And an index. What the hell, give 'em all five fingers.
Link to Original Source
ROFL, I just spit my coffee all over my desk.
And here I thought that no one remembered that anymore.
Kudos to you, sir. Five-digit Slashdot UID megabonus included.
And not space travel, so unless you're already where you want to be, there's no use in being able to be when you want to be.
Especially if you're going as far back as to be in a time where long distance travel would be hard, time-consuming, or right down impossible.
If I'm nitpicking, please blame The Big Bang Theory, season 1, episode 14.
Not if the communication is not encrypted and there is any traffic at the time.
This is where I back your assumptions with the oblig. xkcd.
oh! Whoosh for me then!
(heads on to Wikipedia)
The way I see it, since it is a logical implication and not a condition, it would be better to use the "implies that" sign:
4+3+2=x+2 => 4+3+2-2=x => 4+3=x => 7=x
But I teach UNIX at my University, so I must be wrong.
You divided by zero in step five.
Unfortunately, I'm sure I'll be getting this in as chain letters for years to come.
What are these "letters" you talk about? Is this some new social network, or a new kind of e-mail?
(Yeah I know, off-topic, mod me down to hell, I can burn some...)
No, it's just another crapware.
Actually 8,191 for those of us who like our integers signed.
Here ya go:
Vendor Model H/W Version F/W Version Successful
ActionTec MI424-WR Rev. C 126.96.36.199.188.8.131.52.6 YES
ActionTec MI424-WR Rev. D 184.108.40.206.220.127.116.11.6 YES
ActionTec GT704-WG N/A 18.104.22.168.22.214.171.124.9 YES
ActionTec GT701-WG E 126.96.36.199.6.3 YES
Asus WL-520gU N/A N/A YES
Belkin F5D7230-4 2000 4.05.03 YES
Belkin F5D7230-4 6000 N/A NO
Belkin F5D7234-4 N/A 5.00.12 NO
Belkin F5D8233-4v3 3000 3.01.10 NO
Belkin F5D6231-4 1 2.00.002 NO
D-Link DI-524 C1 3.23 NO
D-Link DI-624 N/A 2.50DDM NO
D-Link DIR-628 A2 1.22NA NO
D-Link DIR-320 A1 1 NO
D-Link DIR-655 A1 1.30EA NO
DD-WRT N/A N/A v24 YES
Dell TrueMobile 2300 N/A 188.8.131.52 YES
Linksys BEFW11S4 1 1.37.2 YES
Linksys BEFSR41 4.3 2.00.02 YES
Linksys WRT54G3G-ST N/A N/A YES
Linksys WRT54G2 N/A N/A NO
Linksys WRT160N 1.1 1.02.2 YES
Linksys WRT54G 3 3.03.9 YES
Linksys WRT54G 5 1.00.4 NO
Linksys WRT54GL N/A N/A YES
Netgear WGR614 9 N/A NO
Netgear WNR834B 2 2.1.13_2.1.13NA NO
OpenWRT N/A N/A Kamikaze r16206 YES
PFSense N/A N/A 1.2.3-RC3 YES
Thomson ST585 6sl 184.108.40.206.2 YES
The technology, which has already sparked interest from companies such as BT and IBM, is already in its first phase and boasts an impressive 2.5 terabytes capacity, double the capacity of the London phone system.
Meh, my hard drive can store almost that much already.
You're kidding right? Obviously the writer meant that there is 2.5TB/second capacity. We are not talking about storage, we are talking about bandwidth. No one has 2.5TB/second bandwidth in use right now.
He most certainly is. But the summary does not say TB/s, just Terabytes. One would expect a "nerd news" website to watch out for this kind of mistake.
But then again, typos, dupes, slashvertisements, and daily "not news", who am I kidding...
Kind of... but just a quick note, you're referring to Antitrust, not Hackers.