They're in trouble for not documenting how to connect their stuff to other people's software? OMG, I failed to document how to connect your fridge controller to my GPS tracker suite! WHAMWHAM Ohno they're here...!
There are dozens of ways to skin the email cat. Opportunist is both completely right and completely wrong depending on which email protocol and client type is in use. Opportunist is correct that there is an overhead to encoding email attachments. For boring technical reasons, email attachments do not use the top two bits of each byte. Thus they increase in size by a third (8/6 = 4/3 of original size). However, email is not a primary consumer of bandwidth.
Spammers generally do not embed graphics in their traffic for two reasons.
Economising on bandwidth allows them to spam faster
When your email client requests an image from their webserver they exploit this to validate your email address as live.
The opposition must have had technological morons as lawyers. There's got to be prior art on this. Modulated radio itself is just a way to "exchange large amounts of information wirelessly at high speed" -- a wireless network is simply a specific use of radio, and it's not as if wireless networking itself didn't exist before the 1990s...
I couldn't agree more. That this should happen to the United States is pure poetry, after all the absurd US patents granted on things that are obvious or have widespread prior art, or are natural life processes that have been documented rather than invented. I seriously considered applying for a US patent on the use of narrow cylinders for friction reduction (wheels) but somebody already had a patent on the circle.
Would you mind finding out what model Motorola phones please? We use the benefon ones similarly but they're too expensive. I'd like to check out alternatives.
Let's leave aside the difficulties of measuring the temperature of a planet with a complex weather system, and the insupportably narrow window over which even remotely reliable measurements are available. Let us also ignore the rather more verifiable position that the total post-industrial atmospheric effluence of mankind is comparable to just one medium sized volcanic eruption.
For the sake of argument let us posit that global warming is indeed happening, and happening as a direct result of first-world flatulence (I include the vast quantities of methane excreted by cattle).
If the world really is warming as a result of human technology, is this so bad?
It no doubt sucks big time if you own waterfront property. If you own property that's going to be waterfront it's not a bad prospect.
If your country is currently a whopping great desert the middle of which is below current sea level, then a ten metre rise in sea level means that instead of a big useless desert you're going to have a gigantic estuary (natural fish farm) that can double as a protected goes-everywhere shipping canal. As an added bonus your rainfall patterns are very likely to change in such a way that both sides of the Great Dividing Range (I'm talking about Australia) are likely to become more temperate with reliable rainfall, so the amount of arable land will probably increase.
Frankly I'm cheering for global warming. Bring it on!
So as far as I'm concerned, under no circumstances should Australia make the slightest attempt to curb greehouse emissions. At worst the whole thing is a furphy and there is no point in going to great expense for a non-event. At best it's real and, and we'd be crazy to go to great expense and inconvenience to oppose something that is greatly to our advantage.
Bleeding hearts will no doubt carry on about human cost. Planet scale things have a lot of inertia, and I daresay 100% of people now voting will be dead anyway long before any do-gooding takes effect.
If you put the same set of stimuli into two separate functions and they map to the same result, this does not prove or even suggest interprocess communication. It shows that the mapping functions are equivalent.
The mapping functions in this case are trained into large neural networks (brains) by a wide variety of life experiences. Primary in this process is learnt language (otherwise the participants won't know what "pick one of these objects" means), secondary is learnt social values (I am a man, lipstick is a woman thing, I will pick the football or the carkeys but not the lipstick), and tertiary influences include personal preference (I like football more than cars), presentation (people seldom choose the end items) and feedback effects (sceptics will choose items they think others won't choose, believers will choose items they think others will choose, and this is again modified by their knowledge - conscious or otherwise - of primary and secondary influences).
All of this is well known and exploited by (for example) advertisers and card sharks.
We already do have a method for transmitting thoughts between physically separated individuals. It's called "speech" and it certainly does give us profound advantages over the other animals. If you think about it, from a dog's perspectives, humands definitely are telepathic, insofar as we can share complex ideas and emotions at a distance. We can even transmit through time. This is called "writing". Both can be learnt, and both can be technologically enhanced in every respect.
As far as I can see, the only difference between "ESP" and language is inability to detect a medium. As is frequently quoted, any sufficiently advanced technology will look like magic. Give two people cellphones and they can share thoughts at a distance. If the cellphones had direct neural interfaces, there wouldn't be any practical difference from telepathy as sought by crackpots.
For starters it is very possible that global warming is the only thing keeping us out of the next ice age, which - going on the last couple of interglacials - is due right about now.
And even if the seas do rise, from an Australian perspective this represents a huge improvement - it will greatly disadvantage most of our competitiors, it will drown most of our lawyers and it will give us back the world's largest estuary, an ecological bonanza if ever there was one. Most of our remaining landmass will become coastal, with greatly improved rainfall.
You in the northern hemisphere have trashed the ozone layer over us, and we suffer for your sins. Now we will profit from them. It's only fair.
Slashdot Mirror
They're in trouble for not documenting how to connect their stuff to other people's software? OMG, I failed to document how to connect your fridge controller to my GPS tracker suite! WHAMWHAM Ohno they're here...!
Why don't the random variations also intermittently produce adjacent similar charges producing a zero vector over time?
There are dozens of ways to skin the email cat. Opportunist is both completely right and completely wrong depending on which email protocol and client type is in use. Opportunist is correct that there is an overhead to encoding email attachments. For boring technical reasons, email attachments do not use the top two bits of each byte. Thus they increase in size by a third (8/6 = 4/3 of original size). However, email is not a primary consumer of bandwidth.
Spammers generally do not embed graphics in their traffic for two reasons.
I couldn't agree more. That this should happen to the United States is pure poetry, after all the absurd US patents granted on things that are obvious or have widespread prior art, or are natural life processes that have been documented rather than invented. I seriously considered applying for a US patent on the use of narrow cylinders for friction reduction (wheels) but somebody already had a patent on the circle.
Would you mind finding out what model Motorola phones please? We use the benefon ones similarly but they're too expensive. I'd like to check out alternatives.
Let's leave aside the difficulties of measuring the temperature of a planet with a complex weather system, and the insupportably narrow window over which even remotely reliable measurements are available. Let us also ignore the rather more verifiable position that the total post-industrial atmospheric effluence of mankind is comparable to just one medium sized volcanic eruption.
For the sake of argument let us posit that global warming is indeed happening, and happening as a direct result of first-world flatulence (I include the vast quantities of methane excreted by cattle).
If the world really is warming as a result of human technology, is this so bad?
It no doubt sucks big time if you own waterfront property. If you own property that's going to be waterfront it's not a bad prospect.
If your country is currently a whopping great desert the middle of which is below current sea level, then a ten metre rise in sea level means that instead of a big useless desert you're going to have a gigantic estuary (natural fish farm) that can double as a protected goes-everywhere shipping canal. As an added bonus your rainfall patterns are very likely to change in such a way that both sides of the Great Dividing Range (I'm talking about Australia) are likely to become more temperate with reliable rainfall, so the amount of arable land will probably increase.
Frankly I'm cheering for global warming. Bring it on!
So as far as I'm concerned, under no circumstances should Australia make the slightest attempt to curb greehouse emissions. At worst the whole thing is a furphy and there is no point in going to great expense for a non-event. At best it's real and, and we'd be crazy to go to great expense and inconvenience to oppose something that is greatly to our advantage.
Bleeding hearts will no doubt carry on about human cost. Planet scale things have a lot of inertia, and I daresay 100% of people now voting will be dead anyway long before any do-gooding takes effect.
If you completely endorse my posting then mod it up otherwise no-one will ever see it.
...to establishing the cultural significance of land rights for gay whales.
If you put the same set of stimuli into two separate functions and they map to the same result, this does not prove or even suggest interprocess communication. It shows that the mapping functions are equivalent.
The mapping functions in this case are trained into large neural networks (brains) by a wide variety of life experiences. Primary in this process is learnt language (otherwise the participants won't know what "pick one of these objects" means), secondary is learnt social values (I am a man, lipstick is a woman thing, I will pick the football or the carkeys but not the lipstick), and tertiary influences include personal preference (I like football more than cars), presentation (people seldom choose the end items) and feedback effects (sceptics will choose items they think others won't choose, believers will choose items they think others will choose, and this is again modified by their knowledge - conscious or otherwise - of primary and secondary influences).
All of this is well known and exploited by (for example) advertisers and card sharks.
We already do have a method for transmitting thoughts between physically separated individuals. It's called "speech" and it certainly does give us profound advantages over the other animals. If you think about it, from a dog's perspectives, humands definitely are telepathic, insofar as we can share complex ideas and emotions at a distance. We can even transmit through time. This is called "writing". Both can be learnt, and both can be technologically enhanced in every respect.
As far as I can see, the only difference between "ESP" and language is inability to detect a medium. As is frequently quoted, any sufficiently advanced technology will look like magic. Give two people cellphones and they can share thoughts at a distance. If the cellphones had direct neural interfaces, there wouldn't be any practical difference from telepathy as sought by crackpots.
For starters it is very possible that global warming is the only thing keeping us out of the next ice age, which - going on the last couple of interglacials - is due right about now. And even if the seas do rise, from an Australian perspective this represents a huge improvement - it will greatly disadvantage most of our competitiors, it will drown most of our lawyers and it will give us back the world's largest estuary, an ecological bonanza if ever there was one. Most of our remaining landmass will become coastal, with greatly improved rainfall. You in the northern hemisphere have trashed the ozone layer over us, and we suffer for your sins. Now we will profit from them. It's only fair.