Shared memory leaves too much control in the hands of the developer needlessly. A lot of the time there really is no need for 2 processes to be able to write to the same data at the same time, yet shared memory makes this situation default and leaves the developer to make sure it doesn't happen.
It should be the other way around, the developer should have to work harder to be able to get into that situation... not merely forget to check a condition.
Functional programming is hard, non intuitive and even plain distasteful to me. Now I know I'm an idiot, but the problem is most programmers are idiots. The language has to make parallelism easy for us, and if it starts out being functional it's already lost that battle.
The memristor stuff is largely bull, this seems to depend on a rather peculiar aspect of Titanium Dioxide. They are able push oxygen molecules between the surface of a normal layer and a N-type layer of Titanium Dioxide and get large swings in resistance that way.
If someone had submitted a patch which added the requested functionality and it had been rejected they might have a point, but this is just stupid. I predict the fork goes absolutely nowhere and all the drama will have caused some of the original developers to dig their heels.
The drama far more than anything else is making it unlikely people will get up to date versions of pidgin with manual resizing.
These kind of lenses use metamaterials with physical structures on a scale proportional to the wavelengths they operate on, that's why it's easy for microwaves and very hard or maybe even impossible for the optical range.
Why would there be almost no lactose in cream? There is still plenty of water in cream, which is what the lactose is dissolved in, up to 50% less than milk perhaps... but 50% less doesn't equate to almost none IMO.
Unless you want to use sour cream in your ice cream I don't see how it could have almost no lactose.
The only likely way to break a containment dome is with shrapnel from an explosion. Whether or not that is likely enough to worry about with liquid sodium, meh... if all I have to go on are instincts in that matter I will go with my own. Word's won't sway me in this matter, simulations and a proven safety record would (it doesn't do so hot on the latter, okay no explosion occurred in Monju... but only because they got really lucky).
I didn't say it doesn't have advantages, I'm sure it has major advantages... most of them economic. What it doesn't have and never will have is as low a probability of meltdown as water moderated reactors or as low a severity of the results in the case of such a melt down. (This is usually disingenuously ignored when arguing for fast breeder reactors.)
As for Pollonium in the lead... could you give me some numbers? The probabilities of complete exposure of the primary coolants in the first place for both types of reactors and the differences in environmental impact between partial vaporization of the lead and near full burn up of the sodium.
The fact fast breeder reactors just haven't proven as safe as water moderated reactors probably has something to do with it as well.
There are coolants they can use for fast breeder reactors which don't result in a giant cluster fuck in worst case scenarios (lead and salt) but for the moment all the money and time has been put into liquid sodium... which I wouldn't want in my backyard, or upwind in a couple 1000 km range.
With the old licenses you had a separate license for the D20 logo and the OGL stuff. The D20 license was what prohibited character generation and such.
Leveling isn't the point of the game, enjoyment is.
Why would you want to force a PvP gamer to grind through a a gameplay mode they just don't enjoy so they can compete on the relatively even playing field they are looking for?
I think there's someone with an agenda in John Hopkins pushing for this, otherwise I don't see them making this change because of some nebulous governmental directive without provocation.
Other companies are the bigger risk, but the license can do little about that. But there have been a couple of companies which released GPL'd software without a sufficiently broad licenses for their own patents to actually let you use it as GPL'd software (ie. you could not in good faith redistribute it). It's not just a theoretical problem.
A Man in the Middle is not an observer, he is a complete replacement of the other user to both of the original users. The QC circuits he makes are completely valid and untapped.
I see the Wikipedia page reflects this fact nowadays, so if you are interested... read it:)
You would still have to exchange an initial shared secret to kickstart the process (without a shared secret a Man in the Middle attack is always possible).
PS. is there a method with QC to get the equivalent of the Web of Trust? The ability to authenticate someone else's public key without him having to expose his private key is essential to that... and I don't immediately see an equivalent in QC. If QC requires complete trust in third parties to avoid having to exchange secrets with every intended recipient then it can't really replace PK crypto.
With sufficient resolution that noise is averaged out by the eye, but LCD displays don't have near the resolution necessary for that. It is "really possible" to tell the difference,
Are officers of the court allowed to write subpoenas which effectively ask you to break privacy laws? Or are there any sanctions on them for doing so?
Up there it has been suggested they could go after the telcoms and that if this had been a corporation they would have been buckled, but IMO with them this subpoena would have been quashed in a flash. The telcoms in particular aren't too happy to just allow government go on fishing expeditions at the moment.
You mean the past where a third of the voting members didn't only join at Microsoft's behest? (This story might concern some slightly harder to believe conspiracy theories, but that Microsoft bought around a third of the votes outright by getting small countries to join is pretty much a certainty.)
Slashdot Mirror
Do you know of any papers which applied it to something a little more adventurous than list sorting?
Shared memory leaves too much control in the hands of the developer needlessly. A lot of the time there really is no need for 2 processes to be able to write to the same data at the same time, yet shared memory makes this situation default and leaves the developer to make sure it doesn't happen.
... not merely forget to check a condition.
It should be the other way around, the developer should have to work harder to be able to get into that situation
Functional programming is hard, non intuitive and even plain distasteful to me. Now I know I'm an idiot, but the problem is most programmers are idiots. The language has to make parallelism easy for us, and if it starts out being functional it's already lost that battle.
The memristor stuff is largely bull, this seems to depend on a rather peculiar aspect of Titanium Dioxide. They are able push oxygen molecules between the surface of a normal layer and a N-type layer of Titanium Dioxide and get large swings in resistance that way.
If someone had submitted a patch which added the requested functionality and it had been rejected they might have a point, but this is just stupid. I predict the fork goes absolutely nowhere and all the drama will have caused some of the original developers to dig their heels.
The drama far more than anything else is making it unlikely people will get up to date versions of pidgin with manual resizing.
These kind of lenses use metamaterials with physical structures on a scale proportional to the wavelengths they operate on, that's why it's easy for microwaves and very hard or maybe even impossible for the optical range.
They have practical realizations of negative refraction lenses nowadays, those are what makes the difference.
Why would there be almost no lactose in cream? There is still plenty of water in cream, which is what the lactose is dissolved in, up to 50% less than milk perhaps ... but 50% less doesn't equate to almost none IMO.
Unless you want to use sour cream in your ice cream I don't see how it could have almost no lactose.
The only likely way to break a containment dome is with shrapnel from an explosion. Whether or not that is likely enough to worry about with liquid sodium, meh ... if all I have to go on are instincts in that matter I will go with my own. Word's won't sway me in this matter, simulations and a proven safety record would (it doesn't do so hot on the latter, okay no explosion occurred in Monju ... but only because they got really lucky).
Leaks happen and water is everywhere.
I didn't say it doesn't have advantages, I'm sure it has major advantages ... most of them economic. What it doesn't have and never will have is as low a probability of meltdown as water moderated reactors or as low a severity of the results in the case of such a melt down. (This is usually disingenuously ignored when arguing for fast breeder reactors.)
... could you give me some numbers? The probabilities of complete exposure of the primary coolants in the first place for both types of reactors and the differences in environmental impact between partial vaporization of the lead and near full burn up of the sodium.
As for Pollonium in the lead
The fact fast breeder reactors just haven't proven as safe as water moderated reactors probably has something to do with it as well.
... which I wouldn't want in my backyard, or upwind in a couple 1000 km range.
There are coolants they can use for fast breeder reactors which don't result in a giant cluster fuck in worst case scenarios (lead and salt) but for the moment all the money and time has been put into liquid sodium
With the old licenses you had a separate license for the D20 logo and the OGL stuff. The D20 license was what prohibited character generation and such.
I'm not agnostic about the sun coming up tomorrow either.
Leveling isn't the point of the game, enjoyment is. Why would you want to force a PvP gamer to grind through a a gameplay mode they just don't enjoy so they can compete on the relatively even playing field they are looking for?
I agree with you on moral absolutism ... my morality is correct, everyone else's is wrong.
I think there's someone with an agenda in John Hopkins pushing for this, otherwise I don't see them making this change because of some nebulous governmental directive without provocation.
Other companies are the bigger risk, but the license can do little about that. But there have been a couple of companies which released GPL'd software without a sufficiently broad licenses for their own patents to actually let you use it as GPL'd software (ie. you could not in good faith redistribute it). It's not just a theoretical problem.
A Man in the Middle is not an observer, he is a complete replacement of the other user to both of the original users. The QC circuits he makes are completely valid and untapped. I see the Wikipedia page reflects this fact nowadays, so if you are interested ... read it :)
So the backlight has a more even spectrum ... wonderfull, next time I want to use it as a lamp that will sure come in handy.
You would still have to exchange an initial shared secret to kickstart the process (without a shared secret a Man in the Middle attack is always possible).
... and I don't immediately see an equivalent in QC. If QC requires complete trust in third parties to avoid having to exchange secrets with every intended recipient then it can't really replace PK crypto.
PS. is there a method with QC to get the equivalent of the Web of Trust? The ability to authenticate someone else's public key without him having to expose his private key is essential to that
With sufficient resolution that noise is averaged out by the eye, but LCD displays don't have near the resolution necessary for that. It is "really possible" to tell the difference,
Also who was the moderator who doesn't realise the LSBs of a word change at higher magnitudes too? These are not unary coded words ... idiots.
Are officers of the court allowed to write subpoenas which effectively ask you to break privacy laws? Or are there any sanctions on them for doing so?
Up there it has been suggested they could go after the telcoms and that if this had been a corporation they would have been buckled, but IMO with them this subpoena would have been quashed in a flash. The telcoms in particular aren't too happy to just allow government go on fishing expeditions at the moment.
You mean the past where a third of the voting members didn't only join at Microsoft's behest? (This story might concern some slightly harder to believe conspiracy theories, but that Microsoft bought around a third of the votes outright by getting small countries to join is pretty much a certainty.)
"The standard will be finished in late 2008, but it takes forever to go through all the hoops of the ISO process."
...
They have a solution for that