Ndi

And the problem is? As far as I can tell, what makes me "me" is the sum of all my memories, how I absorbed them, my genetic makeup; all factors that influence my decisions. I am me because I do things in a certain way. You do things differently, you tend to see and favor other arguments, thus forming a different opinion. In this case, I am me by disagreeing. Should we both be ... replicated, we'd still disagree. If not individuality, what are we? When you MOVE a file from one computer to another, the physical info is read, transmitted, rewritten and the original deleted. As long as the second file is identical, it's the same for all known intents and purposes. Checking: move it back to where it was. Can anyone tell the difference? No. Does anyone care? No. By this judgment, if I take a paper that has wet ink on it and smear it transporting it on the next desk is THE SAME, whereas faxing+destroying it is NOT the same, even if the second method is closer to what I intended. Yes the molecules on the drive (of the moved file) would be different, and we will not be completely identical on the other side. But if we were to get into a car and drive there, friction with air, rubbing against the car, etc etc would still bring us different on the other side, perhaps more so (barring the memory of the travel, aging, etc). Teleportation would assure the same number of hairs on my head. A car would almost guarantee a different number. Why is teleporting "not the same" and driving so?

You might have recieved a 0.5G DIMM by mistake. Try to remove them one by one and see what you get. It is likely that you'd get 1.5 then 1 in which case the second is a 512M (you get the idea). Unless I'm very much off, they still make memory clusters as internal-even chips (that is the reason you can have only one as opposed to twin for older models). One of the memory banks might have fried and the computer elliminates it or simple can't see it. Removing them one by one and re-mounting as needed will get you to 2 possible outcomes: * it is related to a chip. Every time you put that in, you get 512 only. In which case, go see the store that sold them to you. It's either a 512 by mistake or it's faulty. Both cases, you get a 1-gig * It is not chip related. In which case you might have to deal with some limitations. E.g. Motherboard (read the manual), OS (you never mentioned the OS but some have a limit. None have a 2.5G limit though), etc. Is this the POSt report or the OS version? (POST report is the text-only screen you get at computer physical reset. Press PAUSE if it scrolls to fast. Alternately you can enter SETUP, most computers have a report there) If nothing helps, post more info. Oh and IIRC there are limitations on how to use slots but it's not parity related, but order-of-load. E.g. four slots need be loaded in a 1-3-2-4 order on my MB. Twin chips sell as such and i doubt the store would sell you a single chip. They both come in the same case.

Suggested approach is *extremely* complex and takes a lot of code to make it work properly. While this could fool a regular user, it's unlikely it will ever be able to pose a real threat. It's just that there are WAY easier ways to get a hold of a password. Such as a rootkit. There are rootkits out there that are rated "undetectable". So why bother sandboxing an entire OS?

If the server admin is giving you a hard time I sincerely doubt you can fix it, since you are on the wrong end. IMO, unless you get him to stop, fixing whatever he's doing to you now will probably just spawn another tactic. There are just so many things to go wrong with a connection ... For example he could be telling the server to ping you or to determine bandwidth. If you reply, you're lagged. If you don't the server will consider you disconnected/timed out and you get kicked. Sorry to sound grim, but that is one of the reasons I generally hate MMO/multiplayer games. It's simply too easy to ruin. You don't have to disconnect someone, just slow them enough.

Anti-trust suggests a law, a legal measure against something that will work. My point was focused on market dynamics, that is, my guess is this will not work to begin with. Auto-updating your already-working computer to reject -say- AMD is illegal, however offering an OS that only runs on a certain machine isn't. The problem is that record industry never faced such a challange before. In the world of analogue copying, each copy would have been irreversably damaged by loss of definition. Especially true with video, the first copy off a legal video was damagend enough for a trained person to tell it's a copy. By the third copy, artifacts appeared so you could no longer enjoy the full quality, nor rent or sell it. The duplication absorbed itself out. If you bought one, you had to make copies in order to rent it. Those who rent it and got them self a copy already had a blocky, pixelated copy. One you could hardly rent. So out of 10 people who had copy, at least 1-2 needed an original. Plus those that liked the movie and wanted a hi-q copy. 2-4? Say 30% for the sake of argument. Just charge 30$ for a 2$ VHS tape and you cover the rest. With digital media, that problem is solved. One copy shared and within 3-4 days the whole planet saw the movie. Full quality. Give to your friends. Have a few copies. Heck, it's <1$. Out of 10 people, there is quite a high chance you have zero originals. You see the problem. Even in theaters people could record one. There is a real chance that without legal measures to deter this practice you could end up with 300 people with camcoders showing up at the premiere. How to recoop millions invested in filming? I never said it's not fair. I just said it will not work. True, make it enough of a nuissance and you up on that 0%. Not by much, but not 0. The only effect I see in this implementation is a general increase in costs for the consumer.

If the server is moderated by a good admin you could signal the issue. He knows the IP and can test his route versus the in-game lag. If they are in-sync, it's probably non-intentional. If not, a ban will be most likely installed. Just a thought. I'm not really familiar with the game.

I'll vote for MPC (Media Player classic). It's just a personal opinion, but it works will all Win codecs (Including Real Alternative and Quicktime Alternative) and frankly with a decent codec pack I could find no format it will not play. I have a very good opinion of Winamp myself and I coded plugins as well, it's just I find it counter-intuitive and unsuited for video. Winamp is the best for audio. For video, I'll stick to MPC.

DRM enforcement is virtually impossible to achieve in real life. These attempts are as old as recording itself. VHS had out-of-sync lines that were invisible to a TV but would keep a recorder form correctly dubbing a VHS. A filter was devised that could rule that out. All other media had, at some point, some kind of protection. But you can't keep anyone out. After all, a movie can be camcoded off a screen. A plan was devised to invent the DRM monitor. The monitor would blur the image if the signature of the media wasn't correct. The dvd drive would not read the dvd if it would be non-signed and so on. What did they get? Everyone needed to buy a new computer. Then a new DVD/CD/whatever. Let's face it. You can't stop digital data from being copied. DRM is, as is in newer phones, doomed to fail at any challange beyond the average user. Now phones don't allow sending of "possible" copyrighted data, such as sounds. What did that get them? Tons of tech support calls that complained about not being able to share something with other people. If the technology is restricting, nobody will buy it. Another maker will manufacture and sell devices. What is the point in playing 800Eur for a device that shoots photos, records and plays music, makes movies if you can't share with anyone? There is no way to keep things secret. All these conspiracy theories make me sigh every time. People. Windows might be closed source, but that doesn't make it a mistery. Your favourite cracked program is not only closed source, but highly protected against attacks. Can you name one software product that is in use for more than 1000 users that does not have a crack? How do you think these things are done if nobody can peek into it? There is no such thing as hidden, no such thing as "closed". Whatever Windows will ever pop up will be a Kit and that kit can be expanded and decompiled. Whatever protection a computer may offer, it still has to allow data to be read. And data will be read and understood. The best anyone can do is make it harder. At a last resort, the OS will be ran in a virtual machine where every bit it moves will be logged and interpreted. Or debugged from outside. 99% of the time I hear Windows is secretly giving away information it's some Unix/Linux user bent on world domination. 99% of the time copyright is in question, some panic installs, everyone forgetting this is attempt nr 5001. The page you asked for makes some valid claims, but guides the reader to a different, aimed outcome. Let's tackle a few: "downloaded videos and music can be played only on one specified computer" Yes, so the owner of that copy can intercept the stream like any other filter does and "rip" it onto a non-DRM format. Like AVI. Just like all other videos on the share today. If it plays, then it can be recorded. You can't record with their software. Well you can't save a PDF using Acrobat reader either. Point? Games have a serial on the cover. They can only be played with the CD in the drive. Haha. Please. "Imagine if you get an email from your boss telling you to do something that you think is risky; a month later, when it backfires, you can't use the email to show that the decision was not yours. "Getting it in writing" doesn't protect you when the order is written in disappearing ink." "Ink" doesn't dissapear from a burned CD. And if you don't have a backup, things dissapear as we speak. No change here. It's up to the IT guy to back ebery thing up and keep track of everything. And if he does what the boss said, well, let's just say I can't tell the difference from that scenario and today's real life. Or last year's. "If Word encrypts documents using treacherous computing when saving them" then losing the key would lock you out of your property and the pile of claims would bury Microsoft within weeks. You can change format to keep ahead of free processors, but not encrypt. Also, encryption is useless since any other Word must decrypt. It's just silly. If you can encrypt and decrypt then it's just another file format. Also, I thought DOC files already had passwords. It's enforced at word-processor level. Point? "Programs that use treacherous computing will continually download new authorization rules through the Internet, and impose those rules automatically on your work" That would require the planet to be online. That would also require getting through a firewall someone set up, which is also impossible. And last but not least, all conspiracies aside, any non-MS router/firewall/computer/whatever would immeditely see the packets being sent and withing 24 hours half a planet would block them. Also, trust computing doesn't work that way. Those rules have local interpreters and those are responsible for enforcing them, not some site. Look, the whole planet is devising new antivirus software, new updates, live definitions, you name it. It's global war and they still the plague is upon us. And this is The Planet versus a few coders that are bored. Now add the fact that when applied to MS, some users buy viruses and their business depended on them. How do you fight that? "Treacherous computing puts the existence of free operating systems and free applications at risk" Let me get this straight. So an Intel computer would refuse to boot unless you install Vista? Since the older models need to run older OSs, it's only fair to assume that this applies to new CPUs and new OSs. That being said, let us imagine that this happens. And take a step back. Forget your screen, look at all the screens. Google runs special distribution Linux. Boeing (last time I checked) was using NT. Heck, just about any decent organisation, company, EVERYONE runs either an older Windows or Unix or something close. So what is being suggested is that MS and Intel decided that they no longer need customers since replacing the whole Boeing infrastructure is not a simple 1-day expense. Most major businesses out there grew their IT in time and can't simply shift. They will not shift. What then? Best idea in the world and nobody will buy it. But I'm stretcing. Let me make it simpler. "Free operating systems could not be installed" they say. So many customers run free software that banning it would throw income into the darkest periods Intel ever had. I'm a Windows guy myself, but I am perfectly aware that as a server Linux is just as good if not better at half the resources. The design, from the core up, has been in that direction. You can't benchmark a no-feedback core with something that is promptly reset when the mouse doesn't move for over 2 seconds. Most servers will no upgrade. Most ISPs will ignore or switch. Besides, it's not going to be long before someone modifies a free OS so it will lie it's Windows. I could go on for hours but somehow I think SFN could put the bandwidth to better use. Bottom line is: I believe that 90% of that page is either inaccurate or pushed conclusions. At the very best I consider it to be a worst case scenario. At the VERY best. I mean come on people. Does anyone truely believe that Hollywood, large as they may be, can convince anyone to buy a new optical media player, a new board, a new CPU, a new OS and a new monitor just to watch <insert your movie release here>? Does anyone believe that MS doesn't know that <x>'s copy is illegal? Believe me, they do. It's not that hard. XP needs activation. But people who use Windows will get used to Windows. Will keep it, will configure it, will save their documents as DOC and their music as WMA and they will, maybe, in time, buy a copy. Sue them, what do you get? Nada. Wait, I forgot. You do get something. A big drop in market share as everyone flees. I, for one, run Windows on an Intel platform. I *will* switch manufacturer, provider, author of software, whatever, before I buy a monitor that decides what I can watch and what I can't. I trust most of you do. It's fair to assume most of everyone will. And if blue-ray implements enforced formats for players and computers and differentiates them then their place is assured in the hall near the 8-track player.

The size has to do with the quantity of air delivered. A bigger turbo that has the same pressure (limited) is able to drive an engine of a larger displacement, but the relative boost would be the same. The system is simple. For a one-litre engine, one litre of air is sucked in every cycle (note this means every two rotations for a 4-stage engine). The air is at 1 atmosphere. Raise pressure to 1.3 atm and you get 1.3 liters of air in. Add 1.3 x gasoline and you have yourself a 1.3 liter engine. As a result, pressure determines power, not flow. If your turbo is too small, it will not be able to deliver the same pressure because the engine is sucking up more than the turbo delivers. Add a bigger turbo and you have the ability to build up more pressure. If you limit the pressure (via wastegate/blow-off/pop-off) then excess air will be vented. You can only get more power if you get more pressure in. As a sidenote, this can be hazardous to the engine. As another sidenote, a bigger turbo is, well, bigger and it needs more power from exhaust gases to turn at the same rate. Make it too big and you get LESS pressure. If you overdo it you might have the turbo not spin at all and the power decreases.

I did this by generating a sine wave from 0 to 100 Hz in 1 min 40 secs (100 secs). Saved an used a player to play it back, watching the display (0:40 is 40 Hz). It's a very nice experience. 60 makes the floor hum. 72 gets the windows. 78 hits the metal piping and wiring cap on the stairwell. It's not hard once you get a 600W subwoofer in a 60 liter encosure. (it was in the middle of the room). In theory, you can make HIS windows hum, but this, overall, is pointless since the noise would be a lot worse near you than anywhere else. I'm not sure if you want a countermeasure or a counterattack. There are ways to counter the effect, or generate it if you wish, none are simple and inexpensive, however (like knocking on his door).

I think I'm missing the point. Is he saying that he han recognize a car by its front and rear bumpers (or insert analogy here)? Is this a basic form of Hash? Because if it is, it only works now. When the database expands, the size of the search needs to increase until (assuming all or most gene combinations exist) no search can be done (unless you enter a perfect match). Not only that, database needs to be reindexed each odd addition. (Oh wait, i re-read the post now. It already fails to provide 100%). As I understand your explanation, you use 18 items, each a 4-way combination, giving you a total index limit of 68 billion (36 bit). Probability of unique search decreases approaching that number, at 30 bill half of your searches start getting multiple results. If that is the case, it's unlikey you'll get unique reliable results for the human genome alone. Also, where's the "Gene therapy and its connection to evolution"?

Sorry about the delay. Thanks for the info, I'll try to clear my thoughts. The centrifugal force and the force needed to lift the car are both similar, but they have different formulae. Looking back into my mind I remember something in the order of m*v*v/r knowing notations are mass, speed and radius. The force keeping the car on the ground is around G (m*g), ignoring the fact that once it lifted the wheels it becomes easier (a cosine is in there somewhere). With g constant and v and r identical this seems to point to the angle alone (the position of the center of mass and wheels). I know you just said that, just trying to retrace steps. Am I basically close? --------- Also, my second question is still unanswered. If I was to manufacture an accelerometer and skid the car (curve until it loses traction), measuring that, would it be safe (in more or less real world) to have such a device issue a warning at 90% of that acceleration? It would be useful at the same speed, since I know it works. But if the speed would be double, would the acceleration be the same? Am I missing something obvious that would send me spinning? Like a square in v*v that would make it useless right off the drawing board? It seems fair that the same force would be required to tip a car regardless of speed, but is there something I miss? Different tire behaviour? Car tipping? Center of mass tipping over (let's not forget it has suspensions)? This isn't something I can test 400 times before refining Note: I'm really trying to keep it short but I can't ...

First, let me state that my physics was below average when I studied it and it's been years since. And not just a few. Also, I did it in a different language. So. I have a few questions about a debate I started with a few people about a car's stability and I'm kinda stuck. First, is a lighter car harder or easier to tip over? I know center of gravity is a big factor, but is it the only one? I mean, if a 600Kg vehicle and a 1 ton vehicle have the same wheel span and the same center of gravity, shouldn't the heavier car tip over at a higher speed? On the other hand, the lighter car generates less friction so it is more likely to skid rather than tip over. Both main forces are linear (centrifugal and part of gravity). If it tips instead of skidding, then only the force required to lift the two outer wheels is required, it gets easier as it raises off the ground. Secondly, it seems that, under ideal conditions, one would have the same Gs (lateral acceleration, to be exact) at skid point regardless of speed. Let me make this clearer: Let us assume that at 20 km/h, in a 5 meter radius turn, the car skids out of the curve (tires lose traction). If we have an accelerometer in the car, it would read -say- 1 m/(s*s). Let us also assume (skipping math) that at 40 km/h, in a 10 meter radius turn, the acceleration inside would also be 1 m/(s*s). Would it still skid? Sooner? Later? Does the fact that the wheels rotate faster have anything to do with that? If not, is it sane to have an accelerometer in the car that could issue a skid point alarm assuming surface and tires are constant? Am I missing something?

Here's another simplistic approach: "I have a spherical ball. It is also blue. Is it more blue than it is spherical?" The ball is blue (defined) and round (defined) so they both rate as perfect, both round and blue. In which care, the answer is "no", it is not more blue than spherical. They're just the same.

I own a dog. (stay back) (I own 3 but let's simplfy) Initially, i though that there *was* something strange going on. The dog seemd to actually understand what i mean, most of the times better that less-than-intelligent people. I consider the dog to be suprior from that point of view. Anyhow, after a while, it seemed like we (both) developed an ability to detect mood. All i had to do is look at the dog and see its state, mood, whatever from gestures and posture. And apparently the dog is able to do the same. I wanted to test this ability. I was curious if the dog can truely "sense" human emotions or just reply to body language. At some point, even though i was in a perfectly good mood, i tried to fake a sudden pain (no sound, just a suggested faliure) as discreetly as possible. I probably moved less than a centimeter but i triggered a reply instantly. The dog immediatle came over to investigate, tring to guess what's wrong and where. It does feel like magic if you don't pay much attention, but it's little more than involuntary processing. You might have noticed a spasm under the fur, odd eye movement, a sound, whatever. Not thinking about it immediately because you were doing something else, it only came to surface after the dog has passed you. "Did i see what i thought i saw?" When the dog died, you connected the info. A dog can't have its hand to its chest when having a heart attack, but it does wobble and/or breathe oddly, etc. These partial signs "connect" in our brain even if a straight and definite response isn't triggered.

(No, other reason) - this does not include desease/defect prevention. What we are, the way we respond is most of the time an EXACT combination of many qualities and defects, combined with life experience. It is more than possible that some of us make the right decision by "feel", by stupidity, chance, anger, you name it. Same decision in the hands of a better human could be the wrong one. Lemme tell you what I mean. Assume i reached 90% of what i wanted to be by 28, then stalled. So i think to myself: "If i make my kid just like me, but with more ambition, he/she will go further just that inch i couldn't". So i pump more desire to win into the kid. The kid grows, but the ambition is pushing more than it did me. Hets standards higher, fails to achieve them, gets depressed, loses desire to fight, and, in the end, fails. The key to my success was NOT being so ambitious, but moderated. Another possibility is the kid keeps pushing until one day a tire explodes. Game over. And a third and rather true possibility is that the kid simply fails completly. If ME (same genome, same year, same parents) would start over again, ME could have gone for a completly different option, different life, perhaps one of faliure. So it is not assumable that if I was successful I should be again, let alone better myself. And finally, we define "successful" by getting in -say- the top 10%. Genetically engineer 100 people to perfection and 90 will fail because they have to. They WILL fail. Perfect people. Beter genetic material has nothing to do with success. A one-legged determined and trained human will outrun a fat coutch potato given enough time. And a lifetime is a long race.

Just an addition: I (and I'm not alone) see most languages to be a flavour of one of the three mainstreams in syntax and approach. Mostly, there's the C-like (C, C++, C# and most likely Java), Pascal-Like (Pascal, Pascal OOP, Delphi) and Basic-like (Basic, -S, Visual, etc). This is mostly because these three survived and they have quite a few fans. As a result most new languages follow, at least in part, the "feel" of these. Some follow their own, like HTML and derivates. I'm personally attached to Pascal (Delphi) because I find it the easiest to read and understand, followed closely by C.

Well, since the ball has been defined as round and blue, then it is round and blue, regardless. But while blue is a matter of perception, spherical isn't. It might be blue and reflect IR or UV. In which case, should we have better eyes it might be a different color, being blue for human eyes the same time. But it is spherical in shape regardless of perception. We could assume, of course (though not given) it would be PERFECT blue, reflecting blue light and NOTHING else, which, to my knowledge, is not possible. So that's one for the sphere. Also, "sphere" is not a perception-related notion, it exists in abstract thinking too, mathematics, physics, etc. Blue does not. Actually, I might be wrong but I don't think there is a way to make it blue but not spherical in any chapter of science. To percieve it as blue, you'd have to see it (since we define blue through sight) thus noticing it's spherical. Two for the sphere. Sphere has a variable (size) whereas Blue does not. You can vary size and have an infinite periievable sizes of *perfect* spheres, but only a finite percievable shades of blue. Also, a "shade of blue" is no longer perfect blue, but a kilometer-size sphere is still a perfect sphere. So I guess that's three for a sphere. Edit: typos

Dak, DLLs are quite complex to understand, but once assimilated, they have tons and tons of advantages and uses versus a few problems. At the most basic level, imagine this: procedure MakeTea(TeaType: TTeaType) begin GetTeaStatus; ... ... end; Above is pesudopascal, but it has been chosen because of clarity. Now assume this is your Life.exe: Wakeup; MakeTea; DrinkTea; Instead of carrying the actual implementation of tea making in a program, one can cut it and move it (literally) into a DLL. library Tea; procedure MakeTea(TeaType: TTeaType) begin GetTeaStatus; ... ... end; export MakeTea; So what this does is embed the procedure. Above EXPORT line adds the tea making into a list in the header of the dll, allowing for more than one procedure to be stored in. You could have, for example, TEA.DLL that would embed MakeTea, DrinkTea. When writing a program, one does not have to actually code any tea. Just say you want to use tea.dll and when tea needs making, use MakeTea in Tea.DLL. The operating system will look into the header, find procedure MakeTea and execute it for you. Hope you followed so far. Back to your Word question. In particular, rendering (drawing) a font-faced text on a canvas (screen), takes the following steps: <select font> <get text> <render to a temporary canvas> <drop that where needed> Word already knows what and how it looks like, so rendering and dropping is needed. So it's down to the coder to choose an implementation: a) Render+drop Dll exports a DrawArial procedure that takes a string as a parameter, along with x and y of where it should be on the screen. Dll renders it and then adds it to the screen at x,y b) Render only Dllexports a RenderArial that takes a text and returns a bitmap (will not bore you further). Word will then take that and add, wrap, size that for you. Basically, a DLL is a collection of procedures. There are rare and odd cases in which a DLL takes a call back into an executable, usually it carries procedures that take fixed parameters and return fixed parameters. Think of it in terms of a book, an encyclopedia with a definition on each page. Or, as the name suggests, a library with special books, each teaching people how to do something. In your case, the simplest model (in real life) would be to have a library called Arial.dll. When Word sees a font it can't understand, it looks for a library with the same name and if it finds one it loads it and calls it's exported Render method. This is a dedicated way of coding extensions. In the future, Arial might support something not in the font directly, like right-to-left or features nor previously supported, like shadows. In this case, the Arial.dll can be replaced with a version that checks to see if the Arial font has shadow ability and if so, drops a shadow. This is never the case with fonts since compatibility would be dreadful. But it is the case with -say- format plugins. Assume your image viewer supports bmps but not jpgs. It has a BM6.dll that reads a .BMP and draws on screen. The main executable opens the file, reads header and looks for an addon. For BMPs, header is BM6, so it would look for BM6.dll. You need no update, all you need is a JFIF.dll. It will get called when the header is JFIF (Jpeg header) and that would draw the jpeg to your screen. Get any modular viewer and you will see it has loads of DLLs with format names or extension names. Sorry about the long post, but as i've said, once one gets past "ermm, i guess .." and to "oh, like this", DLLs can improve your life considerably. Your generic example of DLLs is not wrong generally speaking, except: * DLLs are not like EXEs. An EXE does something specific, it has a purpose, a direction. A DLL just holds code. It can't be "run" (it can, but that's not basic approach), it holds pieces of code that do things. They get "loaded" by means of once loaded the OS has a list of what it holds so you can call it directly. Loading a DLL is like entering a library. Once in, you can list the books and grab one. If not in, you can't just grab a book. * They are not "scripts" even though from the user point of view the behave exactly the same. They work more like the lines of code compiled into the dll get inserted where you call the procedure. Except that they do so at runt time, not at design time and they are already compiled so they can be in any other language. So the general techinque is like this: MakeJam.exe LoadLibrary "Jam.dll" Call MakeJam in "Jam.dll" Call BottleJam in "Jam.dll" LoadLibrary "Sales.dll" Call SellJam in "Sales.dll" FreeLibrary "Sales" FreeLibrary "Jam" I don't do Basic, but you can find loads of examples in the help and on the net. Try LoadLibrary and Basic as keywords. Maybe adding "Tutorial" would help. Long post.