What are the conflict-of-interest rules for the prof? I'd imagine that the textbook company will be applying any and every legal incentive for the prof to make their book mandatory.
The first lesson is that an object falls into a pond directly. The object splashes directly. The object sinks directly. The sequence out of order is unnatural.
Aha! This koan is a warning against multithreading.
Interestingly, in Heinlein's books there are lifespan-prolonging treatments based on regular blood transfusions. They only became popular once blood was able to be made artificially, though.
If it costs $2000 to do one Right Thing (remove a land mine) and it costs $20 to do another Right Thing (say, cataract surgery to save someone's sight) then economics absolutely has a place in this issue. If you have resources then obviously do both, but if your resources are limited then you apply them to greatest effect.
I never understood this either, and I'd like to know the answer. Given your options are (a) send a human being in to try and carefully remove each mine, risking getting blown up in the process, or (b) just send in some hardened version of this thing, you'd think (b) would be the better option.
Dude, if you put 100 mines on a football pitch and then removed 99 of them, I would not play on that football pitch. And I am not what you'd typically call risk-averse.
The biggest scam that the weight loss industry has ever managed to perpetuate is to redefine the word "diet" from meaning "what you eat, on average" to meaning "a temporary restriction in your usual regime of eating whatever you want."
Also, right now, there's a way more serious anonymity issue. FTFA:
The DarkMarket daemon incorporates a library of commands for peer-to-peer networking known as ZeroMQ, which allows the user’s PC to become a node in a distributed network where every user can communicate directly with every other user.
At the moment, DarkMarket displays only a bare IP address for every user, but the system’s creators say it will eventually show a pseudonym for each one and also allow product searches.
They do mention in the article that this isn't done yet, but this feature - an anonymous buyer being able to reliably, securely reach an anonymous source and transfer real money in exchange for products - seems somewhat central to the whole idea.
Or, perhaps, to acknowledge that it's very hard to do anything useful without side effects.
Exactly. Outside of an ivory tower or some very niche applications, everything we do with computers inherently has side-effects. Trying to pretend otherwise just leads to elaborate castles in the sky.
It depends on the investment required. If you're going to spend $X billion developing a specific product to a single customer's specifications, you're going to want some kind of commitment that that customer is going to buy enough of them to at least pay off your investment.
The title is wrong, full stop. Siphons work because the weight of the fluid in the lower side of the siphon causes the pressure of the fluid at the top end to drop. Atmospheric pressure then pushes the fluid into the top end of the siphon. This is obvious and (as far as I was aware) was what's always been meant by "siphons work due to atmospheric pressure".
Claiming it's "not due to atmospheric pressure" is wrong.
It's not even anti-G+ in particular. It's anti-forced-integration.
Imagine signing up at your local video store automatically signed you up to the social club, and anyone in the video store or in the town hall could see what videos you'd rented and what other social club members you hung out with.
That's all fine if it's just for casual use and you don't care about the account. It's NOT fine if you rely on that account for business communications, or even for your own primary method of personal communication. If they ever DO decide to enforce this clause in the ToS then you have no recourse and stand to lose all of your contacts and communication history.
Even if not currently enforced, this clause effectively renders Google+ unusable for any serious purpose.
Slashdot Mirror
What are the conflict-of-interest rules for the prof? I'd imagine that the textbook company will be applying any and every legal incentive for the prof to make their book mandatory.
I'd classify most of them as curve stitching but I agree, some of them do look like spirograph patterns... man, talk about a blast from the past!
Of course, it only counts if the paper that cites them is published in a magazine with a high impact factor.
Thanks for the link!
1. Those aren't fractals.
I can't think of a single practical application that would have any need to calculate a distance that large to that level of precision.
How about to win a bet? I seem to recall some famous maths or science guy winning a bet as to what the 100 kazillionth digit of Pi was.
The first lesson is that an object falls into a pond directly. The object splashes directly. The object sinks directly. The sequence out of order is unnatural.
Aha! This koan is a warning against multithreading.
Interestingly, in Heinlein's books there are lifespan-prolonging treatments based on regular blood transfusions. They only became popular once blood was able to be made artificially, though.
If it costs $2000 to do one Right Thing (remove a land mine) and it costs $20 to do another Right Thing (say, cataract surgery to save someone's sight) then economics absolutely has a place in this issue. If you have resources then obviously do both, but if your resources are limited then you apply them to greatest effect.
I never understood this either, and I'd like to know the answer. Given your options are (a) send a human being in to try and carefully remove each mine, risking getting blown up in the process, or (b) just send in some hardened version of this thing, you'd think (b) would be the better option.
Dude, if you put 100 mines on a football pitch and then removed 99 of them, I would not play on that football pitch. And I am not what you'd typically call risk-averse.
A curious game.
This, a thousand times this!
The biggest scam that the weight loss industry has ever managed to perpetuate is to redefine the word "diet" from meaning "what you eat, on average" to meaning "a temporary restriction in your usual regime of eating whatever you want."
Purhaps, you could help me by searching google for me and give me good links?
You want me to Google for links?
That's probably how it'll end up. Cryptography software is now drug paraphernalia.
The DarkMarket daemon incorporates a library of commands for peer-to-peer networking known as ZeroMQ, which allows the user’s PC to become a node in a distributed network where every user can communicate directly with every other user.
At the moment, DarkMarket displays only a bare IP address for every user, but the system’s creators say it will eventually show a pseudonym for each one and also allow product searches.
They do mention in the article that this isn't done yet, but this feature - an anonymous buyer being able to reliably, securely reach an anonymous source and transfer real money in exchange for products - seems somewhat central to the whole idea.
ITT: Functional language fanboys get defensive.
us as humans will lose a large chunk of what makes us "human".
Say what now? Our humanity is defined largely by having domesticated food animals?
Or, perhaps, to acknowledge that it's very hard to do anything useful without side effects.
Exactly. Outside of an ivory tower or some very niche applications, everything we do with computers inherently has side-effects. Trying to pretend otherwise just leads to elaborate castles in the sky.
Yeah, it took me a while to figure that one. "OK, my options are 'Log in with my Microsoft Account' and 'Create a Microsoft Account'... what?"
Eventually clicked 'create account' and found the checkbox down the bottom saying "just don't, okay?"
It depends on the investment required. If you're going to spend $X billion developing a specific product to a single customer's specifications, you're going to want some kind of commitment that that customer is going to buy enough of them to at least pay off your investment.
The title is wrong, full stop. Siphons work because the weight of the fluid in the lower side of the siphon causes the pressure of the fluid at the top end to drop. Atmospheric pressure then pushes the fluid into the top end of the siphon. This is obvious and (as far as I was aware) was what's always been meant by "siphons work due to atmospheric pressure".
Claiming it's "not due to atmospheric pressure" is wrong.
It's not even anti-G+ in particular. It's anti-forced-integration.
Imagine signing up at your local video store automatically signed you up to the social club, and anyone in the video store or in the town hall could see what videos you'd rented and what other social club members you hung out with.
That's all fine if it's just for casual use and you don't care about the account. It's NOT fine if you rely on that account for business communications, or even for your own primary method of personal communication. If they ever DO decide to enforce this clause in the ToS then you have no recourse and stand to lose all of your contacts and communication history.
Even if not currently enforced, this clause effectively renders Google+ unusable for any serious purpose.
Oh no, not at all! The beauty of startups is having motivated, talented people willing to work long hours for peanuts!
:P
Oh you mean the beauty of startups for the *employees*...
I'm a senior developer at a 21 year old startup that does C# thick clients over Microsoft SQL back ends.
At a what? Are you at a 21-year-old company or are you at a startup?
Or are you at a 21-year-old company that pretends to be a startup when they say things like "hey guys we're a startup so can you work this weekend?"