Comment Re:Bitcoin (Score 1) 533
Mining ASICs don't count, though -- ASICs are not microprocessors, so they don't run code, written in assembly or otherwise.
Likewise, just because copyright is broken doesn't mean we should get rid of it either.
No, but the notion that the whole basic concept is a bad one sure does.
Currently cars use several other technologies to prevent 'stupid' and everyone is ok with it.
The problem is that I, and very many people with me, find it ethically absolutely unacceptable to have tools work against their owners. This is exactly the reason why people hate DRM so much. My tools are mine and should listen to me only, and anyone trying to oppose that is evil. Seriously evil.
Also note that none of the examples you posted are an example of this.
We are a death phobic society and it's actually irrational.
Why? There's nothing irrational about being scared of something that is in fact bad and dangerous.
So, what real world object or property is being described by this area in metric, or its inverse in imperial?
That's simple, actually. If you laid the gas you burned while driving a certain distance as a thin tube over that distance, this area would be the area of the cross section of this tube.
If you could start a semester at college by signing up for every class that looked remotely interesting, show up to the first lecture or two, decide whether it was, then only take the classes you wanted, you'd probably see rates more like that.
You mean you *can't*? That's exactly how I DO study.
You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to my opinion.
Take my mod points. Take ALL my mod points. (It's a damn shame I don't have any.)
Are you asserting that the disk size should be reported by the OS/apps in "GB" and files should be reported as kilobytes, megabytes, etc?
I'm asserting that both disk sizes and file sizes should be reported in gigabytes AKA GB (AKA 10^9 bytes), yes. Or kilo-, mega-, or tera- versions, of course.
What happens when you try to copy 375 gigabytes to a 400GB hard disk (let's ignore filesystem overhead in this example) and it doesn't fit?
But it does fit. You have a 375 gigabytes = 375 * 10^9 bytes file, and 400 GB = 400 * 10^9 bytes of disk space. So it all works out just the way it should.
the point is you can't just redefine existing terms that are in common use and expect the world to reconfigure itself around you.
The irony in that sentence is delicious.
Not when they go in, view the size of their disk and find that it's 93 GB, instead of 100 GB.
But it is not. Certain broken programs just report it that way. That's a problem with the programs, not the disks.
Neutrinos have bad breadth.
