...Personally, I'd have all primary network equipment on a totally separate network infrastructure in the first place...
I wonder: What sort of equipment would you use for connecting the "primary network equipment" to the rest of the infrastructure?
As you say, lack of evidence has bupkis to do with people's faith. They believe despite the total lack of evidence, not because evidence exists.
There are so many historical holes in the Bible that Christian apologists have spent more than a millennium trying to explain them away. And people still believe.
A certain percentage of the population has an innate need to believe what cannot be proven. I think this is a feature of humanity, not a bug.
No. That is not a feature. It is definitely a bug.
And before anybody assumes so: I don't expect my humble opinion to settle that issue
I would like this font a lot more if the zero had a slash through it instead of that ridiculous ellipse in the center.
Zero with a slash through it? You're so US centric!
So the letter 'Ø' is unknown to you I guess... I really don't want 'Ø' confused with '0'
I am an Oracle Certified DBA, and I do not consider this a great loss.
For several reasons:
Not entirely true. They are no more centralised than email servers. Each domain gets to nominate their own XMPP servers via DNS - which can be shared across cooperating domains.
Megablocks are not LEGOs. They are made by a different company, and "happen to" be sort-of compatible with proper LEGOs. If you have ever tried comparing them, you'd be sure to find that Megablocks do not stick together as well as LEGOs - I believe that LEGOs are produced to much finer tolerances than Megablocks.
Disclaimer: I am Danish, and (naturally?) a LEGO fan. To me, Megablocks and LEGOs are completely different. Just like water and Carlsberg are different (yes: I was bottle fed as a baby. Live with it)
Don't be lazy. By being lazy you reducing the quality of the language, which (obviously!) is bad. Perhaps you should be liable for damages for unauthorized copying of the judgement text? With "reduction of quality" making it even worse!??
I read and speak Swedish, and the google translation is not bad at all. Basically, the damage to the reputation of the movie(s) was valued at 300K SEK. The reasoning for this does not appear to be explained futher in the judgement, but I suspect the judge is not familiar with torrent download sites and believes that all torrent users expect perfect quality.
And it smacks of being punished for the same thing twice.... If I have a bad viewing of a movie because my TV set is wonky and add my review accordingly, I'm damaging the reputation too, right? ANYBODY who submits a bad review are in the same boat.
But this is only ~7% of the total judgement...
Surely you know the Golden Rule?
The Golden Rule: The ones with the Gold make the Rules.
So: This assumes that something, somewhere knows which transistors are unreliable. This data needs to be stored somewhere - on the "good" transistors. How is this data obtained? is there a trustworthy "map" of "unreliable transistors" ? And the code that determines the probability has to run on the "good" transistors too. Will those transistors stay good?
I cannot see any way of allowing *any* transistor being unreliable... And based on my (admittedly incomplete) understanding of chip production, *any one* of the transistors on the sillicon can be faulty, so there still is a chicken-and-egg problem in here somewhere.
Surely, such "suspect" transistors can only be used for storing the final end result of a calculation: If you were to use it for intermediate values on which you base "if" statements (or any sort of branch), your code will end up unreliable as a result. Unfortunately, 99% of the time the "end result" of one calculation is used as input to another calculation, so the problem spreads like rings in the water.
What if humans want to rely on the output of the computer? Does that pixel on the screen matter? If you are playing Angry Birds, fine. But the pixels may be important if you're a doctor looking at a scan. Or you're a flight controller scanning the screen for planes. The graphics routines do not know the context in which they run. So the actual usability of this ends up being radically diminished....
What use is a computer where you cannot trust the result? We already have logic bugs, race conditions, usability issues etc confusing everybody - I don't think we need to make the computers even more unreliable...
Happiness is a hard disk.