I don't think this is a great situation, but it's probably the least bad situation we could end up with.
It's our own fault (collectively anyway) since we let copyright maximalists set the agenda. The issue became what should the owners get from this deal, rather than what society's claim on orphaned works ought to be. Ideally we would have had a law written that allowed some sort of scheme to deal with orphaned works, but instead we end up with a situation that benefits the means to set up the legal charade that's allowed this deal to happen.
It'll be interesting to see what ends up happening in the future. It seems possible that legislation could be created to at least break Google's exclusivity if not take it away entirely.
At least we'll now have access to these works, without Google, they'd likely stay in legal limbo indefinitely.
An SRAM cell is typically a cross coupled inverter (from what I've seen). There's not much potential for memory there. When the power supply reaches zero, the bit is gone.
With DRAM that's not quite the case, which is why the cold boot attack works. Even though the power supply is zero, the bit is still there on the cap.
One is that you get less drive current from your transistors, so you get less performance (which everyone seems to understand), but this is usually a fairly small effect for 5 degree C.
The _big_ deal with 5 degree C would be electromigration in interconnect metal, which goes up very quickly with temperature. So the difference in failure rates might be quite large.
If there was any deal at all, it's likely that the Intel engineers tried to remove some conservatism from their temperature estimates to see if they could squeeze out 5 degrees from the thermal budget, or perhaps information on the workload itself to get Intel to "bless" the higher data center temperature.
The signal to noise ratio in this story is astoundingly low.
How about:
Here's a review of "The Plane and Simple Truth."
It's a book about efficiency gains in airliners over the last 70 years. I liked it. It had lots of good information. It also debunked many fallacies put forth by those who think the airline industry is bad for the environment.
So we have a shop that has a whole lot of perl code and they're sent around this book as well as run perlcritic on our checked in code (which pretty much everyone ignores).
In my couple of years there I've learned a few things.
1) No one can agree on coding standards
2) What people can agree on is so watered down that it's not very useful.
3) The stuff that really causes headaches isn't bad style, it's general insanity. Hardcoded constants and poorly thought out ad-hoc parsers and general brain damage causes a million times more problems than just about anything anyone can describe in a standard.
That said, in my experience the one thing that almost aways saves me time for anything larger than a couple of lines is to use "use strict."
(since I assume most doctors would just say "yes" to simplify their lives)
While this _would_ increase the number of office visits, it's likely that it would not generate a great deal of revenue, since it would likely be coded at the lowest level.
I know a number of primary care physicians, and this just isn't the type of visit that they would try to encourage. Furthermore, most physicians I know (IMHO all responsible ones) would discourage unwarranted genetic testing, as well as any other type of medical tests that don't have a lot of evidence behind them as being useful for patient outcome. This is _not_ the type of thing a physician wants to deal with; trying to talk people out of things they are dead set on is annoying.
Genetic screeners are essentially selling snake oil by selling directly to consumers. I'd probably not go so far as California in stopping them, since in the end they'll just be encouraging greedy physicians to set up specialized practices where they can charge an arm and a leg to have the tests ordered. However I think California is right to try to protect consumers from this type of nonsense.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand the argument that GPS tracking is not significantly more intrusive than tailing.
But I wonder how police officers would react if GPS devices were surreptitiously placed on their cruisers.
programmer who can't do a list, hash table, bubble sort, or btree at the drop of a hat ought to be kicked out of the industry.
Please, please don't do this. I'm not going to be able to fill out the TPS reports for 90% of my co-workers.
I'd pay extra if it had swearing.
http://www.vidarholen.net/contents/wordcount/
I don't think this is a great situation, but it's probably the least bad situation we could end up with.
It's our own fault (collectively anyway) since we let copyright maximalists set the agenda. The issue became what should the owners get from this deal, rather than what society's claim on orphaned works ought to be. Ideally we would have had a law written that allowed some sort of scheme to deal with orphaned works, but instead we end up with a situation that benefits the means to set up the legal charade that's allowed this deal to happen.
It'll be interesting to see what ends up happening in the future. It seems possible that legislation could be created to at least break Google's exclusivity if not take it away entirely.
At least we'll now have access to these works, without Google, they'd likely stay in legal limbo indefinitely.
If you want to be informal, why not just say "fuck?"
> Unlikely,
This is pretty well documented:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4394002
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farewell_Dossier
Amen.
Had the same experience, though I'm a bit less negative. I think it's a good read, but there are a lot of good reads out there.
I can see why it was highly influential, and I can see why people liked it at the time.
On the other had the idea of it being one of the 100 best modern novels is completely laughable.
I let her use my backup laptop for a week to see how she liked OO instead of Office on her laptop
I just wanted to say, that was really nice of you.
An SRAM cell is typically a cross coupled inverter (from what I've seen). There's not much potential for memory there. When the power supply reaches zero, the bit is gone.
With DRAM that's not quite the case, which is why the cold boot attack works. Even though the power supply is zero, the bit is still there on the cap.
Sorry, flop == flip-flop.
Most cache is implemented as a flop, which loses its state on power down almost immediately. I don't think it's possible.
doesn't quite have that 'cool' factor that VR goggles / headsets do
That word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
Remember when power lines were giving our children cancer?
I'm glad they fixed that.
"I don't want a cookbook" is a code phrase that means, "I don't want to buy _The Art of Electronics_".
Why not go all the way?
Gnome's Nautilus: Gets "ZFS" Integration! (In OpenSolaris)
There are two issues with higher operating temp.
One is that you get less drive current from your transistors, so you get less performance (which everyone seems to understand), but this is usually a fairly small effect for 5 degree C.
The _big_ deal with 5 degree C would be electromigration in interconnect metal, which goes up very quickly with temperature. So the difference in failure rates might be quite large.
If there was any deal at all, it's likely that the Intel engineers tried to remove some conservatism from their temperature estimates to see if they could squeeze out 5 degrees from the thermal budget, or perhaps information on the workload itself to get Intel to "bless" the higher data center temperature.
When good unit tests are in place, then code can be changed at will and the tests will tell automatically you if you broke anything.
Away vile Panacea!
Keep thy sticky tentacles off management soft and pliable brain!
Ye shall shall not destroy another project schedule with your false promises and soul sucking stupidity!
Begone wretched creature!
Live out your days off of the decaying pulp of so many piles of wasted trees and the scraps tossed to you by management consultants!
The signal to noise ratio in this story is astoundingly low.
How about:
Here's a review of "The Plane and Simple Truth."
It's a book about efficiency gains in airliners over the last 70 years.
I liked it.
It had lots of good information.
It also debunked many fallacies put forth by those who think the airline industry is bad for the environment.
// ==UserScript==
// @name slashdot
// @namespace foo
// @description unscewup idle
// @include http://idle.slashdot.org/
// ==/UserScript==
var a, thisdomain, links;
links = document.getElementsByTagName('div');
for (var i = 0; i < links.length; i++) {
a = links[i];
if (a.getAttribute("class") == "head" ) {
a.style.backgroundColor = 'white';
a.style.color = 'black';
}
if (a.getAttribute("class") == "details" ) {
a.style.color = 'black';
}
if (a.getAttribute("class") == "body" ) {
a.style.color = 'black';
a.style.fontSize = "100%";
}
}
Seems to work for now.
YMMV.
Does anyone have a greasemonkey fix for this visual insanity?
But their claims are so far of everyone else's and there are so few details about how it works that it also sounds like an investment scam.
So we have a shop that has a whole lot of perl code and they're sent around this book as well as run perlcritic on our checked in code (which pretty much everyone ignores).
In my couple of years there I've learned a few things.
1) No one can agree on coding standards
2) What people can agree on is so watered down that it's not very useful.
3) The stuff that really causes headaches isn't bad style, it's general insanity. Hardcoded constants and poorly thought out ad-hoc parsers and general brain damage causes a million times more problems than just about anything anyone can describe in a standard.
That said, in my experience the one thing that almost aways saves me time for anything larger than a couple of lines is to use "use strict."
That's what the Ohio State chemists find most exciting: the molecule does not maintain only one shape.
See, that's how I'm different. They lost me at the Rockettes.
Then move onto the metaphysics of quality.
From there the rest is easy.
(since I assume most doctors would just say "yes" to simplify their lives)
While this _would_ increase the number of office visits, it's likely that it would not generate a great deal of revenue, since it would likely be coded at the lowest level.
I know a number of primary care physicians, and this just isn't the type of visit that they would try to encourage. Furthermore, most physicians I know (IMHO all responsible ones) would discourage unwarranted genetic testing, as well as any other type of medical tests that don't have a lot of evidence behind them as being useful for patient outcome. This is _not_ the type of thing a physician wants to deal with; trying to talk people out of things they are dead set on is annoying.
Genetic screeners are essentially selling snake oil by selling directly to consumers. I'd probably not go so far as California in stopping them, since in the end they'll just be encouraging greedy physicians to set up specialized practices where they can charge an arm and a leg to have the tests ordered. However I think California is right to try to protect consumers from this type of nonsense.