Slashdot Mirror

no really, a decnet network for hobbiest, enthusiasts.

There are literally dozens of us!

Erlang = HYPE

itym "HIPE".

You got it wrong, it's hipe.

During these two years [October 1836 to January 1839], I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the noveltry of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow at sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian. The question then continually rose before my mind and would not be banished, -- is it credible that if God were now to make a revelation to the Hindoos, would he permit it to be connected with the belief in Vishnu, Siva, &c, as Christianity is connected with the Old Testament. This appeared to me utterly incredible.

By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is suppoted, -- that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become, -- that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us, -- that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneous with the events, -- that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eyewitnesses; -- by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least noveltry or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many false religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wild-fire had some weight on me. Beautiful as is the morality of the New Testament, it can hardly be denied that its perfection depends in part on the interpretation which we now put on metaphors and allegories.

But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; -- I feel sure of this for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeji or elsewhere which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all of my friends, will be everlasting punished.

And this is a damnable doctrine.

(source)

He did count himself a theist as he believed in the necessity of a First Cause:

Another source of conviction in the existance of God connected with the reason and not the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look at a first cause having an intelliegent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a theist.

But it seems his preferred term was Agnostic, with a capital A:

I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble to us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.

In an effort to get ever more taxes for doing absolutely nothing

This is an ignorant remark. Compared with most governments and their institutes, the United Nations receive relatively little money compared with what they actually do. Read a few pages from http://www.dhf.uu.se/publications/development-dialogue/erskine-barton-childers-for-a-democratic-united-nations-and-the-rule-of-law/

But about the actual article: Of course it is a very bad idea to tax the Internet, certainly taxes on trafic since this can only affect net neutrality.

One problem with "self-published homemade works" is that there are few areas where these are yet of any quality.

Totally untrue. See my sig for a catalog of free books. Many of these are of very high quality. Here are a few examples:

1. Hefferon, Linear Algebra, http://joshua.smcvt.edu/linalg.html
2. Keisler, Elementary Calculus: An Approach Using Infinitesimals, http://www.math.wisc.edu/~keisler/calc.html
3. Judson, Abstract Algebra: Theory and Applications, http://abstract.ups.edu/
4. Thide, Electromagnetic Field Theory, http://www.plasma.uu.se/CED/Book/

Those are just the first few that came to mind.

There are theoretical limits to how much information can be stored in a molecule -- this given by the molar entropy, typically expressed in J/(K*mol). But it can also be expressed, more intuitively, as bits per molecule.

(Yes, you can convert between J/K and bits -- they measure the same thing, degrees of freedom.)

Per this table, iron has a molar entropy of 27.3 J/K*mol, or 4.73 bits/molecule.

IBM is claiming an information density of (1/12) bits/molecule, which is reasonable -- the thermodynamic limit is ~57x greater.

This link to the New York Times might work better for the article and since submitting it I have stumbled on the research page and its English translation.

This link to the New York Times might work better for the article and since submitting it I have stumbled on the research page and its English translation.

I love how she's the press officer for a group that invited Assange to speak at one of their events and then she hooked up with him and now crying rape/molestation.

Isn't that like going to a concert and sleeping with the lead singer and crying rape/molestation?

In other news, she's not too bad looking, not the most attractive woman but after a few drinks I could see something happening.

After a few drinks? You're posting on SLASHDOT with a sub million account number. Don't lie, you'd totally hit that.

Well, according to this page she's a foreskin assistant, so I'm guessing that's where the cheese came from.

I love how she's the press officer for a group that invited Assange to speak at one of their events and then she hooked up with him and now crying rape/molestation.

Isn't that like going to a concert and sleeping with the lead singer and crying rape/molestation?

In other news, she's not too bad looking, not the most attractive woman but after a few drinks I could see something happening.

In fact, people that think like you do are way in the minority these days.

Yes, unfortunately realists are in the minority.

The fact of the matter is online education will fill a small niche, but will not expand much beyond where it is now.

As far as the idea that people will still pay for Universities so that they can get a degree is only half true. People pay for an education. The degree proves that they received it. It is unlikely that a majority of Universities will ever give out all of there lessons for free. I wish they would, but it won't work in a capitalist society.

Now, what could work is something similar to wikipedia, where professors contribute to a common course repository. The lessons would be free, but no one university would be responsible for upkeep.

Examples are already available:
http://www.plasma.uu.se/CED/Book/
http://www.wikitextbook.co.uk/index.php/Main_Page

In summary, I hope ya'll are right. I hope education will be free to the masses. I just don't expect it to happen anytime soon.

LHC has all the latest safety systems... in the event of an actual black hole or strangelet event...

they simply full the lever and hit the button!!

It says.. "Black Hole/Stranglet CRASH button - In case of imminent world destruction, break glass and press CMS ABORT button"
(Yes, that's really in the LHC control room LOL)

I'm not so sure that mimicking photosynthesis is such a great way to go.

It is. But not the way you think. First of all, how do you store electricity for the dark and cold winter? It's dead simple with chemical storage, which is actually THE reason to use hydrogen or hydrocarbon as the energy distribution system over electricity anyway.

Also, creating solar cells is pretty energy intensive, and especially the storage and transport part is quite costly and/or problematic, and slashes quite a lot of the solar cells's advantages

artificial photosynthesis is quite promising, theoretically you "just" need 4 excited electrons in one place for 2xH2O + 4xelectrons -> 2xH2+O2 to happen. The real stunning thing about photosyntheses is, nature manages to shortly store excited electrons on a molecule, so the chance that 4 of them happen to be on the same molecule, which is rather a small target for photons to hit, is increased tremendously.

The theoretical efficiency should somewhere up at 50%, plants or bacteria "only" manage ~30% at this step. There are artificial catalysator molecules that manage to store 2 electrons, but not yet 3-4 :/ The researcher i had the pleasure to talk to also said, he wouldn't bet on any robust industrial application within the next 30 years, there's simply too much to research yet. btw. he was from the
Swedish Consortium for Artificial Photosynthesis
They are also thinking about simply using engineered bacteria, but they would more along the 1-5% efficiency range

OTOH IF we manage to master this process, we'll literally never have energy problems again, as the sun could easily power a house with some 15m2 of photosyntesis panels on the rooftop

this is a much more enviromental friendly methode for your problem.

"[1] In case any techies want to see some code, here is the program for the voting counting program, written by Asheesh: http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/ad/voting_thing.tar
Here is Jan's code (if you want to run it and have some trouble, let me know and I will help you with it) http://user.it.uu.se/~jan/test/straw.tar"

I love the name.

There is HiPE, which compiles Erlang to native code. And you can HiPE compile modules together with normal BEAM (interpreted code), with function granularity. And then reload the modules using BEAM and/or HiPE, again and again.

But the reason for commenting your comment was the x86_64 part. HiPE has had x86_64 support for three years now. And its creation made me learn to write the x86_64 machine language in hex...

Note: I did the x86_64 backend as part of my Master's thesis.
One relevant paper: http://www.update.uu.se/~luna/papers/ppdp05.pdf

Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of twilight model experts and the crowd of diluted citizens that believe the numbers predicted by their models. Of course they say I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak.

Do I detect the smell of burning martyr? Let me guess, another one who takes scientific scrutiny of his claims as attempts at censorship.

It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds.

Lie, some countries have kept records of climate ever since the invention of the meteorological instruments in the 17th century, today we have over 7000 stations that measure land temperatures, we also use satellites to measure sea levels, water and troposphere temperatures.

Based on my experience, the primary reason why we still don't have a stable Hurd at this point is infighting. There are several camps of people within the Hurd development "team", some of them so far separated they refuse to even be in the same IRC channel as eachother. This infighting has a few different causes, the main one being with people's impatience with eachother's ideas. Another cause is, more or less, grandstanding. Also, the fact, that some people want to port Hurd over to L4 or Coyotos while others want to stay with Mach doesn't help, either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Hurd#Choice_of_mi crokernel

RMS has little to do with any of it.

OTOH, there is a pretty high-priority movement to get GNU(/Hurd) packaged and officially released, which, based on what I last saw, has the support of everyone mentioned above: http://gnu.org/s/packaging & http://www.update.uu.se/~ams/home/todo

As I see it there are several approaches to take:

• Use the metric system as the primary system throughout school all the way from first grade to university. The older measurements - well kids you can look them up in a conversion table!
• Require all new vehicle models to use metric dimensions instead of the legacy measurements.
• Let the weight indication "ton" always represent 1000kg and nothing else.
• Require that all measurement shall be presented in metric values in addition to the imperial in an equal font and size.
• Replace all yard measurements with meters as soon as possible - they are at least close to each other in size and only adds to confusion.
• All temperature measurements in the weather reports shall be done in both Celsius and Fahrenheit.
• All thermometers sold shall have a Celsius scale. Digital thermometers shall default to Celsius and the user has to manually change to Fahrenheit if needed.
• Pressures should be given in Bar (atmospheres) not PSI.
• Sell gasoline per liter instead of gallon. A British is 4,54609 liter and an American is 3,78541 liter and people tends to confuse them all the time...
• Use the metric measurements for weight and abandon the confusion about grains, pounds, ounces and stones. (Pounds and ounces also comes in a variant called troy pound and troy ounces which makes things even worse...)

Trivia:

1. A Swedish mile according to the rules of 1665 was 10688.54 meters.
2. A Swedish mile after 1889 is 10000 meters. (not much difference from earlier. (Most swedes use the mile distance today meaning 10km, sometimes to amuse or confuse the people that thinks the British distance.)
3. Anders Celsius (English) used originally a reversed scale with 100 (positive value) representing the freezing point of water and zero for the boiling point. Later this was reversed to use the scale we know today.
4. An inch as we know it is 25.4 mm except for the US survey inch that is 25.40005 mm. Other countries have had inches too with other sizes.

And don't forget - standardization of measurements in our international world will decrease the risk of being ripped off.

From what I have seen, the metric is a standard in the US too, but it's just filed as an amendment to the other standards and not replacing anything.

As I see it there are several approaches to take:

• Use the metric system as the primary system throughout school all the way from first grade to university. The older measurements - well kids you can look them up in a conversion table!
• Require all new vehicle models to use metric dimensions instead of the legacy measurements.
• Let the weight indication "ton" always represent 1000kg and nothing else.
• Require that all measurement shall be presented in metric values in addition to the imperial in an equal font and size.
• Replace all yard measurements with meters as soon as possible - they are at least close to each other in size and only adds to confusion.
• All temperature measurements in the weather reports shall be done in both Celsius and Fahrenheit.
• All thermometers sold shall have a Celsius scale. Digital thermometers shall default to Celsius and the user has to manually change to Fahrenheit if needed.
• Pressures should be given in Bar (atmospheres) not PSI.
• Sell gasoline per liter instead of gallon. A British is 4,54609 liter and an American is 3,78541 liter and people tends to confuse them all the time...
• Use the metric measurements for weight and abandon the confusion about grains, pounds, ounces and stones. (Pounds and ounces also comes in a variant called troy pound and troy ounces which makes things even worse...)

Trivia:

1. A Swedish mile according to the rules of 1665 was 10688.54 meters.
2. A Swedish mile after 1889 is 10000 meters. (not much difference from earlier. (Most swedes use the mile distance today meaning 10km, sometimes to amuse or confuse the people that thinks the British distance.)
3. Anders Celsius (English) used originally a reversed scale with 100 (positive value) representing the freezing point of water and zero for the boiling point. Later this was reversed to use the scale we know today.
4. An inch as we know it is 25.4 mm except for the US survey inch that is 25.40005 mm. Other countries have had inches too with other sizes.

And don't forget - standardization of measurements in our international world will decrease the risk of being ripped off.

From what I have seen, the metric is a standard in the US too, but it's just filed as an amendment to the other standards and not replacing anything.

The other factor you're not addressing, is the simple correlation between progressive taxes on the high end and quality of living, especially violent crime. You seem fond of bringing up small, anecdotal cases. Do explain to me Sweden, with high gun ownership rates and low wealth disparity managed not by an estate tax now, but by a direct, flat tax on total wealth every year. Why is it that they have one of the lowest rates of violent crime and one of the best standards of living? Note, their unemployment rate is about the same as the US.

Ahhh, does little baby want to pack up his toys and go home? Regardless of whether or not you'll respond to me (and risk getting destroyed, again), here is some more information for your edification.

Who knows, maybe you'll think twice before blindly spouting off the miracle that is Sweden...

An absolute comparison of income

Sweden's poorest 10% actually does slightly worse than their counterpart in the US in real dollar terms (PPP adjusted) even after taxes and most subsidies are taken into account. What's more, virtually every economic group above it, especially at the median and above, does significantly better.

If you're unconvinced that absolute measures of poverty "matter"..

Read Page 22

See page 17

Evidence of Sweden's declining economic status. The average Swede has lost purchasing power over the past 20 years and this effect is particularly evident when compared against the rest of Europe. They've slipped from #4 to #18 from 1970 to 1998 (an absolute loss of 17 points vs the OED average of 100).

Swedish Egalitarianism between 1903 and 2004


Evidence that Sweden had much less economic disparity before their welfare state was created due to collapse of capital markets (as opposed to the "because" that you want to believe) and that they've, in fact, followed similar economic trends.

Economist overview of Swedish economy and growing discontent amongst Swedes

A balanced article in the Economist about some not so well known facts about the Swedish economy. For instance, although they report 6% unemployment officially, they have a ton of people that actually long-term unemployed and living off the system (e.g., long term sick leave). Reliable estimates put their true unemployment closer to 15-17%. What's more, 30% of the country works for the government.

They also point out that Sweden has created virtually no new net jobs in private industry since 1950.

Only 1 of Sweden's 50 largest companies was founded after 1970. Entrepreneurship (and even self-employment) are much lower in Sweden than most of the US and even Europe.

Sweden's problem with entrepreneurship

An article discussing some of the problems and statisics relating to Swedish entrepreneu

I'll also be referencing the sample ballot at http://user.it.uu.se/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/jan/ballot.py in this response.

For example,the bar code to human text is validated in four ways.

This makes the assumption that the human text and barcode match. What would be the response when presented with a ballot where the barcode and text did not match? Simply presuming that it wll never happen is short-sighted. If such a system is truly open source, it would be trivial to produce something which looks like a real ballot but contains such an arbitrary flaw. We could, as a counter, require an out-of-context check (special paper, special ink, etc) at increased complexity and cost....

Second, any voter can swipe the bar code on an independent stand-alone machine for playback before casting the vote.

We can presume most people would not carry a barcode reader to the voting booth with them, which would represent an opportunity for exploitation, but let's presume they did. Reading-back the barcode presumably only gives me the number. 5124512451245124512451245124512451245124 But the vote I cast was not for a number, it was for a person. How am I (Joe Average Voter) supposed to make the translation between the selection of candidates I voted for and the encoded representation in the number. Unless I can perform such a decoding in my head, I have to trust that the system has not been compromised.

Now, I could program my own barcode reader to also decode the number back into a ballot, but now we've introduced complexity and with it, opportunity for exploit. How would a truly honest election official handle the situation where a voter presents a ballot which reads (text) for Candidate A, and scans (on the precinct-supplied verifier) for Candidate A but scans (of the voter-provided verifier) for Candidate B? We could presume that the voter-supplied equipment is faulty, but a corrupt election official who had tampered with the precinct-supplied scanner would surely say the same thing, and probably have an accomplice with his own compromised scanner on hand for back-up.

It's also not clear from the provided documentation if the information within the barcode represents only the information on the ballot, or if other unaccounted-for information is also included. Either possibility could be leveraged into an exploit by itself.

Third, Since the voter does not have to cast the ballot they can leave the poll with the completed but not cast ballot.

There's a minor DOS (Denial Of Service) exploit waiting to happen.

Any third party outside the poll can swipe the barcode and vaidate...

...or invalidate...

...it for the voter.

Fourth, at the end of the day the every single bar code is swiped by a human. The humans can also see the plain text of the ballot they are swiping. Thus they can validate as many ballots as they choose to.

This ignores human nature. Most people given the opportunity to use either the 'stare and compare, stack and add' count or the machine count will choose the machine count. Having the paper ballots as a backup only helps if the paper ballot is considered authoritative. And if you're planning to have the paper ballot be authoratitive, have any other count available only introduces the possibility of controversy, for the price of increased complexity.

Visit their mock-up at http://user.it.uu.se/%7ejan/voting-project/ballot2 .html and the result of your balloting as I walk you through the vulnerabilities.

1. Why the barcode?The voter intent is rendered in two seperate versions: the Native Language version (President ---> George Washington) and the barcode version. This raises the question: which one is authoritative? If a ballot should turn-up which lists the voter intent inconsistently, that ballot becomes invalid, as does the sanity of the machine and every vote cast upon it. Additionally, who knows what other information is contained in that barcode? We could argue that if the barcode says something different than the printed words, it would be exposed when read-back by the scanning-station, unless that machine has been compromised as well.
2. Why the survelliance? Does anyone else think it a bad idea to have anything reading the ballots before the election closes? We already get enough complaints about exit polls and pundits 'calling' the election before the polls close, so why do we go out of the way to allow machines to see how we're voting before we've even cast the ballot?

• Forget the barcode. Print the voter intent in "plain english" and let the computers key-off of that for counting. Computerized OCR can be as accurate as barcode reading if the printing conditions are controlled and the computer knows what it's looking for. If we agree beforehand on standardized meanings for each possible voter intent across several languages and representations (including braille) then there's no need to 'translate it back'.
• Forget the 'second box'. There should only be one way to 'cast a vote'; the 'device' accumulating the counts should be openly observable, analog (only idiots expect infallible analog behavior out of digital devices), and singular. If you create a situation where there are two (or more) places where the count is being kept, you create a situation where one of the counts is going to be ignored.

And, best of all, the solution (pen and paper, boxes and X's) has already been developed. There's no need to raise $1.5 Million to fund the development of this solution, or spend my nights in the run-up to the election going over the source code looking for vulnerabilities when I should be considering real issues.

What about TIDE???

This is already done to some extent; tidal power has the advantage (over wind and solar) of being reliable and predictable, although it is not constant in any given location.

naturally occuring currents example: gulf stream...

Some research is being done here; one potential issue is that the Gulf Stream is theoretically in danger of shutting down altogether due to global warming. Tapping its current may only hasten this, even if it reduces environmentally-unfriendly power generation elsewhere... It is food for thought, definitely.

If you're using Windows, download and install PDFCreator. It'll let you print as PDF from any application ala Acrobat, but free. If you're talking about a scriptable way of doing this, use html2ps and then run ps2pdf from the ghostscript package.

I hadn't done this search for a while but just now I re-did it and discovered that the Mercury compiler now has XSB-style tabling. This is an important advance for practical logic programming.

It doesn't form part of his evolutionary work per se but he _did_ write about this. In his autobiography, he mentions things which are included in an excerpt. He began as an orthodox christian but was agnostic by the end. I still don't feel he had an agenda about it and can find no evidence of such a thing but only he really knew for sure.

Your comment would be funny if so many didn't believe it to be true.

Currently, it seems that GeoCities and S-Tracking don't detect Opera when it identifies as IE, so we can start complaining to them right now.

Wrong

and adding (compatible, mybrowsername) doesn't make it any better.

Of course, I'm being sarcastic here. Opera and Opera users may not think they're being counted properly, but according to this page most of the website statistics services already count them correctly, spoofed or not.

There are a few stats services that can mistake Opera for IE, but not many. I doubt this move will help Opera's stats much. Even taking into account under-reporting of Opera, Chuck Upsdell estimates Opera usgae at about 1-2%.

It fails the Acid2 Test pretty spectacularly - but then what doesn't!

Can anyone tell if IE 7 does any better than IE 6 at all? Then renderings look nearly identical to me. So much for improved standards support in IE 7, as if anyone thought that would actually happen

If you are a 3D gamer, you must try the controller at least once. You might never go back to keyboard and mouse!

I've included the top links for info on its drivers, use, and interface.

Wouldn't Amaya (W3C's browser) be compliant? Granted, it sucks horribly, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't totally compliant.

Then suprise is your meal of the day. Amaya not only failed the acid2 test, but actually did much worse than even Firefox. Here's a screenshot for your amusement.

OK, then. If Opera is so customizable, could someone please tell me exactly what to do to get my Opera 8 to look like this (a mockup). I have tried a lot of things, but Opera doesn't seem to want to cooperate.

BP brings Thunder Horse online this year, the biggest off-shore field ever. Atlantis comes online next year, which is also quite large. BP has expensive options to drill in offshore areas that the technology to reach won't exist for at least 10 years. Shell and Exxon have placed similar bets.

I take it you refer to the blue spike here...

Take a look at the gap between discovery and consumption here

Well, it follows them more closely than IE at least, but it failed the Acid2 test.

Hell, while we're wishing on stars, maybe they'll make it even MORE standards compliant.

http://home.student.uu.se/dana3949/temp/acid2/ie.p ng is what I look like after using IE too. ;)

you took way too much acid, dude.

Actually, it sucks big time. Here's a screenshot: Amaya having a go with some Acid

Well, but that's a bit different of what we are discussing here. They used a small molecule from a company from which they (say they) don't have the chemical structure: "The crystal structure was solved by molecular replacement and refined to 2.9 Å using the Tsmall beta, GreekR-I model taken from the FKBP12 complex (Table 1). It is not possible to build a detailed molecular model for the inhibitor at the resolution of the analysis without knowledge of its precise chemical structure, which is proprietary to Scios, Inc." The PROTEIN structure itself was deposited in 2001, when the paper was published. Obtaining the structure of the small molecule could have been done by you if you wanted and managed to do it, simply using it to crystalize anything else suitable and get the x-ray data. Kind of interesting to do without the chemical data but doable I guess... (with the help of other techniques) Btw, I wasn't able to find the raw data. Now, I honestly don't know if authors are forced to disclosure this data but I think they should. From all of this, I find that your given example is not appropriate. You found 211 on hold but many will not probably be ever published. I fail to see your point. No relevant protein structure published in a high-impact journal is not disclosured nowadays. At the end of the day, I think we both want full data disclosure. I just wanted to point out that nowadays, almost everything is correctly available. I'm not saying everyone plays the game honestly though. BA

You want LUNAR. It's especially cool because it uses an underlay network called selnet (ARP forwarding instead of straight-up IP routing). Also, there are a bunch of normal layer 3 ad-hoc multihop protocols designed especially for highly dynamic/mobile nets that you can install for free (I can verify that they work on 2.4 kernels, anyway):

NIST AODV
unik OLSR
US NAVY labs OLSR
CLICK modular router (contains a DSDV and DSR implementation, provides a framwork for rapid prototyping of stack behaviors)

These all might be nice for a smallish office as a way to extend and enhance the probable coverage area of the network without getting more APs.

(collect list ((list x y))
(in x '(1 2 3 4 5))
(in y '(1 2 3 4 5))
(when (< x y)))

((1 2) (1 3) (1 4) (1 5) (2 3) (2 4) (2 5) (3 4) (3 5) (4 5))

Ha! If you think those are offensive, check out this: BushClippy or this Statergey

I found this yesterday when I was looking for election simulators. I think the UI works nicely. (The website says it only works in firefox)

http://home.student.uu.se/nidi9661/condorcet/condo rcet.html

MIMO Systems == Multiple Input Multiple Output Systems

http://www.signal.uu.se/Research/rdiversity.html

In related news, rescue rodents to join the effort. Unfortunately there's a risk of infecting found victims with rabies.

Declarative, Interfaces. NOW