Neither do you understand the difference. The difference between UTC1 and UTC is less than 1 sec, so it cannot explain the 24 second difference.
Want you really want to say is that you're counting mean solar seconds between 23:31:30 UTC (or UT1) and January 1st 1970.
It's UT1, not UTC1. And they are kept in sync by adding seconds in UTC, since UT1 is mean solar time, counting mean solar seconds, and so the seconds in UT1 are longer than the seconds in UTC.
Point: the current system is not all that off, and yours (with rounding up) would not be better.
As far as why we have a arbitrary limit, can you come up with something not arbitrary? Yours is arbitrary, too. All the constitution dictates is a proportional representation. Perhaps we should have stuck with what it originally was: 1 rep for every 30,000 people. Then we would be just shy of 10,200 reps. Or we could limit it to something managable.
You did you math differently than what I wrote. By dividing the entire country's population by the smallest state's, you still have issues of favoritism in apportionment. I said to do it for each state, individually, and then round up.
The 599 number is going to be reasonably accurate. 574 would be correct if you rounded to nearest instead of up (assuming exactly half round down). As instead you want to round all up, then you need to add 50/2 to my number to round all up instead of half.
The problem is that the number of electors is not proportional, because the number of electors is the sum of the number of representatives (proportional) plus the number of senators (not proportional). That is why smaller states get a bigger voice than thier population would otherwise allow.
No, it's not. But it's supposed to be more than it is, and the artificial 435 HoR limit really penalizes larger states when it comes to electoral clout.
Again, it it that fact that elector counts are equal the HoR cout plus Senate count that makes it non-proportional. The HoR count is currently as proportional as your method would be. Examples: CA: 53/438=12.1%, pop%=12%, 55/538=10.2%. OH: 13/438=3.0%, pop%=3.7%, 15/538=2.8%. TN: 9/438=2.0%, pop%=2.0%, 9/538=1.7%. WV: 3/438=.7%, pop%=.6%, 5/538=.9%. ND: 1/438=.2%, pop%=.2%, 3/538=.6%. Notice that the HoR percentages are just about right, but the electoral counts are not.
You need to learn more about how our political process works.
I have a degree in Government from a small liberal arts university with a former US Senator as its President. I also spent eight years working as a reporter/commentator. What about you with your tiny slashdot ID? Did you finish senior government class with a B+, and now you know everything?
Well, your degree left you with something lacking. I won't tell you what my degrees are. And I don't give a hoot about the president of your school or its alumni or anything. I could talk to you about my school too, but I won't. Neither will I tell you about my job. And again, who cares about the size of your/my dick^H^H^H^H slashdot ID? And I am not going to tell you my grades and get into a pissing contest.
DIAF, troll.
If you thought I was a troll, you should not have responded. Never feed the trolls. You always lose.
-1 Misleading. The US has not stopped keeping track of the money supply. They have stopped keeping track of one component, M3. They still keep track of M0, M1, and M2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply
There are almost no roofs in the midwest that are not asphalt shingles. I believe this is fairly different in the southwest. I'm not sure the exact reasons (my guess would be something to do with snow, but it could be relative availability of materials).
In places at high-risk for fires, wood shingles have a tendency to be avoided. Even treated, they still burn. California is a very high risk area, and so wood shingles are not used here anymore for new roofs, and old ones are being converted.
The average person does not understand the difference between UTC and UT1. That is why Unix does not account for leap seconds. UTC uses SI seconds. Unix uses the rubber seconds that the average person understands. So, the correct statement is "At 23:31:30 UT1, the number of seconds since January 1st 1970 will be exactly 1234567890."
Besides, it doesn't matter anyway, since this is simply for fun (and part of the fun is annoying pedants).
JITs are nice because you can dynamically remove code that is never going to be used, optimize for the typical path, optimize for hardware even if you don't know the hardware on compilation, produce a binary that runs on multiple platforms, etc. etc. etc. If you do not see how a JIT can be useful, then you probably don't understand why Java and.NET (two name two well know examples) use JITs either. Doing something dynamically is not automatically a stupid thing. I don't compile my kernel when installing, but it would be cool to have an automatic compile when installing or when things change. The latter part is necessary for a proper implementation and addresses doshell's complaint. Oh, and though the kernel is "modular", not everything is in modules, so there is a definite footprint savings, too.
Hell, I didn't like what my government has been doing last number of years, so I stopped paying my taxes. Almost went to jail for that, but my hands are clean. I did not help them.
How did you manage that? Did you avoid jail by having wages garnished or bank accounts seized, or did you actually avoid paying in the end? And what country are you in?
You've also got a situation where the size of the HoR has been artificially limited at 435 for something like 70 years for no real good reason.
The math on it is easy...
1. Do the census.
2. Divide each state's population by the smallest state's population.
3. Take that number, and round the remainder up to the next whole number.
So, with a US population of 305,986,357 and Wyoming's population being 532,668, we would have approximately 305,986,357 / 532,668 = 574.441035 reps. Not too far off 435. Oh, wait, you want to round up, rather than rounding to the closest, so we will have closer to 574 + (50/2) = 599, but whatever. Point: the current system is not all that off, and yours (with rounding up) would not be better.
As far as why we have a arbitrary limit, can you come up with something not arbitrary? Yours is arbitrary, too. All the constitution dictates is a proportional representation. Perhaps we should have stuck with what it originally was: 1 rep for every 30,000 people. Then we would be just shy of 10,200 reps. Or we could limit it to something managable.
I'd imagine Obama's MoV would have been higher in the EC if the House was truly proportional. Al Gore would have won in 2000. Bush's electoral margin would have been higher in 2004, etc. etc.
But better than this, too, would be to split each state up the way that Maine and Nebraska do. A candidate gets an electoral vote for each congressional district he/she wins, and the winner of the popular vote in the state gets the two for the senators' EC votes./Would also like to see direct elections of the senate ended to go along with it.//Indirect democracy yields better people than direct democracy does.
The problem is that the number of electors is not proportional, because the number of electors is the sum of the number of representatives (proportional) plus the number of senators (not proportional). That is why smaller states get a bigger voice than thier population would otherwise allow.
You need to learn more about how our political process works.
No, I'm describing a "random algorithm", not a "(pseudo)random number generator". A random algorithm is not random. It just makes decisions based on a random input, which means the algorithm is only as random as its input. Wikipedia explains it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomized_algorithm
The problem is that if some "fact" is posted on the Internet and there is nothing else posted on the Internet that contradicts that "fact", then that is "authoritative" to Wikipedia.
Though, the low number of times these things come out and how much they are spread around testifies to the fact that Wikipedia is a lot more reliable than what one might otherwise think given its premise.
Copyright does not restrict possession. It restricts copying. If one receives a copy of a program under the GPL, that copy is not under the condition that you accept the license. In fact, the GPL expressly states that no (additional) conditions be placed on the source code received. On the other hand, with proprietary software, the copies are made/distributed under the condition that you accept the license, and if you don't you must return the copy.
A "random algorithm" takes the same inputs a non-random algorithm plus an auxiliary input stream. The algorithm makes choices based on the auxiliary stream while producing a result. The algorithm is called "random" as the auxiliary stream is intended to be random. The quality of result is based on the randomness of the auxiliary stream. A random algorithm really is not random; just some of the input is (or at least pseudo-random).
And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.
In other words, borrowing money (which is what banks' primary purpose were at the time here) is a Bad Thing. A slightly different spin than in the context you provided it.
Multiple transactions on one card is faster than multiple transactions on multiple cards (no removing/reinserting the card or retyping the PIN). Also, I imagine that the 30 minute window is something like +/- one standard deviation on the distribution of events, which can make it look more compact than it really was.
You have undo/redo right here. If you ever want to mark a version to go back to later, choose "mark this version" and optionally give it a name. If you ever send this document to someone else, there is a menu here giving a list of times you sent the document to someone else and what it looked like when you sent it. It also has a list of all the times you marked the document.
I am not saying that my system is good, but rather where you might go if you let your imagination go. Files are hard for the average user to understand. I loved how Palm did their thing.
Your views are constrained to a model that is based on files and the save operation. Think first about the big picture: save, undo, revision control, backups, and all other means of saving state of some document. A document exists as a file in a variety of versions in a variety of places. There is what is showing on your screen. There are all the intermediate states in memory (undo). There is the state on local disk. With something like Apple's Time machine, this is basically a series of states. Then you might have svn or cvs or git, which then has a different collection of revisions, some of which might be tagged. Each backup tape also has a copy of what existed at the time. What is the unifying theme?
Saved states are checkpoints. The current system of undo, backups, revision control, etc. is really simply an ad hoc collection of operations that create checkpoints, with an ad hoc collection of operations to go between those checkpoints. I may want the version of the tax forms from three years ago, or the version of a document that existed before my cat walked across the keyboard. I may have thought I did not want a document anymore and decided to get rid of it, and found out later that I needed it. I may have altered a picture and then decided my alterations were not what I wanted. In all these cases, I want to recover the object as it existed some time in the past. How can I do this?
Suppose we come up with a totally new way of checkpointing documents. We can create an object and modify it as always, but then once we get to a state that we think we like, we checkpoint it. Perhaps we could label it with some meaningful identifier. Suppose we alter it some more and checkpoint again. However, we are not sure that these alterations are the best, so we go to our previous checkpoint and make different changes and checkpoint that. We can then compare the two versions. We do this a lot and then decide that we have something we want to distribute, so we mark it as a draft and distribute it. Final drafts are the versions that are complete.
Checkpoints can be at differing levels of privacy and persistence. Maybe undo only works to the last explicit checkpoint. Maybe every undo checkpoint is saved for the last 1000, and then only every tenth. Maybe "snapshots" could be made which preserves the document as-is, but without any checkpoints. Maybe You could distribute documents with all undo information in it so that someone could see exactly what you did to get to the present point.
Checkpoints might be configurable, where you have only (say) three levels by default, undo checkpoints, marked checkpoints, and draft checkpoints. Say that each level of checkpoints is discarded when the higher level is used. Then power users could expand the number of checkpoints and there persistence level as well. At the extreme, you might get a strong revision control system, in essence, where every change ever made was saved and made available to a varying number of people with varying levels of access, allowing very detailed traceability.
Your blanket objection to trees (as it sounded to me) is wrong. Why not a tree? How often does a person take an idea, make a number of mockups and then compare them or have someone else compare them? Then the best items are developed further, again with possible variations. Over time branches die off, and the living branches fork. Eventually the branches are winnowed down to one that is "best". The failing designs and intermediate stages are often kept.
Notice that nowhere do I talk about files. That is an implementation detail. What the user sees on the desktop does not necessarily match what exists on disk. Do "My Computer" and "Recycle Bin" actually exist right next to each other as files somewhere on disk? I could see checkpoints being view in some sort of checkpoint browser the is similar to Windows Explorer that is integrated with viewing of all objects.
This also makes for interesting ideas for backups. May
An allergy is hypersensitivity and an excessive reaction to histamines. Normal reactions do not count. See Wikipedia:
Allergy is a disorder of the immune system often also referred to as atopy. Allergic reactions occur to environmental substances known as allergens; these reactions are acquired, predictable and rapid. Strictly, allergy is one of four forms of hypersensitivity and is called type I (or immediate) hypersensitivity. It is characterized by excessive activation of certain white blood cells called mast cells and basophils by a type of antibody known as IgE, resulting in an extreme inflammatory response. Common allergic reactions include eczema, hives, hay fever, asthma, food allergies, and reactions to the venom of stinging insects such as wasps and bees.
Slashdot Mirror
Neither do you understand the difference. The difference between UTC1 and UTC is less than 1 sec, so it cannot explain the 24 second difference.
Want you really want to say is that you're counting mean solar seconds between 23:31:30 UTC (or UT1) and January 1st 1970.
It's UT1, not UTC1. And they are kept in sync by adding seconds in UTC, since UT1 is mean solar time, counting mean solar seconds, and so the seconds in UT1 are longer than the seconds in UTC.
Point: the current system is not all that off, and yours (with rounding up) would not be better.
As far as why we have a arbitrary limit, can you come up with something not arbitrary? Yours is arbitrary, too. All the constitution dictates is a proportional representation. Perhaps we should have stuck with what it originally was: 1 rep for every 30,000 people. Then we would be just shy of 10,200 reps. Or we could limit it to something managable.
You did you math differently than what I wrote. By dividing the entire country's population by the smallest state's, you still have issues of favoritism in apportionment. I said to do it for each state, individually, and then round up.
The 599 number is going to be reasonably accurate. 574 would be correct if you rounded to nearest instead of up (assuming exactly half round down). As instead you want to round all up, then you need to add 50/2 to my number to round all up instead of half.
The problem is that the number of electors is not proportional, because the number of electors is the sum of the number of representatives (proportional) plus the number of senators (not proportional). That is why smaller states get a bigger voice than thier population would otherwise allow.
No, it's not. But it's supposed to be more than it is, and the artificial 435 HoR limit really penalizes larger states when it comes to electoral clout.
Again, it it that fact that elector counts are equal the HoR cout plus Senate count that makes it non-proportional. The HoR count is currently as proportional as your method would be. Examples: CA: 53/438=12.1%, pop%=12%, 55/538=10.2%. OH: 13/438=3.0%, pop%=3.7%, 15/538=2.8%. TN: 9/438=2.0%, pop%=2.0%, 9/538=1.7%. WV: 3/438=.7%, pop%=.6%, 5/538=.9%. ND: 1/438=.2%, pop%=.2%, 3/538=.6%. Notice that the HoR percentages are just about right, but the electoral counts are not.
You need to learn more about how our political process works.
I have a degree in Government from a small liberal arts university with a former US Senator as its President. I also spent eight years working as a reporter/commentator. What about you with your tiny slashdot ID? Did you finish senior government class with a B+, and now you know everything?
Well, your degree left you with something lacking. I won't tell you what my degrees are. And I don't give a hoot about the president of your school or its alumni or anything. I could talk to you about my school too, but I won't. Neither will I tell you about my job. And again, who cares about the size of your/my dick^H^H^H^H slashdot ID? And I am not going to tell you my grades and get into a pissing contest.
DIAF, troll.
If you thought I was a troll, you should not have responded. Never feed the trolls. You always lose.
Sorry, makeup artists abound.
Once they have your password, you choose another one and that's it. I'd like to see you do that with your face.
Plastic surgery.
-1 Misleading. The US has not stopped keeping track of the money supply. They have stopped keeping track of one component, M3. They still keep track of M0, M1, and M2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply
I swear, I read slashdot for the articles.
There are almost no roofs in the midwest that are not asphalt shingles. I believe this is fairly different in the southwest. I'm not sure the exact reasons (my guess would be something to do with snow, but it could be relative availability of materials).
In places at high-risk for fires, wood shingles have a tendency to be avoided. Even treated, they still burn. California is a very high risk area, and so wood shingles are not used here anymore for new roofs, and old ones are being converted.
The average person does not understand the difference between UTC and UT1. That is why Unix does not account for leap seconds. UTC uses SI seconds. Unix uses the rubber seconds that the average person understands. So, the correct statement is "At 23:31:30 UT1, the number of seconds since January 1st 1970 will be exactly 1234567890."
Besides, it doesn't matter anyway, since this is simply for fun (and part of the fun is annoying pedants).
JITs are nice because you can dynamically remove code that is never going to be used, optimize for the typical path, optimize for hardware even if you don't know the hardware on compilation, produce a binary that runs on multiple platforms, etc. etc. etc. If you do not see how a JIT can be useful, then you probably don't understand why Java and .NET (two name two well know examples) use JITs either. Doing something dynamically is not automatically a stupid thing. I don't compile my kernel when installing, but it would be cool to have an automatic compile when installing or when things change. The latter part is necessary for a proper implementation and addresses doshell's complaint. Oh, and though the kernel is "modular", not everything is in modules, so there is a definite footprint savings, too.
Hell, I didn't like what my government has been doing last number of years, so I stopped paying my taxes. Almost went to jail for that, but my hands are clean. I did not help them.
How did you manage that? Did you avoid jail by having wages garnished or bank accounts seized, or did you actually avoid paying in the end? And what country are you in?
You've also got a situation where the size of the HoR has been artificially limited at 435 for something like 70 years for no real good reason.
The math on it is easy...
1. Do the census. 2. Divide each state's population by the smallest state's population. 3. Take that number, and round the remainder up to the next whole number.
So, with a US population of 305,986,357 and Wyoming's population being 532,668, we would have approximately 305,986,357 / 532,668 = 574.441035 reps. Not too far off 435. Oh, wait, you want to round up, rather than rounding to the closest, so we will have closer to 574 + (50/2) = 599, but whatever. Point: the current system is not all that off, and yours (with rounding up) would not be better.
As far as why we have a arbitrary limit, can you come up with something not arbitrary? Yours is arbitrary, too. All the constitution dictates is a proportional representation. Perhaps we should have stuck with what it originally was: 1 rep for every 30,000 people. Then we would be just shy of 10,200 reps. Or we could limit it to something managable.
I'd imagine Obama's MoV would have been higher in the EC if the House was truly proportional. Al Gore would have won in 2000. Bush's electoral margin would have been higher in 2004, etc. etc.
But better than this, too, would be to split each state up the way that Maine and Nebraska do. A candidate gets an electoral vote for each congressional district he/she wins, and the winner of the popular vote in the state gets the two for the senators' EC votes. /Would also like to see direct elections of the senate ended to go along with it. //Indirect democracy yields better people than direct democracy does.
The problem is that the number of electors is not proportional, because the number of electors is the sum of the number of representatives (proportional) plus the number of senators (not proportional). That is why smaller states get a bigger voice than thier population would otherwise allow.
You need to learn more about how our political process works.
No, I'm describing a "random algorithm", not a "(pseudo)random number generator". A random algorithm is not random. It just makes decisions based on a random input, which means the algorithm is only as random as its input. Wikipedia explains it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomized_algorithm
the preview button
displays before submitting
it is there to use
And then whenever you buy a new webcam, replace your graphics card, or whatever, the kernel must be recompiled. People will love that.
You're right. JITs are horrible.
you need to go to primary sources.
You mean like the actual fucking person the article is about? Oh wait, Wikipedia doesn't consider the actual fucking person to be a "primary source"!
The primary source would be his mom ;-|
Hello, I want something from your Mom....
The problem is that if some "fact" is posted on the Internet and there is nothing else posted on the Internet that contradicts that "fact", then that is "authoritative" to Wikipedia.
The other one noticed on Slashdot had this property: http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/19/1452244
Though, the low number of times these things come out and how much they are spread around testifies to the fact that Wikipedia is a lot more reliable than what one might otherwise think given its premise.
Copyright does not restrict possession. It restricts copying. If one receives a copy of a program under the GPL, that copy is not under the condition that you accept the license. In fact, the GPL expressly states that no (additional) conditions be placed on the source code received. On the other hand, with proprietary software, the copies are made/distributed under the condition that you accept the license, and if you don't you must return the copy.
I assume this, since the image is no longer available: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=504+Sampsonia+Way,+Pittsburgh,+PA,+United+States&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&split=0&gl=us&ei=25GTSejTLYHasAPE1ei4Bw&ll=40.456989,-80.011368&spn=0,359.98071&t=h&z=16&iwloc=addr&layer=c&cbll=40.456973,-80.011467&panoid=vKkgt4i4COgi3L96IqwLQw&cbp=12,175.8364654136369,,0,-9.87482861627304
A "random algorithm" takes the same inputs a non-random algorithm plus an auxiliary input stream. The algorithm makes choices based on the auxiliary stream while producing a result. The algorithm is called "random" as the auxiliary stream is intended to be random. The quality of result is based on the randomness of the auxiliary stream. A random algorithm really is not random; just some of the input is (or at least pseudo-random).
Or avoid a charge being a penny over ...
Actual quote:
And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.
In other words, borrowing money (which is what banks' primary purpose were at the time here) is a Bad Thing. A slightly different spin than in the context you provided it.
Source: http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Private_Banks_(Quotation)
Multiple transactions on one card is faster than multiple transactions on multiple cards (no removing/reinserting the card or retyping the PIN). Also, I imagine that the 30 minute window is something like +/- one standard deviation on the distribution of events, which can make it look more compact than it really was.
You have undo/redo right here. If you ever want to mark a version to go back to later, choose "mark this version" and optionally give it a name. If you ever send this document to someone else, there is a menu here giving a list of times you sent the document to someone else and what it looked like when you sent it. It also has a list of all the times you marked the document.
I am not saying that my system is good, but rather where you might go if you let your imagination go. Files are hard for the average user to understand. I loved how Palm did their thing.
Your views are constrained to a model that is based on files and the save operation. Think first about the big picture: save, undo, revision control, backups, and all other means of saving state of some document. A document exists as a file in a variety of versions in a variety of places. There is what is showing on your screen. There are all the intermediate states in memory (undo). There is the state on local disk. With something like Apple's Time machine, this is basically a series of states. Then you might have svn or cvs or git, which then has a different collection of revisions, some of which might be tagged. Each backup tape also has a copy of what existed at the time. What is the unifying theme?
Saved states are checkpoints. The current system of undo, backups, revision control, etc. is really simply an ad hoc collection of operations that create checkpoints, with an ad hoc collection of operations to go between those checkpoints. I may want the version of the tax forms from three years ago, or the version of a document that existed before my cat walked across the keyboard. I may have thought I did not want a document anymore and decided to get rid of it, and found out later that I needed it. I may have altered a picture and then decided my alterations were not what I wanted. In all these cases, I want to recover the object as it existed some time in the past. How can I do this?
Suppose we come up with a totally new way of checkpointing documents. We can create an object and modify it as always, but then once we get to a state that we think we like, we checkpoint it. Perhaps we could label it with some meaningful identifier. Suppose we alter it some more and checkpoint again. However, we are not sure that these alterations are the best, so we go to our previous checkpoint and make different changes and checkpoint that. We can then compare the two versions. We do this a lot and then decide that we have something we want to distribute, so we mark it as a draft and distribute it. Final drafts are the versions that are complete.
Checkpoints can be at differing levels of privacy and persistence. Maybe undo only works to the last explicit checkpoint. Maybe every undo checkpoint is saved for the last 1000, and then only every tenth. Maybe "snapshots" could be made which preserves the document as-is, but without any checkpoints. Maybe You could distribute documents with all undo information in it so that someone could see exactly what you did to get to the present point.
Checkpoints might be configurable, where you have only (say) three levels by default, undo checkpoints, marked checkpoints, and draft checkpoints. Say that each level of checkpoints is discarded when the higher level is used. Then power users could expand the number of checkpoints and there persistence level as well. At the extreme, you might get a strong revision control system, in essence, where every change ever made was saved and made available to a varying number of people with varying levels of access, allowing very detailed traceability.
Your blanket objection to trees (as it sounded to me) is wrong. Why not a tree? How often does a person take an idea, make a number of mockups and then compare them or have someone else compare them? Then the best items are developed further, again with possible variations. Over time branches die off, and the living branches fork. Eventually the branches are winnowed down to one that is "best". The failing designs and intermediate stages are often kept.
Notice that nowhere do I talk about files. That is an implementation detail. What the user sees on the desktop does not necessarily match what exists on disk. Do "My Computer" and "Recycle Bin" actually exist right next to each other as files somewhere on disk? I could see checkpoints being view in some sort of checkpoint browser the is similar to Windows Explorer that is integrated with viewing of all objects.
This also makes for interesting ideas for backups. May
Allergy is a disorder of the immune system often also referred to as atopy. Allergic reactions occur to environmental substances known as allergens; these reactions are acquired, predictable and rapid. Strictly, allergy is one of four forms of hypersensitivity and is called type I (or immediate) hypersensitivity. It is characterized by excessive activation of certain white blood cells called mast cells and basophils by a type of antibody known as IgE, resulting in an extreme inflammatory response. Common allergic reactions include eczema, hives, hay fever, asthma, food allergies, and reactions to the venom of stinging insects such as wasps and bees.