...against all expectations on my USB modem using a metal bowl I had lying around (think of a paraboloid with a flat bottom). Boosted download speeds on 3 consecutive tests by 50% (with bowl over without). Also, 3 tests in a row with no bowl showed some variation, but didn't peak at the same speed as with the bowl. Whod've thunk it.
... they have this unique shape so that they are distinguishable from all other signs even when covered in snow.
It's also a good thing that they can be recognized when facing away from the driver, i.e. you can see when roads crossing yours have a stop sign.
Wish I had mod points.
This has been discussed a lot of places, and several times I can remember on slashdot. The vast majority of the discussion centers on whether this is possible at all. But even if we assume that they have found some magical formula that allows it to function, how many people would want it? Ignore the fact that PC gaming hardware isn't actually that expensive anymore. Most big name PC games are (sadly) just console ports anyway these days. After all the networking wizardry, server farms, custom compression, etc all that is really offered to the customer is just a console system where you rent the games. You can already do that with an xbox 360 or a PS3. And it even works without any internet connection at all for single player. You can play multiplayer games on it as well.
This whole thing, in addition to seeming like impossible vaporware, is the answer to the question nobody asked.
Airlines don't write Air Traffic Control code. That's the FAA's job. The luggage routing software that routes your bag to Boston when you're going to New York is the airline's responsibility.
Also, there's no guarantee that "mission critical" implies readable or documented. Arguably, the reason the FAA is having so much trouble introducing a new flight control system is that the old one is so poorly documented, porting it to newer hardware is extremely difficult.
Ikea sells the pots for $10.
I'm not sure that what you are asking, is reasonable.
Thing is, you've not seen the device I'm talking about. It's not scanner "2.0", which is much improved over the previous version. It's not even that old, it was bought maybe a year before the switch to the 64 bit version.
No, the new model is pretty much version 1.1. It looks identical. It has identical specs, as far as I can tell. The changes made to it are effectively cosmetic. It probably even talks pretty much the same protocol as the previous one. Linux certainly has no problems with talking to both of them, it's only Windows what has an issue.
You bought a scanner that worked with the PC you bought. Then you upgraded your PC or bought a new one. And now you complain that the vendor dos not help you for free with the upgrade.
See, that's not the way I see it. The way I see it, is that I didn't buy a scanner for Win XP, I bought a scanner, period. It shouldn't ever stop working for any reasons besides physically breaking, becoming so technically obsolete that it makes no sense to keep using it, or becoming impossible to connect (like if USB some day disappears).
Linux fulfills this idea of mine. I can still use a Creative Webcam 5 on it, which is positively ancient by modern standards (it's a USB 1 webcam). There are no XP 64 drivers of course, but 64 bit Linux works perfectly fine with it.
I think long term, so I consistently choose standards and openness whenever possible, because it's not in my interest to replace things that work perfectly fine just because the manufacturer would prefer to have a bigger number in the bank account.
Just because it is a printer driver, which is software, does not mean that it is easy or free to make. Or that it was included in the printer price.
So give me specs and the source, I'll fix it, and even submit a patch to the upstream.
Not really. The State still mandates that the owner of the pipes (BGE) must continue to meet the same level of service as prior to 2000. So really, the electrical monopoly is just as regulated as ever - but now we have multiple choices like we have with telephone
Q: Can we see the data?
A: No, we deleted some of it after concluding that it wasn't good enough to use. You can go to the station logs and get it if you want. Knock yourself out.
Q: Can we see the algorithms?
A: Sure. They are in the methods section of the dozens of papers published in the peer reviewed literature dealing with this area. We have links to these papers on our website.
Regards
Luke
If you want the "raw" numbers don't ask the CRU, ask the people who gave the numbers to the CRU. The CRU may have destroyed their copies of some of the data, but since they aren't the source of the data who cares?
No amount of careful planning will ever replace dumb luck.