"Gotcha" questions are not effective at determining problem solving ability. Questions that have more than one means of approach are much more effective. If a question is superficially easy if you know the trick, but impossibly hard without it, then it doesn't offer any benefit to assessing how a person might resolve specification ambiguity, approach the problem's possible pitfalls, and ultimately resolve the issue. Examples of these types of questions include the "detect a loop in a linked list" (tortoise and hare algorithm), "swap two variables without using a third" (XOR or use pointer math), "three light bulbs in a room, three switches outside, you can only enter once" (two on, wait, one off, feel the off bulbs for the warm one).
Slashdot has a time travel machine, as evidenced by the way some posts seem to come from the distant past to reappear in the present. So let's use that and ask the people in 2014 what the elected candidate did to determine if it's worth having them.
Which is bogus, because at least here at Microsoft, those brain teaser questions haven't been used in many years, after it was determined they were ineffective and dumb.
"Because the Ribbon consolidates the UI into one space, it pushes the document down in the window a bit--giving the illusion of there being less space than there really is."
People are notoriously bad about doing eyeball approximations of size. Our instincts produce results contrary to reality, because we are subjective, not objective observers. It's why you can serve a drink in a tall, skinny glass, and people will assume they are getting more liquid than the same amount served in a short, fat one.
There is no "genuine" versus "stolen". After the thief steals the coins (signs them away to his own hashes), the network would propogate that information and would not allow the original person to sign/sell the coins.
Most likely, Bing is acquiring clickthrough data from textbox input and pairing it with link click followthrough. That is, Bing watches what people type and what links they click after typing it. Did Google ever try other mechanisms to munge results, such as using an internal search page (i.e. one where it uses some proprietary engine to search, say, a forum) and see if Bing started reporting those results? If so, it would indicate that coming from Google had nothing to do with the mechanism of acquisition, and that it was strictly parsing URL or textbox entries combined with link clickthrough. Implying that Bing's response of "we use a lot of vectors" is the same as saying "we steal stuff from Google, so what" is trolltastic at best, and blatantly misleading at worst.
Yes, many people search like that. Rather than making users think like a computer, the search engines are being adapted to understand how humans ask questions. This is a good thing, as it removes a lot of the jargon constructs that have been necessary for so long. By doing so, it allows voice search and similar to work much more fluidly and naturally.
Of course you feel like you have a lot of energy. When you have to pee all the time I'm sure your leg is twitching back and forth like a hyperactive jack russell terrier.
I was putting it in context many could understand. Funny thing is that I was originally going to type "I could go to Germany and practice "mein Deutsch'" but I thought a vacation in the tropics might be more appealing to most.
Then again, this is/., and most here are probably like me - in danger of catching fire in direct sunlight.
Except that there are ways I *could* care less, but they'd involve effort that makes the status quo level of caring best.
For example, I could care less about how the Seahawks were doing, but to do so, I'd have to go on vacation to some place where I'd never inadvertently catch a glimpse of them on TV. Somewhere tropical. That seems like a lot of work to lessen the amount of care I have about a subject, but it's certainly possible to say "I could care less" and mean "this is not even worth the effort that I would have to spend to stop caring as little as I currently do."
Perhaps, but I think it's important to consider the usage ratio. That is, if I drive the second scenario car more than 5x as often as the first, then it makes sense to replace it. Plus, it will likely wear out quicker due to the higher miles. The question being asked seems fundamentally flawed, as it's positing an either/or scenario when a better question would be to focus on the comparison as it relates to actual usage, not as it compares to driving both cars over a fixed distance. That is, it says "either you drive the 10mpg car or the 33mpg car every day for 280 miles per week" versus the more realistic "you commute in the 33mpg car five days a week for 240 miles, and use the 10mpg car twice a week for 40 miles to do some weekend errands."
Theism: deals with belief Gnosticism: deals with knowledge
Agnostic atheist: I do not believe in any gods, but I don't think I can prove all possible gods non existence (most atheists - even Dawkins - fall into this category, because we acknowledge one could define "god" to be meaningless, yet impossible to prove/disprove) Gnostic atheist: I do not believe in any gods, and I think I can prove any god presented as false (few and far between are actually like this)
Gnostic theist: I believe in (a/some) god(s), and can prove his existence (Descartes) Gnostic Atheist: I believe in (a/some) god(s), but don't think I can prove his existence (most believers)
Biggest issue I foresee with ebooks is that, currently, none of them handle math symbols correctly. Imagine trying to read an economics text or calculus text without proper mathematical formatting. If you can't, check out the Nook for an example of how it looks. Fractions, even at the biggest text size, are smaller than 1/8" and almost entirely unreadable. Sigma notation looks like gobbledygook.
Until that is fixed, I don't see any school adopting ebooks, much less a technical one.
Slashdot Mirror
Flu isn't dangerous? News to the CDC
Give the fridge to somebody else, then kill yourself. Then it's not your fridge, and you cannot ever own another fridge because you're dead.
"Gotcha" questions are not effective at determining problem solving ability. Questions that have more than one means of approach are much more effective. If a question is superficially easy if you know the trick, but impossibly hard without it, then it doesn't offer any benefit to assessing how a person might resolve specification ambiguity, approach the problem's possible pitfalls, and ultimately resolve the issue. Examples of these types of questions include the "detect a loop in a linked list" (tortoise and hare algorithm), "swap two variables without using a third" (XOR or use pointer math), "three light bulbs in a room, three switches outside, you can only enter once" (two on, wait, one off, feel the off bulbs for the warm one).
Slashdot has a time travel machine, as evidenced by the way some posts seem to come from the distant past to reappear in the present. So let's use that and ask the people in 2014 what the elected candidate did to determine if it's worth having them.
Which is bogus, because at least here at Microsoft, those brain teaser questions haven't been used in many years, after it was determined they were ineffective and dumb.
The Size of Things
"Because the Ribbon consolidates the UI into one space, it pushes the document down in the window a bit--giving the illusion of there being less space than there really is."
People are notoriously bad about doing eyeball approximations of size. Our instincts produce results contrary to reality, because we are subjective, not objective observers. It's why you can serve a drink in a tall, skinny glass, and people will assume they are getting more liquid than the same amount served in a short, fat one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin#Block-chain_and_confirmations
There is no "genuine" versus "stolen". After the thief steals the coins (signs them away to his own hashes), the network would propogate that information and would not allow the original person to sign/sell the coins.
It truly is "The End Of Days"
Your response, was, I hope, "sorry, we can't make out details that small yet"
Most likely, Bing is acquiring clickthrough data from textbox input and pairing it with link click followthrough. That is, Bing watches what people type and what links they click after typing it. Did Google ever try other mechanisms to munge results, such as using an internal search page (i.e. one where it uses some proprietary engine to search, say, a forum) and see if Bing started reporting those results? If so, it would indicate that coming from Google had nothing to do with the mechanism of acquisition, and that it was strictly parsing URL or textbox entries combined with link clickthrough. Implying that Bing's response of "we use a lot of vectors" is the same as saying "we steal stuff from Google, so what" is trolltastic at best, and blatantly misleading at worst.
That was definitely a problem early on. From what I can tell, they fixed it. E.g. http://www.bing.com/search?q=enumdisplaysettings&form=OSDSRC now properly returns the MSDN doc, when it used to give a lot of garbage from other sites.
Are you thick? The first result on Bing for that very query is http://www.frigidaire.com/waterandairfilters
Yes, many people search like that. Rather than making users think like a computer, the search engines are being adapted to understand how humans ask questions. This is a good thing, as it removes a lot of the jargon constructs that have been necessary for so long. By doing so, it allows voice search and similar to work much more fluidly and naturally.
Of course you feel like you have a lot of energy. When you have to pee all the time I'm sure your leg is twitching back and forth like a hyperactive jack russell terrier.
Yes. For historical examples, check out the New Deal and its Supreme Court history.
Why not get 20 friends and get 50Mbps for 17.50 each month? In other words, convince your neighbors to go in with you...
I was putting it in context many could understand. Funny thing is that I was originally going to type "I could go to Germany and practice "mein Deutsch'" but I thought a vacation in the tropics might be more appealing to most.
Then again, this is /., and most here are probably like me - in danger of catching fire in direct sunlight.
Except that there are ways I *could* care less, but they'd involve effort that makes the status quo level of caring best.
For example, I could care less about how the Seahawks were doing, but to do so, I'd have to go on vacation to some place where I'd never inadvertently catch a glimpse of them on TV. Somewhere tropical. That seems like a lot of work to lessen the amount of care I have about a subject, but it's certainly possible to say "I could care less" and mean "this is not even worth the effort that I would have to spend to stop caring as little as I currently do."
Where's the official statement? A quick search didn't return anything to that effect.
How are you going to use GPS in space?
http://www.infoworld.com/author-bios/galen-gruman?page=1
Not exactly an unbiased source. Apple fanboy all the way.
It's based neither on "creaky old CE" nor "completely new kernel". It's based on Windows CE 6.x+
Perhaps, but I think it's important to consider the usage ratio. That is, if I drive the second scenario car more than 5x as often as the first, then it makes sense to replace it. Plus, it will likely wear out quicker due to the higher miles. The question being asked seems fundamentally flawed, as it's positing an either/or scenario when a better question would be to focus on the comparison as it relates to actual usage, not as it compares to driving both cars over a fixed distance. That is, it says "either you drive the 10mpg car or the 33mpg car every day for 280 miles per week" versus the more realistic "you commute in the 33mpg car five days a week for 240 miles, and use the 10mpg car twice a week for 40 miles to do some weekend errands."
Theism: deals with belief
Gnosticism: deals with knowledge
Agnostic atheist: I do not believe in any gods, but I don't think I can prove all possible gods non existence (most atheists - even Dawkins - fall into this category, because we acknowledge one could define "god" to be meaningless, yet impossible to prove/disprove)
Gnostic atheist: I do not believe in any gods, and I think I can prove any god presented as false
(few and far between are actually like this)
Gnostic theist: I believe in (a/some) god(s), and can prove his existence
(Descartes)
Gnostic Atheist: I believe in (a/some) god(s), but don't think I can prove his existence
(most believers)
So you're saying that people should stock up on Mosin Nagants from their local Big 5 for $100 each after tax?
"High-powered rifles" being universally banned my ass.
Biggest issue I foresee with ebooks is that, currently, none of them handle math symbols correctly. Imagine trying to read an economics text or calculus text without proper mathematical formatting. If you can't, check out the Nook for an example of how it looks. Fractions, even at the biggest text size, are smaller than 1/8" and almost entirely unreadable. Sigma notation looks like gobbledygook.
Until that is fixed, I don't see any school adopting ebooks, much less a technical one.