14 posts • joined Wednesday 21st February 2007 11:00 GMT
Obbx uvz, Qnaab
Yes there is in deed a mechaism that biases the positrons lower down the gravity well than the electrons (which I don't understand myself).
Hence the black hole loses mass as positrons rain down on it, and electrons are emitted as Hawking radiation.
Small planet, large asteroid...
Is the distinction really valid here?
Long File Names?
"Windows 3.1 added support for long file names"
I don't think so... That was Windows95 and VFAT I believe.
"I use the internet to seek it out at my chosen vendors. I don't believe I have EVER clicked on an internet ad banner intentionally. Why am I the only person ON THE PLANET who operates like this?"
You are very much not alone in this.
This is why the cash-back programme has flopped, and presumably why his ad-click revenues aren't as high as anticipated either. I find it hard to believe that people who search for something are then going to click on ads instead of the search results that they just asked for. I'm sure there are some who fall for the "pretty" ads and do this, but the vast majority surely not.
To have a new tab button, go to the "View" menu, choose "Toolbars" and the "Customise", you'll find it there
Who's fooling who?
Surely the ISPs can provide the bandwidth that their customers are already paying for, they wouldn't be taking money for services they can't provide now would they?
I know, I know....
Are they still there?
Presumably LGT Treuhand AG will have informed their customers affected, when they discovered the data loss. And it seems likely that said customers will have changed/close/moved their accounts for security reasons shortly thereafter.
I don't suppose they thought that the perp after their bank accounts would be HMRC, but the effect is the same don't you think?
I understand that at the resolution of the Chinese satellite's cameras the remains of the NASA Lunar Landers would cover about 1 pixel.
So even if the Chinese were going to take time out of the lunar program they've spent millions on developing, just to assuage some paranoid fantasists, we still wouldn't be able to see anything useful.
And anyway, if people don't believe NASA's film and photographs, why would htye believe the Chinese either?
No sucking involved
If MS distributes SuSE Linux, and that contains some GPL3 code, then MS is bound by the GPL3 for that code. There is no loophole.
Code distributed under GPL2 or earlier is indeed unaffected, but as was pointed out above, many open source licences state GPL2 or later. So MS could be in trouble with them too.
MS only have a problem if they don't want to follow the licence conditions of the software they're distributing. The GPL is very fair in this respect as it grants the same right to the recipient as to the distributor. Of course this doesn't fit in very with with MS's business model of End User Licences and retaining control even after you think you've bought the software from them.
Also, as pointed out above, MS already distributes GPL2 code (gcc etc) in violation of GPL2 because it doesn't make the source code available, and that's just the stuff we know about. In their closed-proprietory model in is almost impossible to say what other violations may be going on unseen. This is why there is a fuss about SuSE Linux and GPL3, because we can see it. Microsoft don't like this. What does that tell us about their motives?
Taking the right turn from the wrong road won't work
It seems to me that America is making a rod for it's own back here, and taking the rest of the world along for the beating with it.
There should be no TLDs other than countries, and it's only America's refusal to use its .us suffix for its domestic sites that prevents this.
Working with country TLDs would then automatically put the censorship (and similar) issues with governments, at the expense of inconveniencing truly global companies who can actually justify being in a TLD. The legality issue is also addressed as domains would (have to) be set up in jurisdictions where they are legal.
Problems of preception
Having worked with Inmos Transputers and Intel i860s in the 90s this does all sound rather familliar.
However, although there defintely is a need for a parallel programming laguage for high performance applications, for most needs this is a red herring.
Modern operating systems run many separate processes to perform individual tasks, even Windows. So once the kernel can handle a a large number of processors (not necessarily a trivial task), the general application layer can carry on as before with the many processed geninely getting run in parallel.
Indeed, when I was doing parallel simulations it was impossible to beat the overall efficiency of running a complete simulation on each processor, rather than running a succession of parallel jobs really quickly.