zapatos

It has been a while, but... Assembly is not machine language and therefore not understood by the machine. It must first be compiled or assembled into machine code to be used. Assembly is just much closer to machine code than, say, Java. Machine code is developed in conjunction with the microprocessor. Microprocessors can only read the machine code developed for that family of microprocessors, not for some other microprocessor family. A player piano analogy... The composer is the software developer The sheet music the source code The punch machine to create the piano roll is the compiler The piano roll is the machine code The player piano is the microprocessor The player piano can play the piano roll because that is what it was designed to do. It expects the holes in the paper to be formatted in a predetermined way. The piano reads the hole, which is simply an instruction to play a predetermined note. The microprocessor can read the machine code because that is what it was designed to do. It expects the instructions to be formatted in a predetermined way. The microprocessor reads the code which is simply an instruction to perform a predetermined action.

I guess anything travelling through the air is more accessible than anything travelling by wire, but wireless is not very risky as long as you set it up properly. Here is something to look at: http://compnetworking.about.com/od/wirelesssecurity/tp/wifisecurity.htm If you have encryption turned on at home, not many people are going to be able to cause you harm. If you connect your wireless device (e.g. laptop or iPhone) at the local Starbucks via their public hotspot, even I could listen in.

How do you like typing on the tablet? If browsing is all you do it may be fine, but if you are frequently posting on forums typing is important. My Kindle Fire is small so maybe it is not representative, but typing on it is similar to typing on my iPhone. Nice for short messages but I wouldn't want to do on it the type of work associated with posting.

Ok, I understand and agree. How do you feel about the ban on deer hunting? In Missouri the general concensus is that allowing unchecked growth of deer populations is rather cruel. An annual harvest of deer through hunting keeps the population in check and limits the rather gruesome deaths associated with starvation. Since Missouri has no wolves and only a small number of mountain lions, there are not many natural predators for deer. Deer can also be dangerous. In 2010 in Missouri, there were 3,420 traffic accidents involving deer, two deatsh of people, and 352 injuries. http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/SAC/pdf/2010DeerReport.pdf That is a gem; very nice! I do have one comment though. Lincoln is specifically saying that bullets are not the answer when ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided.. I sincerely hope that those who wish to have guns in case the need to take arms against the government arises, plan to use them only if ballots no longer fairly and constitutionally decide.

I assume this comment came in the heat of the moment. Surely you don't think hunters as a rule derive pleasure from the distress of a hunted animal. Have you actually spoken to Americans about this or is it coming from another source? I live in America, about half the people I know own guns, and I don't find people to be fearful, whether gun owners or not. Yes, we Americans feel there is no better way to start the day than to slaughter a couple of cute bunnies, a pottering bear, and perhaps a neighbor or two before breakfast. Here is an example of what some hunters in America are like. I'm happy to say this is coming from my fellow Missourians. http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/venison-donation-program-has-record-year-in-missouri/article_15e539a3-510f-55bb-9e0b-f02e88857d6f.html

I have a laptop that I keep on my desk, hardwired to the printer, the router, and a mouse. The reason I bought a laptop is that occassionally I have the need to take it with me, which I cannot do with a desktop. It is a fairly low-end Dell and I never intend to upgrade the hardware (no need), so ease of physical upgrade was not an issue for me. Wireless seems a bit slower to me than ethernet, and wireless means you have another device to deal with, but overall wireless works well and does not require much extra effort. I also use a Kindle Fire, but if I had to choose between owning one or the other, I'd go with a laptop over a tablet with no hesitation. My situation is not much different from yours and I chose a laptop over a desktop.

StringJunky -- Never having been to the UK and therefore not knowing what it is like outside the cities, can you tell me how much of your country is small town or rural? I'm wondering if this is one of the differences between attitudes in the US vs. the UK. In the US there is an awful lot of the country where being self sufficient, including for your security, is necessary. There is some degree of isolation for a lot of people outside the metropolitan areas.

I apologize for going off topic but I'm wondering why in nearly all your posts you denigrate people/scientists/religion. It is not arrogant to believe you are at the center of the universe if the evidence points to that, which it did before we better understood the cosmos. I know of no one, scientist or not, who believes 'humans are aware of everything that exists in the entire universe'. It is hardly brainwashing ('systematic use of unethically manipulative methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s), often to the detriment of the person being manipulated'-wiki)to introduce your children to a widely held belief system, particularly when at the time the masses were generally uneducated and science was so poorly understood. It may be best to simply reply to the topic of the thread, and open your own thread if you wish to discuss the problems with people/scientists/religion.

Just because I cannot answer with certainty your mostly ridiculous questions ("if I punched God in the face would I go to heaven?")does not indicate God does not exist. I could ask you just as many questions about dark matter. Just because you couldn't answer them with certainty does not mean it doesn't exist.

I think people go to war if they have unmet needs, and the benefit of going to war outweighs the cost of going to war. The more economic and military parity you have, the less war you have.

No issue, I was just adding related content rather than responding directly to your post. That is true. Unfortunately, we do give guns to aggressive control freaks.

The "Battle of Athens" is an interesting story of citizens fighting back against corrupt government. While I don't forsee much use for guns in battling the US Government, I understand the perspective of people who feel the need for guns to protect their rights, whether they are ever fired or not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

I once heard that all (most) stories follow the same general pattern: We meet the protagonist. The protagonist gets stuck in a tree. People throw rocks at the protagonist. The protagonist gets out of the tree. Funny how well that fits.

Since the moon orbits the earth in about 28 days, all portions of the earth would see the moon, whether the earth was spinning or not. If the earth stopped spinning on its axis relative to the sun, one 'day' on earth would take about 365 days. We would still experience 'night' and 'day', but each would last about 182 days. For the earth to permanently face the sun, it would have to spin once on its axis every year.

I didn't say it was ridiculous. My point was that the person can arrive naked, clothed, in body armour, or even better protected. He can fire a long distance round, or set the school on fire, or blow it up. He can poison the food in the kitchen. My point was that just because some scenarios will make an armed guard less effective does not mean that you do not have an armed guard. We'd all look pretty stupid if we chose not to have an armed guard because the attacker might be wearing body armour, and then the attacker shows up in shorts with a machete. Obviously. But why are you assuming the armed guard will be ineffective and considerably more harmful? The articles you link to in no way supports your assertion that "It is therefore likely that significantly increasing the number of guns in schools will increase the risk of gun deaths in schools." Unless of course you are talking about arming the students. Obviously. But why are you assuming the risk outweighs the likelihood of the armed guard stopping the attacker? Just because it doesn't make you feel safer, doesn't mean you aren't actually safer.

Yeah, and what if he comes in a tank?Clearly this situation would be more likely to result in higher casualties. On the other hand it is no reason to give up. If a shooter comes into the building the outcomes range from a)He sees the armed teacher and takes off running, to b)The number of deaths is reduced, to c)Total destruction I think though that taking some action is better than taking no action, and by taking action the average result is better. Probably the collateral damage will be higher than if the teacher charges the shooter with a hockey stick. On the other hand, if you can kill the attacker with a gun, the damage from him will be lower. There will always be risks in self defense. What should be done though is to do the risk mitigation and reduce the likelihood of an attack, and reduce the impact if an attack does occur. IMO the mistake would be to do nothing for self defense because of the inherent risks. Of course it will be difficult and there is a reasonable chance that fighting back will not help, and indeed cause some casualties on its own. On the other hand, what is the impact if you don't fight back and allow the attacker to keep on shooting?

You made a claim; the onus is on you to provide the evidence. It is not my job to prove it wrong.

For the most part, one giant strawman. More unsubstantiated, off topic, pronouncements.

It is foolish to say "It is foolish to say what you found has less than a 3 in a million chance of being something different" when your very next sentence is "I would not even know how to arrive a that answer." Claiming something is 'loony' based on personal incredulity and an admitted ignorance of the process does not make a compelling argument.

How is the math loony?

According to Wikipedia... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden

If this was supposed to be a response to my post, it failed to answer any of my questions. Other than that it appears you have one anecdote about what one person saw from one perspective regarding a correlation between police presence and crime. I am unsure why you seem to think the police were the cause of the crime, rather than the police being concentrated in an area because it contains high crime.

Huh? So in other words, you think we'd be better off with no laws and everyone having to defend themselves individually. Something tells me this is not going to turn out well for the old, the minorities, and the weak. Would you please suppy a citation for this fact? Huh? Can you give some names and what they've done?

It is kind of a nonsensical question. No one is saying NASA is more important than feeding starving people. Our world does not work linearly. We have hospitals for people but choose to help animals at the same time. Your friends have probably decided to go on vacation at the expense of donating money to cancer research. We even spend money making remote control cars when the money could be spent instead on making automobiles safer. No one is suggesting one is more worthy than the other, and even if they were, we'd still do multiple things at once.

What is the 'leading edge of ST'? Do you have a citation of anything that discusses this? Do you have a citation for someone who is arguing that this can move mass at a rate greated that c? Citation?