Um, no. Obviously, they are paying people to write reviews, and they need so many reviews to be written and can afford so little staff that there's no time to actually watch the movies.
The only truly effective Campaign Finance Reform is to reduce the power of the federal government. As
long as the turnip remains large, and growing larger, every goat on the planet will be fighting for a piece
of it.
What are the alternatives? Local governments instead of a federal one? Great, that would mean not only big corporations get to by political decisions, but small ones, too! Yay!
Or no governments at all? Wowie, then the corps wouldn't even have to buy government, they could do whatever they want anyway! Yippie!
With garbage collection, you sometimes have memory leaks that are harder to find than they would be without GC. Mostly the cases where you have a pointer left somewhere that you're never going to use anyway. Without GC, you free the memory, the pointer becomes dangling, but that's OK because you're not going to use it (and if you do, you get a segfault, which is rather easy to debug). With GC, you have a very hard to detect memory leak. Still, I think the benefits of GC are greater than
the problems.
Plainly said, SNMP fellates asinine phallus. Its capabilities are very limited, the security model is a total joke (unencrypted password) and the information model a total mess.
There are a number of vastly superior management architectures. Unfortunately, none of them are nearly as widely supported by vendors as SNMP is. That is the only reason why anyone would use SNMP.
they just go into work each day and
try to do their job as best as they can.
Exactly. Unfortunately, their job is, at the bottomline, to maximize profit, no matter what. These days, the "no matter what" becomes stressed more and more, since short-term profits that kill the company in the long term (such as fraudulent business practices) still translate into nice gains for the stock owners, who can just sell their shares when the shit hits the fan.
Yeah, there's some assholes, but no more than there are in any
large group.
True, but a few assholes are all it takes. That's exactly the problem: big organizations remove the responsibility for large-scale actions from the majority of people. Five hundred employees are dutifully and and meticulously making sure than all regulations are met and the company's toxic waste all goes into the marked containers, and it takes just two or three to maximize profits by dumping it into the neares river instead of paying for proper disposal.
OK, let's correct this statement: You don't know what you're talking about.
A helluva lot more than you, at any rate.
The Kyoto Treaty was a really BAD treaty.
Sure. For the companies that paid for Dubya's and most of the Senators' election campaigns, that is.
If it's so great, why don't you name all the OTHER countries that have put it into force? Go ahead, I'll wait.
Oh, that's only... well, just about anyone else BUT the US. Who were at least fully willing to comply, until the USA, the biggest polluter of them all, chickened out, halving the treaty's potential benefit even if everybody else complied, which of course made it look like they'd now put themselves at a disadvantage.
What kind of happy pills have you been taking? In the real world, success is achieved more often than not by screwing customers, exploiting employees, bribery, and violating laws whenever you can get away with it. Of course, it's kinda ridiculous to expect the same people who do that to be plagued by a bad conscience and donate their ill-begotten wealth to a good cause...
What's so difficult to understand about that? The argument is basically sound, the question is just how often it is true, i.e. how many people walk to the video store, how many rent a new movie when they bring back the last one, how many combine the trip with shopping, etc.
What's so terrible about it? Some people really want to watch a movie only a few times. Why should they have to pay the full price or go to a rental store every time?
Um, no. "productive" means the price/benefit ratio, not the total output. It's no surprise that military research amounts to a larger total output when the military's budget has always been 10 times or more larger than the public reasearch budget.
OTOH, if the prize is smaller than the cost for a detailed feasability study and less than 1% of the cost of any serious realization attempt, it might as well not exist.
Of course, the Turing test requires the judge to be smart and preferably somewhat knowledgeable in CS in order to recognize simple ELIZA-like "fooling" techniques. The test is passed not when a computer program can be written that tricks easily fooled people int believing it to be human, but when a computer program can be written that displays actual creativity and is able to make coherent statements and inferences about a topic it was not specifically prepared for.
The point of the Turing test is that there is no scientific definition of the meaning of "intelligence"!! Thus, the only way to tell whether something is intelligent or not is by comparing the candidate with what we percieve to be "intelligence" (i.e. a human) and let a human do the judging. Of course, this begs the question: what if we instead get some kind of artifical intelligence that is completely different from human intelligence?
Re:The hardware is the software
on
Arguing A.I.
·
· Score: 1
The question is: can the general purpose computer model a particular task fast enough to be of any use. A turing Machine is just as "general-purpose" than anything mankind can build, yet nobody is using Turing Machine for anything except theoretical considerations.
Common sense should have told you to get those promises as written agreements into your service contract. If something sounds too good to be possible, it usually is.
Because most of them don't have their own backbones and thus have to pay serious money to the backbone providers. And the backbone providers have to pay serious money for their peering agreements and expensive hardware.
What
causes those on the top of the heap to charge what they do? How much more does it actually
cost to transfer X electrons as opposed to XxN electrons?
Close to N times as much, genius. High-capacity routers and fiber connection hardware are million-dollar investments. Contrary to the belief of all the whining "Unlimited high-speed internet access is my god-given right" idiots here, the fiber itself is not the only cost factor, or even the biggest one.
That being said, if the ISPs want to limit bandwidth usage, they of course must say so in their TOS or user contracts. Advertizing "unlimited access" and then being surprised when people use it like that is even more idiotic...
Re:Actually the days and night at the pole
on
The Coldest March
·
· Score: 1
Argh. Please ignore above post, it's based on a miscalculation.
Re:Actually the days and night at the pole
on
The Coldest March
·
· Score: 1
This is not quite correct. The earth's axis tilt is not sufficient to achieve this. The polar day and night are only about 4 months long each.
In fact, you'd have total daylight for several weeks! The polar circle is already the latitude at which there is exactly one day where the sun doesn't go down completely, i.e. it just touches the horizon on midsummer's day. Beyond the polar circle, you get several days or more without a night.
Oh ok, let's make Jini for when you
want to use Jave but need it in this special platform.
That's JNI, not Jini. Jini is a framework for auto-discovery of network services, comparable to a CORBA ORB.
JNI (Java Native Interface) is a standardized interface to allow Java to call procedures written in other languages; doesn't really have to do much with platforms, either.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, no. Obviously, they are paying people to write reviews, and they need so many reviews to be written and can afford so little staff that there's no time to actually watch the movies.
long as the turnip remains large, and growing larger, every goat on the planet will be fighting for a piece
of it.
What are the alternatives? Local governments instead of a federal one? Great, that would mean not only big corporations get to by political decisions, but small ones, too! Yay!
Or no governments at all? Wowie, then the corps wouldn't even have to buy government, they could do whatever they want anyway! Yippie!
MatrixA.add(MatrixB.multiply(MatrixC))
or
MatrixA + (MatrixB * MatrixC)
With garbage collection, you sometimes have memory leaks that are harder to find than they would be without GC. Mostly the cases where you have a pointer left somewhere that you're never going to use anyway. Without GC, you free the memory, the pointer becomes dangling, but that's OK because you're not going to use it (and if you do, you get a segfault, which is rather easy to debug). With GC, you have a very hard to detect memory leak. Still, I think the benefits of GC are greater than
the problems.
There are a number of vastly superior management architectures. Unfortunately, none of them are nearly as widely supported by vendors as SNMP is. That is the only reason why anyone would use SNMP.
try to do their job as best as they can.
Exactly. Unfortunately, their job is, at the bottomline, to maximize profit, no matter what. These days, the "no matter what" becomes stressed more and more, since short-term profits that kill the company in the long term (such as fraudulent business practices) still translate into nice gains for the stock owners, who can just sell their shares when the shit hits the fan.
Yeah, there's some assholes, but no more than there are in any
large group.
True, but a few assholes are all it takes. That's exactly the problem: big organizations remove the responsibility for large-scale actions from the majority of people. Five hundred employees are dutifully and and meticulously making sure than all regulations are met and the company's toxic waste all goes into the marked containers, and it takes just two or three to maximize profits by dumping it into the neares river instead of paying for proper disposal.
A helluva lot more than you, at any rate.
The Kyoto Treaty was a really BAD treaty.
Sure. For the companies that paid for Dubya's and most of the Senators' election campaigns, that is.
If it's so great, why don't you name all the OTHER countries that have put it into force? Go ahead, I'll wait.
Oh, that's only... well, just about anyone else BUT the US. Who were at least fully willing to comply, until the USA, the biggest polluter of them all, chickened out, halving the treaty's potential benefit even if everybody else complied, which of course made it look like they'd now put themselves at a disadvantage.
What kind of happy pills have you been taking? In the real world, success is achieved more often than not by screwing customers, exploiting employees, bribery, and violating laws whenever you can get away with it. Of course, it's kinda ridiculous to expect the same people who do that to be plagued by a bad conscience and donate their ill-begotten wealth to a good cause...
An alternative would be moving to Europe, where this has always been a matter of course.
FlexPlay = 1 trip to the video store
What's so difficult to understand about that? The argument is basically sound, the question is just how often it is true, i.e. how many people walk to the video store, how many rent a new movie when they bring back the last one, how many combine the trip with shopping, etc.
OK, let's correct the statement: Not just Dubya is buyable, so is most of the Senate.
What's so terrible about it? Some people really want to watch a movie only a few times. Why should they have to pay the full price or go to a rental store every time?
There is a third-party iPod driver for Windows in the works. Apple is considering providing their own solution.
Um, no. "productive" means the price/benefit ratio, not the total output. It's no surprise that military research amounts to a larger total output when the military's budget has always been 10 times or more larger than the public reasearch budget.
OTOH, if the prize is smaller than the cost for a detailed feasability study and less than 1% of the cost of any serious realization attempt, it might as well not exist.
You haven't read a newspaper or watched TV since some time before 2001-09-11, have you?
The point of the Turing test is that there is no scientific definition of the meaning of "intelligence"!! Thus, the only way to tell whether something is intelligent or not is by comparing the candidate with what we percieve to be "intelligence" (i.e. a human) and let a human do the judging. Of course, this begs the question: what if we instead get some kind of artifical intelligence that is completely different from human intelligence?
The question is: can the general purpose computer model a particular task fast enough to be of any use. A turing Machine is just as "general-purpose" than anything mankind can build, yet nobody is using Turing Machine for anything except theoretical considerations.
Common sense should have told you to get those promises as written agreements into your service contract. If something sounds too good to be possible, it usually is.
Because most of them don't have their own backbones and thus have to pay serious money to the backbone providers. And the backbone providers have to pay serious money for their peering agreements and expensive hardware.
What
causes those on the top of the heap to charge what they do? How much more does it actually
cost to transfer X electrons as opposed to XxN electrons?
Close to N times as much, genius. High-capacity routers and fiber connection hardware are million-dollar investments. Contrary to the belief of all the whining "Unlimited high-speed internet access is my god-given right" idiots here, the fiber itself is not the only cost factor, or even the biggest one.
That being said, if the ISPs want to limit bandwidth usage, they of course must say so in their TOS or user contracts. Advertizing "unlimited access" and then being surprised when people use it like that is even more idiotic...
Argh. Please ignore above post, it's based on a miscalculation.
This is not quite correct. The earth's axis tilt is not sufficient to achieve this. The polar day and night are only about 4 months long each.
In fact, you'd have total daylight for several weeks! The polar circle is already the latitude at which there is exactly one day where the sun doesn't go down completely, i.e. it just touches the horizon on midsummer's day. Beyond the polar circle, you get several days or more without a night.
want to use Jave but need it in this special platform.
That's JNI, not Jini. Jini is a framework for auto-discovery of network services, comparable to a CORBA ORB.
JNI (Java Native Interface) is a standardized interface to allow Java to call procedures written in other languages; doesn't really have to do much with platforms, either.
The fact that clusters suck at some tasks and always means additional complexity and administrative effort.