Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
I just checked and they state that the TS-7260 draws half a watt minimum and 2W typical... I seem to recall it drawing even less than that though. Perhaps it was 200mA @ 3.3V which would fit within their spec.
The embedded ARM boards from Technologic Systems are worth looking at also. I used a TS-7260 with a large enough SD card to install Debian with gcc and it worked great. It booted nearly instantly and consumed something like 100mA of current at 3.3V IIRC. It was quite a robust little box. There are newer and faster models than the TS-7260 at the link I provided above.
It's to remove inefficiency of government. The EU are all smart people, they can make much better decisions when they are left alone. Just think of how good life will be when the stupid people are removed from the equation and government eliminates negative outcomes from the realm of possibility.
"Referenda are pure gambling. There is no guarantee of a positive outcome, unfortunately."
-- Danish EU advocate Charlotte Antonsen
Its not *money*, its just simple bartering. in this case for objects that people agree on is valuable ( like pez dispensers, game tokens, or Gold Pressed Latinum ) Now, can trading in illegal/stolen items get you put in jail, sure. But its not *money* laundering. ( i think the correct term in most areas would be 'criminal conversion' )
Much like 'piracy is theft', while it may be illegal to do so, its still not *theft* because the term is used.
This perversion of terms and concepts is dangerous. It only leads to more loosely defined terms of illegality and more people subject to the governments wrath.
Then it's normal for people to have encrypted stuff on their drives that they can't decrypt. And thus a "reasonable man" could not be expected to be able to decrypt such stuff even if he cooperated fully. They could be using full disk crypto with an encrypted container file that they can't decrypt. They can decrypt the first but not the second (or maybe they can - it becomes harder to tell
But once a popular OS has stuff like this by default, it's much easier for the defence to argue that you can't do it.
Of course in this case - the guy has been supplying wrong passwords, so unless you can show it was out of desperation and/or due to duress, he'd still be in trouble.
Not always easy to remember who was driving at the time in question especially if they only send the stuff months later.
Forced charity is not charity.
That doesn't answer the question.
There is enough food in the world right now to feed everyone. Does that mean everyone should eat? No. Some should die.
I'm not necessarily a fan of everyone on the planet, but I'm not convinced "some should die" simply due to food allocation difficulties.
While that food is edible, it has value. That value belongs to someone.
Unless it belongs to everyone. Like oxygen, nobody holds individual claim to it. There is nothing "inherently right" (or wrong) about something belonging to someone. If there were enough food that you could have all you wanted, would you really wander around saying "this food is mine", "this food is mine"... is that how you treat air? Of course not.
Remember, I harvest for ME. If you expect me to harvest for you, you are sadly mistaken
I don't expect you to spend time harvesting food at all. Let the 'bots do it. Help yourself to as much as you feel like eating. Treat it like air. Now, yes, if you take more than you can eat, pile it in your cave and then jealously guard so much of it that others are starting to suffer.. then yeah... you deserve to be treated like criminal, and a nutter, because you would be one.
Imagine if you did that with air, walked into a building, and starting sucking all the oxygen out to the point others couldn't breathe, while ranting about how you harvest for you. And everyone is looking at you like you are off your rocker, because if you want some air, just breathe. There's plenty. Of course you'd be locked up as a criminal.
Soon (geologically speaking), there will NOT be enough clean air full of oxygen to breathe, at that point, it becomes a scarce resource.
Possibly. Not necessarily. But either way you are missing the point -- the point was that food and energy could become as ubiquitous as oxygen is today, not that oxygen might become scarce enough to start hoarding.
Either eventuality is possible, which one are you working towards?
I do not begrudge anyone anything they have earned for themselves.
And I don't begrudge anyone clean air, whether they've worked for it or not, and if we could support public works projects to deliver limitless energy and abundant food I wouldn't begrudge stoners and layabouts that either.
To you, he is a criminal.
Not at all. Now if we had sufficient food and energy for all and Johnny Depp decided to hoard more than he could use simply to deprive others from having enough, then he would be a criminal. Why would Johnny Depp do that though? Why would anyone? Except a criminal or a nutcase.
you can make food and energy available like that, more power to you
As a species we've continually generated more food and more energy with increasingly less effort. If the trend continues (and why shouldn't it?) then eventually the labour of one person working the equivalent of one day can through the magic of technology and science produce enough food and power for the world.
Somehow or another, I expect that you want to make food and energy available like that by taking from others
Why would I want that?
Long story short, even if food, shelter, and clothing were freely available due to some unforeseen technological advance, I would be totally happy with that. If you think that just because there is enough food, shelter, and clothing existing in this world to feed everybody that you can take it from those who made it and own it to give to everyone else, I would say you are smoking crack.
You keep circling around to it being something that you are going to be making, with sweat pouring from your brow, and god forbid anyone else touch the fruits of your labor. Jeebus, let it go, nobody wants your sweaty food. I'm not even sure why you want it so badly. In a world where enough is produced by autmated labor that it can be consumed the way we consume oxygen now -- what is the point of getting worked up over ownership. If someone takes "your food" just get some more, but why would anyone take "your food" in the first place, when they can get their own, in as large a quantity they like, just as easily?
Getting worked up over it, is like making your dinner guests promise not to steal the oxygen in your house when they come to visit.
until I am at the same level of reward
How much food do you need? Your appetite is not insatiable. As soon as we can produce more than anyone can eat, the whole concern is moot. We are certainly no where near there yet... but take a look at the long term trend.
Look at the quantity of food a factory farm generates per labour hour compared to even 200 years ago. Fast forward 200 years... George Jetson complaining about having to go to work to push one button and then go home starts to seem pretty plausible. And the year after that? We both know the button can damn well push itself.
Clean water, clean air, limitless energy, enough food... if we COULD do that, we should.
Wall Street Journal
The EU's top court said Thursday that Apple's flagship stores fulfilled the three criteria for a trade mark: they constitute a sign; they can be represented in a graphic; and they can distinguish the goods or services sold by one company from those of another.
Apple store layout may be registered as trade mark - EU courtReuters
Apple wins EU court case on store design trademarkGreenwich Time
all 5 news articles
Link to Original Source