More to the point... Say a cat jumps on a table and you punish the cat for jumping on the table. Does this deter the cat from jumping on the table? Probably not because the cat is likely to misinterpret what the punishment was for. Sometimes the cat thinks that it is a no-no to be CAUGHT jumping on the table. Jumping on the table is fine, just don't be caught doing so.
This is not exactly true. Einstein and Neils Bohr had many famous arguments over the Heisenberg Uncertainly Principle. Einstein is often quoted of saying "God does not play dice with the universe". The Uncertainly Principle is the underpinning of Quantum Mechanics and the refusal to accept this principle might have hampered Einstein from making more discoveries. Coincidence? Maybe but it's interesting to note that after Heisenberg published the Uncertainly Principle, Einstein made very few discoveries.
Why? He's probably doing it as a hobby. He didn't say he intended to use it for every day computing. It is similar to someone restoring a vintage car. You wouldn't take a model T Ford on the freeway or use it for everyday transportation.
Why would you want a security atrocity like DirectX? Aren't there enough security holes already? If anything, we should think about banning DirectX from the Web? We should also ban ActiveX.
That and the ionizing radiation would destroy the ozone layer for a time. I have heard estimates that it would take a decade to 1000 years to fully regenerate. In that time, the sun would really harm life on earth. (How much harm depends on who you ask.)
Very good point. Although we are hurting now, isn't it better to wait for when an appeal has a better chance of giving us a favorable outcome? It would be disastrous if a case went all the way to SCOTUS and fair use was struck down? I don't know how the present justices stand on fair use policies but lately they don't seem to be for the little guy. Isn't it better to wait for a more favorable time?
The real question is why is there a need for parallel processing? This is a voting machine, even a simple single core processor without any threads should be sufficient. As a matter of fact, I would try to make the software as simple as possible. When it is short and simple, there is less chance of hidden bugs or for a malicious programmer to hide something in the code. Also, any obfuscated code should not be allowed.
These low level functions that you speak of... They really are no different from high level functions. A function (or routine) still has to return something. The calling procedure is usually blocked pending the results. It's not just a matter of designing functions that can be run in parallel. Almost the entire program must be designed to take advantage of parallel processing.
"Any program with a "for" or "while" loop in which the results of one iteration"
Think about it... In most real world applications, a for or while loop do depend on some variable in a previous iteration. If something inside a loop does not change you have an infinite loop. Something has to change. In a for loop this is the index variable but in this case, something has changed.
"The US has one of the highest Corporate taxes in the world,"
I'm tired of hearing this quoted as if it was gospel. It tells only part of the story. The other part of the story is that there are so many loopholes that favor corporations that the actual tax rate is much lower. The effective tax rate for corporations collected in the US is among the lowest in the world.
"There is the right of free association, and the right of contract."
One of the idea of corporations is to avoid personal liability. Without incorporation, the stockholders would be personally liable for the malfeasance of their agents, corporate board. Without this protection, the stockholders could loose ALL of their personal wealth not just their investments in the company. So there is an advantage to incorporate and it has nothing to do with free association.
I disagree! If he is so valuable to his employer that having him work for a competitor would be disastrous for the company, then he should be compensated. The best way would to give him a large enough salary so he would not be tempted to leave the company. As a second method, the company should pay his current salary if they prevent him from working for a competitor. At the very least, they should be obligated to pay the difference if his new salary is less PLUS a fixed amount more.
Definitely they sometimes fudge their data so that it will support their theories. Scientists are human and not perfect, it's part of human nature. That is where peer review comes in. A true scientist s work has to stand up to peer review and this is where the fudging of data is often uncovered. The problem is that much of the research going on is cloaked in secrecy by governments and corporations and proper peer review doesn't happen.
This brings to mind an incident in history where the scientist was right but his data was just too good. I'm talking about Gregor Mendel and his work on genetics. Later statistical analysis of his data indicates that it was very unlikely that he got that data. He probably got very close to the experiment result that he predicted but it was not good enough so he fudged his results. It wasn't until long after that this inconsistency in the data was uncovered. Was he right? Absolutely he was but his data is suspect nonetheless.
As an afterthought, one of my cats tries to open door knobs on her own and sometimes against my wishes. That nobody has accurately measured the intelligence of cats is a measure of how smart they might be.
Actually, I have three. The need for treats or some reward in training is almost universal in most species (dogs, cats, etc.). My cats have a rather large repertoire of tricks they know. At this point, I don't always have to give them a treat to get them to show off. All they need is some sort of cue. I do have to offer a treat occasionally to keep them interested in doing tricks.
The whole concept of race is stupid. What we consider to be separate races seems obvious until you think of it more deeply.
Take someone from Scandinavia and someone from Southeast Asia. They seem very different don't they? As you travel from Scandinavia to Southeast Asia you find that the appearance of the people you meet gradually changes form one "race" to the other. At what point in your journey can you say that one the people here are from one "race" but the people living one km further on are from the other "races". It's all a matter of geographical variation of traits.
Nonsense! Race and breeds are human concepts of variations within a species. Pigeons and seagulls are different species and genus and probably different families as well. It would be like us associating with monkey in the wild (I mean one that has not been domesticated). Hell, we don't even associate with other great apes in the wild.
There is just one problem with fines. They do not keep up with inflation. What we need for ALL fines (such as speeding tickets) it to adjust them yearly for inflation. We don't even need people to act on it but then, what would the legislators do with all the time they save. They should also make MOST laws sunset so that the legislature would have to reauthorize them. (We have too many out of date laws on the books.)
For consumer electronics, that might be true. However for furniture such as desks, chairs etc. it is another matter. These items will still be as useful fifty years from now as the day they were made. You have to consider items on a case by case basis. Things that will still be useful should last.
Yes! In the past, they made their share of junk. The junk did not survive. All we see today from what was made centuries ago are the durable stuff. I imagine 100 years from now 1% of the stuff we produce will survive and someone will say how durable that stuff is.
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely they "smile". When brushed, my cat has a look of absolute bliss on his face. They just have different facial expressions than humans do.
More to the point...
Say a cat jumps on a table and you punish the cat for jumping on the table. Does this deter the cat from jumping on the table? Probably not because the cat is likely to misinterpret what the punishment was for. Sometimes the cat thinks that it is a no-no to be CAUGHT jumping on the table. Jumping on the table is fine, just don't be caught doing so.
This is not exactly true. Einstein and Neils Bohr had many famous arguments over the Heisenberg Uncertainly Principle. Einstein is often quoted of saying "God does not play dice with the universe". The Uncertainly Principle is the underpinning of Quantum Mechanics and the refusal to accept this principle might have hampered Einstein from making more discoveries. Coincidence? Maybe but it's interesting to note that after Heisenberg published the Uncertainly Principle, Einstein made very few discoveries.
Why? He's probably doing it as a hobby. He didn't say he intended to use it for every day computing. It is similar to someone restoring a vintage car. You wouldn't take a model T Ford on the freeway or use it for everyday transportation.
Why would you want a security atrocity like DirectX? Aren't there enough security holes already? If anything, we should think about banning DirectX from the Web? We should also ban ActiveX.
That and the ionizing radiation would destroy the ozone layer for a time. I have heard estimates that it would take a decade to 1000 years to fully regenerate. In that time, the sun would really harm life on earth. (How much harm depends on who you ask.)
Very good point. Although we are hurting now, isn't it better to wait for when an appeal has a better chance of giving us a favorable outcome? It would be disastrous if a case went all the way to SCOTUS and fair use was struck down? I don't know how the present justices stand on fair use policies but lately they don't seem to be for the little guy. Isn't it better to wait for a more favorable time?
More to the point... Lets say many voting districts encounter the same problem. You could have a vote tally that is off by millions.
The real question is why is there a need for parallel processing? This is a voting machine, even a simple single core processor without any threads should be sufficient. As a matter of fact, I would try to make the software as simple as possible. When it is short and simple, there is less chance of hidden bugs or for a malicious programmer to hide something in the code. Also, any obfuscated code should not be allowed.
These low level functions that you speak of... They really are no different from high level functions. A function (or routine) still has to return something. The calling procedure is usually blocked pending the results. It's not just a matter of designing functions that can be run in parallel. Almost the entire program must be designed to take advantage of parallel processing.
"Any program with a "for" or "while" loop in which the results of one iteration"
Think about it... In most real world applications, a for or while loop do depend on some variable in a previous iteration. If something inside a loop does not change you have an infinite loop. Something has to change. In a for loop this is the index variable but in this case, something has changed.
"The US has one of the highest Corporate taxes in the world,"
I'm tired of hearing this quoted as if it was gospel. It tells only part of the story. The other part of the story is that there are so many loopholes that favor corporations that the actual tax rate is much lower. The effective tax rate for corporations collected in the US is among the lowest in the world.
"There is the right of free association, and the right of contract."
One of the idea of corporations is to avoid personal liability. Without incorporation, the stockholders would be personally liable for the malfeasance of their agents, corporate board. Without this protection, the stockholders could loose ALL of their personal wealth not just their investments in the company. So there is an advantage to incorporate and it has nothing to do with free association.
I disagree! If he is so valuable to his employer that having him work for a competitor would be disastrous for the company, then he should be compensated. The best way would to give him a large enough salary so he would not be tempted to leave the company. As a second method, the company should pay his current salary if they prevent him from working for a competitor. At the very least, they should be obligated to pay the difference if his new salary is less PLUS a fixed amount more.
Definitely they sometimes fudge their data so that it will support their theories. Scientists are human and not perfect, it's part of human nature. That is where peer review comes in. A true scientist s work has to stand up to peer review and this is where the fudging of data is often uncovered. The problem is that much of the research going on is cloaked in secrecy by governments and corporations and proper peer review doesn't happen.
This brings to mind an incident in history where the scientist was right but his data was just too good. I'm talking about Gregor Mendel and his work on genetics. Later statistical analysis of his data indicates that it was very unlikely that he got that data. He probably got very close to the experiment result that he predicted but it was not good enough so he fudged his results. It wasn't until long after that this inconsistency in the data was uncovered. Was he right? Absolutely he was but his data is suspect nonetheless.
As an afterthought, one of my cats tries to open door knobs on her own and sometimes against my wishes. That nobody has accurately measured the intelligence of cats is a measure of how smart they might be.
Actually, I have three. The need for treats or some reward in training is almost universal in most species (dogs, cats, etc.). My cats have a rather large repertoire of tricks they know. At this point, I don't always have to give them a treat to get them to show off. All they need is some sort of cue. I do have to offer a treat occasionally to keep them interested in doing tricks.
The whole concept of race is stupid. What we consider to be separate races seems obvious until you think of it more deeply.
Take someone from Scandinavia and someone from Southeast Asia. They seem very different don't they? As you travel from Scandinavia to Southeast Asia you find that the appearance of the people you meet gradually changes form one "race" to the other. At what point in your journey can you say that one the people here are from one "race" but the people living one km further on are from the other "races". It's all a matter of geographical variation of traits.
Once again, size is the issue. I have however heard of cats that have alerted their owners to danger when they themselves were not in danger.
It's got more to do with size than anything else. You don't see chihuahuas as leader dogs do you? A cat can be trained just as much as a dog can.
Nonsense! Race and breeds are human concepts of variations within a species. Pigeons and seagulls are different species and genus and probably different families as well. It would be like us associating with monkey in the wild (I mean one that has not been domesticated). Hell, we don't even associate with other great apes in the wild.
Absolutely! Also we should make the regular employees move up before secured debt holders.
There is just one problem with fines. They do not keep up with inflation. What we need for ALL fines (such as speeding tickets) it to adjust them yearly for inflation. We don't even need people to act on it but then, what would the legislators do with all the time they save. They should also make MOST laws sunset so that the legislature would have to reauthorize them. (We have too many out of date laws on the books.)
For consumer electronics, that might be true. However for furniture such as desks, chairs etc. it is another matter. These items will still be as useful fifty years from now as the day they were made. You have to consider items on a case by case basis. Things that will still be useful should last.
Yes! In the past, they made their share of junk. The junk did not survive. All we see today from what was made centuries ago are the durable stuff. I imagine 100 years from now 1% of the stuff we produce will survive and someone will say how durable that stuff is.