Keep adding features like that and it will slow down load time. From time to time I open Firefox, get bored waiting for it to start, open Chrome, do the job I wanted to, close Chrome, switch back to Firefox and wait for it to finish opening so I can close it again.
Compared to the thread on that bug, even the Firefox UI team's hostility to its userbase is but a pale imitation of Chrome.
But at least now we know where the Fx developers got the idea.
Really? I wasn't aware of the debate, and would have the tabs to go underneath the location bar. I would have dissented if I'd knows such a move was being discussed. That bit of the Chrome interface is just fine for me. In other words, they're not ignoring their userbase, they're ignoring a small but vocal subset of their userbase who have reported a valid design decision as a bug. The position of the tabs is not a bug, FFS. The bug report complains that "For myself I use a program called Stickies at work that is basically just sticky notes on the screen with reminders of what I need to
be working on. I generally keep these at the top of the screen because they are out of the way of any applications I have running. I am unable to
switch between tabs with Chrome when it is maximized as I cannot see the tabs because they are above everything else." Well, sorry, but that's not a problem with Chrome, it's a problem with the way he's using Stickies, and if the tabs were underneath the location bar then he wouldn't be able to enter URLs. If he had a clue he'd just adjust the size of Chrome so the tabs were visible.
Clearly the free games with microtransactions are adaptive. People didn't realise what they were asking for, but yes, they asked for it and are rewarding it.
Uum, isn't the resolution that GPS can give you ridiculously low for doing physics experiments, even with access to the military-quality signal?
The civilian specification is that absolute time accuracy is +/- 100ns (95% if I recall correctly) although the system routinely achieves +/- 10ns accuracy (not least because the 100ns specification was set when only L1 was available to civilians so GPS on its own couldn't be corrected for ionospheric effects). What's more, for these experiments it's not the absolute time that matters, it's drift over a very short time that matters. In other words, standard GPS is more than good enough for the CERN experiment (and working in a known fixed location it's fairly straightforward to improve on it still further).
Maybe its because GPS understands relativity well enough to get planes to the correct runway...
GPS understands relativity well enough to require General Relativistic corrections. This paper suggests that the GPS clock is inaccurate and suffers a lag based on location which, since GPS requires accurate timing to pinpoint your location a 64ns time difference would put you 20m off your correct location. In addition the author uses a very simplistic model of GPS clock and satellite for getting the clock. I would also have assumed that the GPS clock is based on multiple satellites since it has to know your location to calculate the propagation delay and it does this by comparing one satellite clock to another.
However the final nail in the coffin is that he doesn't know how to spell photon (it is not spelt foton!)...so I have extreme doubts that this is paper is correct. In fact I'd need to hear from a GPS expert that his simplistic model is reasonable because I don't believe that it is (but then I'm not a GPS expert!).
I'm not an expert either although I have worked on GPS aircraft navigation and augmentation systems. You are right that the GPS clock is based on multiple satellites. A GPS fix needs a minimum of four satellites, and the receiver triangulates position in 4-dimensions: the three spatial dimensions and time (four unknowns, four data points). What's more, those 4 will not be in the same plane (the satellites themselves form 6 orbital planes), so the bit in the article about "The orbits of these satellites are at 20.2 106 m from the earth’s surface in a fixed planes inclined 55 from the equator with an orbital period of 11 h 58 min [3]. This implies that they fly predominantly West to East when they are in view of CERN and Gran Sasso, which is roughly parallel to the line CERN-Gran Sasso" looks to me like a fundamental misunderstanding of the satellite orbits. The satellites on which a time fix is based will not all be travelling in the same direction. It is possible to use other position information as data points, and so reduce the number of satellites needed for a fix, but I'm not sure why anybody would do that when they can improve accuracy by using all visible satellites (and anyway, even if they did use a single satellite plus accurately known spatial position, the author of the paper still wouldn't know which orbital plane the satellite used was, and so wouldn't know the direction of movement).
And that employee only thinks it sucks because the API isn't capable enough to let Zynga put Farmville on it -- which a lot of G+ users think is actually a strength.
I didn't realise that the US was in the habit of copying Chinese semiconductors. Maybe you don't understand the word "to", maybe US innovation is in a worse state than I thought.
I would hope being on a bike they can run off a dynamo.
So the brakes go off if the bike slows down? Or maybe they fail on (no, I've not read the article) -- in which case you can't release the brakes unless the dynamo is running, and the dynamo won't be running unless you release the brakes.
Unless shopkeeper #1 gossiped with his suppliers who passed the news from town to town. If he didn't it will take a week or so for the new shopkeeper to learn it, depending on how quickly you get through the honey.
It's not really your "privacy" though. You sacrificed that the moment you got a mobile phone
Actually, you sacrificed it as soon as you showed your face. In a small community where everybody knew everybody else a storekeeper could already see who was coming into their store, who bought what and who walked past and when. As communities got larger and more anonymous that was temporarily lost, but now with technology like this (and it probably won't be long until they are doing it with CCTV and face recognition) it's coming back.
You do realise that the availability of attractive partners of the same species declines rather sharply when one reaches middle age, don't you? Whereas (in men, at least) the sex drive tends not to.
Most of the crimes mentioned looked like petty crime, but I wonder what definition the author was using when he insisted that a €10M fraud was still petty crime -- and I wonder where those €10M went.
Some scientists seem to be saying something along those lines. But separating the how and the why doesn't necessarily do that. In popular usage "why" has multiple meanings. When scientists exclude "why" explanations they're just using one of those popular meanings; they're actually excluding teleological explanations, but most folks are happier with words like "why" than with words like "teleological".
I'm not sure what that idea was. Herb Sutter says that before C "There was no such thing as a general-purpose program that was both portable across a variety of hardware and also efficient enough to compete with custom code written for just that hardware. Fortran did okay for array-oriented number-crunching code, but nobody could do it for general-purpose code such as what you’d use to build just about anything down to, oh, say, an operating system.", but that ignores both B (which admittedly Dennis Richie worked on, but was mainly Ken Thompson's work) and BCPL which was Martin Richards' baby. They were both general purpose languages suitable for building operating systems (and B was used for early versions of Unix).
That's not to diminish Ritchie's contribution, any more than that of anybody else who saw further by "standing on the shoulders of giants", but it's important to keep it in perspective.
The point is that people do discriminate on a set of physical and social characteristics that they constrict as "race", which means that race exists.
Except neither those characteristics can be defined, nor the maliciousness proved. Which makes it arbitrary, and therefore rather useless. Except that there are laws for it, which makes it scary. Because arbitrary laws are scary.
You seem to have a naive view of definition. I take it you are aware of the sorites fallacy (aka the paradox of the beard) which shows that it's impossible (or arbitrary) to define whether somebody has a beard or not? But it's ridiculous to tell somebody that they can't say Richard Stallman has a beard because the concept isn't well enough defined.
Oh, and when my wife's manager put in writing that he only wanted white men on his team (in protest at my wife being allocated to his team -- she's not white, and not a man) it turned out to be quite possible to prove racism as well as sexism. By the way, do you think that the existence of intersex persons invalidates the use of the term "sexism" too?
Yes, much better to break the promises they made to the voters rather than those they made to their coalition 'partners'.
The choice is to fail to deliver on all of their promises (by not going into coalition) or fail to deliver on just some of them (by going into coalition). I know which I think is better (and yes, more honourable). If the voters had elected them to government then they might have been able to keep all of their promises, but the voters didn't give them that option. As somebody else has pointed out, they have managed to get over 60% of their policies into government policy with only 9% of the seats, which is a pretty spectacular performance. But you are moaning that you are not represented because it's not 100%? Oh, please...
"Perhaps you missed the rest of my posting, the bit about social constructs being real?"
You're right. I missed that. But then, that would be your *only* point (because your biology points don't stick very well).
Well, I've got to say, it *is* a point. But my question with regards to this point is always: what consequences does the 'race as a social construct' carry ? Wherein lies what we accept ? I mean, it used to be that you couldn't say or do nasty things about or to people who weren't 'white'. But you can't make laws like that anymore - there's all these people producing all these children that are of questionable origin after all - we don't control the breeding anymore ! So, we have to be more clear, dare I say it - more *scientific* about it.
Well darn - there is no scientifically acceptable definition of 'race' !
I mean, if 'race' is a social construct, can I then 'black' on mondays only and white on the others ? It works for religion. And are redheads a race ? Is Obama white ? And if not, why not ? And if it is not about self-identification, but only about the identification of others, is it bad if I call someone who identifies as black, white ? And if it is about treatment of other people based on 'racial characteristics', then what are they ? Colour ? Size of nose ? Is there a chart for that ?
How ridiculous would it be if there were a chart for that ?
The point is that people do discriminate on a set of physical and social characteristics that they constrict as "race", which means that race exists. The fact that it is hard to define the boundaries is irrelevant -- that's a form of the sorites fallacy.
But there's no reason those parties should always vote together on every question in the parliament. In fact they should often, even usually, vote differently. If they always agreed, why remain separate parties? Likewise, they should often introduce legislation against the position of other coalition members, if they want to get what they want.
Partly true. But they negotiated a joint position on most matters before they entered coalition, so although they disagree the horse-trading is already done. The Tories will grit their teeth and vote for a policy they hate because the LibDems have agreed to grit their teeth and vote for a policy they hate in exchange. So they vote against each other far less than their ideologies would suggest, not because they've abandoned their ideologies but because that's what being in coalition means.
And then at the deciding, decisive moment, the liberal party decided to throw in with the capital-c Conservatives without consulting its voters or setting out any ground-rules. Great job, guys! I really feel represented!
No, I'm not bitter.
Because Labour refused to enter a coalition with them, and the numbers wouldn't have added up anyway. And where do you get the idea that they didn't set down any ground rules? There's a formal coalition agreement setting down the ground rules.
Yes, we have a constitution in the UK, but where do you find a provision on privacy that would be relevant in this case? For example, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights forms part of our constitution, but that only says "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation" (my emphasis). The government argues that this is not "arbitrary".
Slashdot Mirror
Keep adding features like that and it will slow down load time. From time to time I open Firefox, get bored waiting for it to start, open Chrome, do the job I wanted to, close Chrome, switch back to Firefox and wait for it to finish opening so I can close it again.
Real programmers enter the program using a line of toggle-switches on the front panel.
Compared to the thread on that bug, even the Firefox UI team's hostility to its userbase is but a pale imitation of Chrome.
But at least now we know where the Fx developers got the idea.
Really? I wasn't aware of the debate, and would have the tabs to go underneath the location bar. I would have dissented if I'd knows such a move was being discussed. That bit of the Chrome interface is just fine for me. In other words, they're not ignoring their userbase, they're ignoring a small but vocal subset of their userbase who have reported a valid design decision as a bug. The position of the tabs is not a bug, FFS. The bug report complains that "For myself I use a program called Stickies at work that is basically just sticky notes on the screen with reminders of what I need to be working on. I generally keep these at the top of the screen because they are out of the way of any applications I have running. I am unable to switch between tabs with Chrome when it is maximized as I cannot see the tabs because they are above everything else." Well, sorry, but that's not a problem with Chrome, it's a problem with the way he's using Stickies, and if the tabs were underneath the location bar then he wouldn't be able to enter URLs. If he had a clue he'd just adjust the size of Chrome so the tabs were visible.
Clearly the free games with microtransactions are adaptive. People didn't realise what they were asking for, but yes, they asked for it and are rewarding it.
Uum, isn't the resolution that GPS can give you ridiculously low for doing physics experiments, even with access to the military-quality signal?
The civilian specification is that absolute time accuracy is +/- 100ns (95% if I recall correctly) although the system routinely achieves +/- 10ns accuracy (not least because the 100ns specification was set when only L1 was available to civilians so GPS on its own couldn't be corrected for ionospheric effects). What's more, for these experiments it's not the absolute time that matters, it's drift over a very short time that matters. In other words, standard GPS is more than good enough for the CERN experiment (and working in a known fixed location it's fairly straightforward to improve on it still further).
Maybe its because GPS understands relativity well enough to get planes to the correct runway...
GPS understands relativity well enough to require General Relativistic corrections. This paper suggests that the GPS clock is inaccurate and suffers a lag based on location which, since GPS requires accurate timing to pinpoint your location a 64ns time difference would put you 20m off your correct location. In addition the author uses a very simplistic model of GPS clock and satellite for getting the clock. I would also have assumed that the GPS clock is based on multiple satellites since it has to know your location to calculate the propagation delay and it does this by comparing one satellite clock to another. However the final nail in the coffin is that he doesn't know how to spell photon (it is not spelt foton!)...so I have extreme doubts that this is paper is correct. In fact I'd need to hear from a GPS expert that his simplistic model is reasonable because I don't believe that it is (but then I'm not a GPS expert!).
I'm not an expert either although I have worked on GPS aircraft navigation and augmentation systems. You are right that the GPS clock is based on multiple satellites. A GPS fix needs a minimum of four satellites, and the receiver triangulates position in 4-dimensions: the three spatial dimensions and time (four unknowns, four data points). What's more, those 4 will not be in the same plane (the satellites themselves form 6 orbital planes), so the bit in the article about "The orbits of these satellites are at 20.2 106 m from the earth’s surface in a fixed planes inclined 55 from the equator with an orbital period of 11 h 58 min [3]. This implies that they fly predominantly West to East when they are in view of CERN and Gran Sasso, which is roughly parallel to the line CERN-Gran Sasso" looks to me like a fundamental misunderstanding of the satellite orbits. The satellites on which a time fix is based will not all be travelling in the same direction. It is possible to use other position information as data points, and so reduce the number of satellites needed for a fix, but I'm not sure why anybody would do that when they can improve accuracy by using all visible satellites (and anyway, even if they did use a single satellite plus accurately known spatial position, the author of the paper still wouldn't know which orbital plane the satellite used was, and so wouldn't know the direction of movement).
And that employee only thinks it sucks because the API isn't capable enough to let Zynga put Farmville on it -- which a lot of G+ users think is actually a strength.
I didn't realise that the US was in the habit of copying Chinese semiconductors. Maybe you don't understand the word "to", maybe US innovation is in a worse state than I thought.
Actually, in this context, "breaks" might be right.
I would hope being on a bike they can run off a dynamo.
So the brakes go off if the bike slows down? Or maybe they fail on (no, I've not read the article) -- in which case you can't release the brakes unless the dynamo is running, and the dynamo won't be running unless you release the brakes.
Unless shopkeeper #1 gossiped with his suppliers who passed the news from town to town. If he didn't it will take a week or so for the new shopkeeper to learn it, depending on how quickly you get through the honey.
It's not really your "privacy" though. You sacrificed that the moment you got a mobile phone
Actually, you sacrificed it as soon as you showed your face. In a small community where everybody knew everybody else a storekeeper could already see who was coming into their store, who bought what and who walked past and when. As communities got larger and more anonymous that was temporarily lost, but now with technology like this (and it probably won't be long until they are doing it with CCTV and face recognition) it's coming back.
You do realise that the availability of attractive partners of the same species declines rather sharply when one reaches middle age, don't you? Whereas (in men, at least) the sex drive tends not to.
Most of the crimes mentioned looked like petty crime, but I wonder what definition the author was using when he insisted that a €10M fraud was still petty crime -- and I wonder where those €10M went.
Yes, I just saw it on BBC news. Kudos to them, for all their faults they do get quite a lot right.
I thought it was because one ran Linux and the other ran MS Windows.
Some scientists seem to be saying something along those lines. But separating the how and the why doesn't necessarily do that. In popular usage "why" has multiple meanings. When scientists exclude "why" explanations they're just using one of those popular meanings; they're actually excluding teleological explanations, but most folks are happier with words like "why" than with words like "teleological".
I'm not sure what that idea was. Herb Sutter says that before C "There was no such thing as a general-purpose program that was both portable across a variety of hardware and also efficient enough to compete with custom code written for just that hardware. Fortran did okay for array-oriented number-crunching code, but nobody could do it for general-purpose code such as what you’d use to build just about anything down to, oh, say, an operating system.", but that ignores both B (which admittedly Dennis Richie worked on, but was mainly Ken Thompson's work) and BCPL which was Martin Richards' baby. They were both general purpose languages suitable for building operating systems (and B was used for early versions of Unix).
That's not to diminish Ritchie's contribution, any more than that of anybody else who saw further by "standing on the shoulders of giants", but it's important to keep it in perspective.
The point is that people do discriminate on a set of physical and social characteristics that they constrict as "race", which means that race exists.
Except neither those characteristics can be defined, nor the maliciousness proved. Which makes it arbitrary, and therefore rather useless. Except that there are laws for it, which makes it scary. Because arbitrary laws are scary.
You seem to have a naive view of definition. I take it you are aware of the sorites fallacy (aka the paradox of the beard) which shows that it's impossible (or arbitrary) to define whether somebody has a beard or not? But it's ridiculous to tell somebody that they can't say Richard Stallman has a beard because the concept isn't well enough defined.
Oh, and when my wife's manager put in writing that he only wanted white men on his team (in protest at my wife being allocated to his team -- she's not white, and not a man) it turned out to be quite possible to prove racism as well as sexism. By the way, do you think that the existence of intersex persons invalidates the use of the term "sexism" too?
Yes, much better to break the promises they made to the voters rather than those they made to their coalition 'partners'.
The choice is to fail to deliver on all of their promises (by not going into coalition) or fail to deliver on just some of them (by going into coalition). I know which I think is better (and yes, more honourable). If the voters had elected them to government then they might have been able to keep all of their promises, but the voters didn't give them that option. As somebody else has pointed out, they have managed to get over 60% of their policies into government policy with only 9% of the seats, which is a pretty spectacular performance. But you are moaning that you are not represented because it's not 100%? Oh, please...
"Perhaps you missed the rest of my posting, the bit about social constructs being real?"
You're right. I missed that. But then, that would be your *only* point (because your biology points don't stick very well).
Well, I've got to say, it *is* a point. But my question with regards to this point is always: what consequences does the 'race as a social construct' carry ? Wherein lies what we accept ? I mean, it used to be that you couldn't say or do nasty things about or to people who weren't 'white'. But you can't make laws like that anymore - there's all these people producing all these children that are of questionable origin after all - we don't control the breeding anymore ! So, we have to be more clear, dare I say it - more *scientific* about it.
Well darn - there is no scientifically acceptable definition of 'race' !
I mean, if 'race' is a social construct, can I then 'black' on mondays only and white on the others ? It works for religion. And are redheads a race ? Is Obama white ? And if not, why not ? And if it is not about self-identification, but only about the identification of others, is it bad if I call someone who identifies as black, white ? And if it is about treatment of other people based on 'racial characteristics', then what are they ? Colour ? Size of nose ? Is there a chart for that ?
How ridiculous would it be if there were a chart for that ?
The point is that people do discriminate on a set of physical and social characteristics that they constrict as "race", which means that race exists. The fact that it is hard to define the boundaries is irrelevant -- that's a form of the sorites fallacy.
But there's no reason those parties should always vote together on every question in the parliament. In fact they should often, even usually, vote differently. If they always agreed, why remain separate parties? Likewise, they should often introduce legislation against the position of other coalition members, if they want to get what they want.
Partly true. But they negotiated a joint position on most matters before they entered coalition, so although they disagree the horse-trading is already done. The Tories will grit their teeth and vote for a policy they hate because the LibDems have agreed to grit their teeth and vote for a policy they hate in exchange. So they vote against each other far less than their ideologies would suggest, not because they've abandoned their ideologies but because that's what being in coalition means.
They are only trying to stop the plebs getting at it. They don't need the internet for their porn, they get it delivered in person.
And then at the deciding, decisive moment, the liberal party decided to throw in with the capital-c Conservatives without consulting its voters or setting out any ground-rules. Great job, guys! I really feel represented!
No, I'm not bitter.
Because Labour refused to enter a coalition with them, and the numbers wouldn't have added up anyway. And where do you get the idea that they didn't set down any ground rules? There's a formal coalition agreement setting down the ground rules.
Yes, we have a constitution in the UK, but where do you find a provision on privacy that would be relevant in this case? For example, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights forms part of our constitution, but that only says "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation" (my emphasis). The government argues that this is not "arbitrary".