptions about the code, like not changing the integer arithmetic methods, and other similar cases, the detecting of which can add significant overhead which many programs don't need, since they don't do that.)
This was one of the company's many April 1 jokes.
Indeed, it varies by person. I've pretty much never taken down any notes in any of my classes, with the exception of the odd liberal arts class with no text, so the lecture is the primary source of material. I have no need to write down the formulas, since when I do the homework I will have them in the book. By the time I've finished the homework I probably have them memorized, but it does not matter since any class with a significant number of formulas allows for an equation sheet for the exams.
I spend the class listening and confirming my understanding of the material, even though it is usually the first time I am hearing it. (Since I don't pre-read the textbooks, since the lectures invariably are structured under the assumption that nobody really read the text.) I always have some understanding of the material, and I adjust it and strengthen it based on the lecture.
The only notes I'm likely to take are thinks likes dates and locations of exams that are not in the regular class schedule, on rare occasion (2-3 a semester) a diagram I find particularly interesting, and that's about it. What I remember from the lectures plus the experience form the homework is pretty much all I ever need in an exam. In the cases where I would need more, the professor allows more, like an open-book exam.
What Paypal does is actually very similar to what many banks do at least from the user's perspective. Both hold money in accounts, and provide ways to transfer money. Banks provide checks and debit cards for this purpose.
I will admit that Paypal does not offer loans, nor does it over things like savings accounts, but from a user experience they are very similar to a bank where they have only a checking account.
If Paypal does not bother to invest the money sitting dormant in accounts, then many regulations would have only minimal impact on them, since they would be keeping full reserves rather than fractional reserves. The regulations we really want are those that prevent banks from freezing accounts for no valid reason, and from interfering with valid transactions. The procedures already in place for banks on both of these points would really help protect users.
I will admit though that overall Paypal's primary purpose is more like that of American Express than a bank, but the way they do it is debit based rather than credit based, meaning a whole bunch of regulations that would not apply to AmEx could be applicable.
Is that actually the case? Some other posts mentioned one incident with push button transmission control that allegedly stopped working when the ECU crashed. That would make shifting into neutral impossible if it was actually the case. I am far from familiar enough with the automobile in question, or vehicle regulations to know if you or the other person are mistaken, or if you both are correct and the car violates regulation.
Logically speaking, the functionality desired is quite possible for a windows manager. Take an x screen, and draw a line down the center. Have the Window manager forbid applications from crossing the line, so they are constrained to their half of the screen. But allow apps to be dragged between both halfs. Now implement virtual desktops on each half, which are independent of each other.
All of that is quite feasible for a window manager to do. Now the last step is to change this so that the split automatically occurs at the shared edge of two monitors. Still quite possible.
I suspect most exiting window manages could have this functionality hacked in within a few days, if they don't already have support for the basic concept, but are just failing to expose it.
Yes, and as I understand it, it is possible to deliberately exclude such cards when doing transaction processing. In fact I believe by law those cards are debit only, and unlike most debit cards they cannot be processed as though they were a credit card, but must be processed as debit. If that is in fact the case, by requiring processing as a credit card for such transactions would work just fine.
But I may be mistaken. I an certainly not an expert in the credit card industry.
All too true, although in the case of internet, phone, and television options, blaming specific government regulations (as opposed to government regulation in general) would largely be correct. Ideally the grandparent would have far more than three high speed options.
In the ideal case, NYC Cable Co-op, would own the cable, and all 6 or so cable companies nationwide would offer service over it, since they could, all having the exact same costs associated with offering service, which NYC Cable Co-op sets be able to recover the costs of the cable. Since in a Co-op the the company would be responsible to the very people who use it, it would be effectively required to charge only what is needed to cover costs.
DSL is actually a rather poor model though, since the DSLAMS are distance limited, and each company needs equipment at that location, meaning that additional competitors for DSL may end up raising the cost. But if we replaced twisted pair phone-lines with optical fiber, then we could achieve a similar set-up to cable, where each company only needs to have equipment at a small number of locations in the city, and we could perhaps get as many as 10-20 internet-over-fiber companies.
That would result in say 16-26 different internet offerings, which means that there is a damn good chance the services would deliberately choose to differentiate themselves, giving users a real possibility of actual choice.
Now, I will admit that that is all theoretical, and I may have missed one or more practical considerations, and that further, it really seems like there is no good way to transition to such a system from the current mess even assuming such a system is a good idea. (I tend to think it is, but that is hardly proof that it would work).
The descriptions of this are very inaccurate. The way this works is that you buy the art, but are basically perpetually obligated to sell the art to anybody who is willing to pay more for it than the current possessor paid. The way this works is by eBay action where the initial selling price is set to the last sale price. If nobody buys the work by the end of the auction period, it relists itself.
The idea of selling weekly is very naive. Rather it is always sold within 7 days of somebody willing to pay more than the current listing price, which defaults to the purchase price.
Further, once every four months, the work of art may be re-assessed by the current collector, as to the expected market value. The current owner may choose any listing price that does not exceed the new assessment. This is a bit of a gamble though, as if the assessment is for less than the price paid, the current collector could be forced to sell for a loss, depending on the auction results.
But the basic idea is that this is an object that you are required to sell to anybody who is willing to pay more for it than you did.
Interesting. However, it would be nice if they opened that up for individuals (sole proprietorships) which having only one stakeholder may be run however he or she deems fit, including functioning like a non-profit. Getting official non-profit status may be prohibitively difficult for many one-man non-profits.
Also I'm not a fan of the rather large list of prohibited items. I would rather see them just replace the list with a prohibition on illegal, and grey area items, and on items where special regulations exists where Google checkout may have difficulties.
Pretty much everything on the list is already either illegal, grey-area, or regulated in a way that could cause problem when isong google checkout, with the exception of the "Adult goods and services" category[1], and "Academic paper-writing and test-taking services"[2].
[1] These items are often regulated such that those under the age of 18 may not purchase them, however having a valid credit card implies that the person in question is at least 18. In fact that is the only method of age verification still in common use on the internet.
[2] While these pretty much have no legitimate use, they are generally not illegal, although use of the services in the most common manner may qualify as fraud.
Correction. There were 74 test group members. I though I fixed that typo.
Keep in mind that the metal pieces don't attenuate cell phone signals badly enough to prevent them from working. We have a signal in the roughly 13 centemeter wavelength. There are plenty of areas much bigger than that that have no metal components in a typical car. It would certainly be possible for enough signal to make it to the area under the drivers seat where the ECU can be found in many vehicles.
You don't need a wide spectrum for a EM pulse weapon to be effective. The microwave band is actually quite effective at destroying electronics, in addition to working as a pain-inducing less than lethal weapon, if you choose the right frequencies. And making a directional microwave gun is reasonably easy, Create a large scaled magnetron, and use say a parabolic reflecting dish. Voila. Having a portable power source for the gun is a bit tricker, but still quite possible.
Off Topic: I just tried the netalyzr with some interesting results. When I run it under Firefox 3.6 I get terrible results for HTTP caching. Of note is that the "diretly and explicitly" request tests for strongly and weekly uncachable data fail. When I run it under Chrome I get the expected results of no indication of an HTTP cache. So I suspect Firefox may be interfering with the HTTP caching tests.
I would like to suggest another port test, for port 6667, the default port for Internet Relay Chat. Since many Botnet viruses use IRC for command and control, some ISPs have blocked port 6667 in the hopes that by preventing the infections from phoning home, the machines will not function as zombies.
The There is no legal entity created by treaty named ISS, nor is there the space station a UN agency or Organization, nor has the ISS been granted Observer Status at the UN, so it does not qualify for the int TLD.
Sure, My university has a subscription. Let me give you the numbers:
Test subjects:
All 75 test group members had confirmed PTSD as the primary diagnosis, using the standard structured clinical interviews for PTSD. There were many variations as to cause of PTSD some from combat others from before they became soldiers. 69 test subjects were male, and 5 were women.
Control group:
250 members from the general public in the same age range as the test subjects. 151 men, 49 women.
Complete nurological histories, and multiple interview examinations were performed to help exclude general public members with latent PTSD.
The test with the paramters used by the team had the following results:
72 true positives.
2 false negatives.
31 false positives.
219 true negatives.
According to the paper this is .001 .765
97.3% Sensitivity
87.6% Specificity
92.4% Accuracy
Chi squared-statistic: 189.8
P value:
phi coefficient:
odds ratio: 254.3
Sure, but you don't need to show a cassette deck, with the same style of buttons as on a real tape deck for people to be able to recognize those symbols. Simple command buttons with those symbols works just as well. While it may help to have the same sort of markings on the equalizer panel as you would find on a real high-end stereo system, having photo-realistic sliders gives no real benefit.
IP QOS covers many use cases. But it's implementation and set of classes may not be quite ideal. Here i describe the common modes I think an IP QOS replacement should probably have.
Most traffic should be at standard. Only specialty traffic should be marked otherwise.
There are a few types of other traffic though.
You have applications that require high bandwidth, but don't care about latency or jitter (variation in latency), and dropped packets are not too big a deal. Torrents are a prime example. I would much rather have 5% of my torrent packets dropped than 5% of almost any other packet. (Call this unreliable bulk)
You have applications that require high bandwith, but don't care about latency, though may benefit from low jitter, and where dropped packets are more important. A common example of this is adaptive bitrate streaming video. As long as you have enough bandwidth and few dropped packets, the latency really does not matter too much. If all packets are delayed by a constant amount, all packets will still arrive just in time. But jitter can cause problems resulting in dropping down to a lower bitrate, as can dropped packets. (Call this reliable bulk)
You have applications that require low latency, but also low bandwidth, and packet dropping is a problem. Games are the canonical example. I'm not really sure what the impact of jitter is on online games, perhaps they can tolerate a latency that varies, as long as it stays low enough, or perhaps that causes problems. (Call this low-latency)
Finally you have an especially problematic class of applications that require high bandwidth and low latency, and also have issues with packet dropping. These are applications like VOIP, or especially things like video conferencing. (call this say, Real Time).
If it were not for real time mode and reliable bulk mode it would be easy to set up a system where any attempt to game it would result in worse service than classifying things right. The following is how that could be set-up in the absence of that mode:
Unreliable bulk has no particular benefits worth attempting to game. Routers would attempt to keep bandwidth high for these, even if that means high latency. Any application willing to tolerate high latency and a reduced reliability in exchange for higher bandwidth than standard packets would be encouraged to use this.
Standard mode also has nothing worth gaming. It has lower latency than unreliable bulk, and would be more reliable, but may have a reduced sustainable bandwidth compared to bulk, since the router would be trying to keep reasonable latency on these packets, and would drop packets if reasonable latency for them cannot be kept (remember that dropping packets like that is expected, and is how applications determine the speed at which they can send packets.)
For low latency mode packets, the router would attempt to keep very low latency on these packets, but would maintain a fairly low bandwidth limit. In the event that the bandwidth utilized becomes too high the packets would be reclassified between standard and bulk. As a result, only low bandwidth applications would benefit from this classification, preventing it from being abused.
Obviously most of differences there-in would be most noticeable when there is network congestion. At other times the various modes would be rather similar. Also note that this model is nuetral, it does not care what is in a packet, where it is coming from, or where it is going. Any application can use whichever mode it wants to send packets, but there are tradeoffs for the different modes. None of the modes is superior to the others, they just have different trade-offs.
However, I have been unable to fit what I am calling real-time mode packets, and reliable bulk packets into this model in such a way that applications that don't need them would not benefit from marking their packets as such.
Windows 7 does not need a separate defragmenter, unless perhaps you want to defragment the MFT (I'm not sure if the Windows 7 defragmenter does. The windows defrag AP supported it since XP, or so I've heard, but the XP defrag tool did not support it. Perhaps the Win7 tool does.)
For anti-virus one can get away with using Microsoft security essentials, which is completely free (but licensed only for home and home-based business use). It's not the best in detection but it has caught quite a few attempts at drive-by virus infestations on my system (ones that would not have worked anyway, since they targeted IE flaws, or other similar things). It has much less resource utilization than any other virus scanner, thanks to its use of certain OS hooks, meaning it does not bog down the system like Norton or McAfee's offerings, and it is also far easy to find and install than the other free anti-virus offerings.
Windows 7 allegedly comes with MPEG-4 Part 2 ASP (DivX, and friends) and MPEG-4 AVC (a.k.a. H.264) so you may not need a codec pack, although I'll admit that I have not tested this.
Game tie in movies have honestly never interested me, in the same way that sports games have never interested me. I did make an exception for the N64 Goldeneye, but that was by RARE when they were a Nintendo shop, not to mention the fact that it was the best game on the n64 at the time it was released.
I suppose you should consider extending your policy to included games based on TV shows, unless you have found any to be any good.They seem to be getting somewhat common.
You are probably thinking of tomsrtbt, which fits on a standard 3.5 inch floppy, but is greater than 1440 KiB in size. It requires low-level formatting a floppy to "1.7 MB" rather than the standard 1.44 MB. All 3.5 High Density floppy drives can support formatting a diskette like that, and obviously if they can format it like that, they can read it.