I just find it odd that with the introduction of a new collider this one has finally found something.
Right, because the Tevatron hasn't found anything at all in the past 25 years. Ever hear of the top quark? Remember that article a year ago about the "Cascade B" particle? You may have seen it, it was on Slashdot.
Of course there's a lot of crap on CPAN. But there's also a lot of really good stuff, and there are tools to help you find the best of the good stuff. Besides which, having someone else's complete and utter crap to work with can still give you a head start compared to doing everything from scratch. Not to mention, in one-off projects you can sometimes just use the utter crap, get the job done, and not have to tell anyone.
And then there's perl, where + is reserved for addition, and . is concatenation, and you don't need casts or stupid crap like "" + foo. Ah, the wonders of making different things different.
If the internet has taught us anything it's that the Infinite Monkeys Corollary is more important than the Infinite Monkeys Theorem. The corollary reminds us that it doesn't matter whether the monkeys turn out Hamlet, because you'll need to read through an infinity of worthless crap before you find it.
There is actually a (handwavy) proof that Perl has a "bigger" set of valid programs than most languages, but it's not for the reason you think. It's because perl has the __END__ and __DATA__ tokens, which signal the end of program code to the compiler. Anything at all after those is "legal" and can be accessed by the program. Which means that for any valid perl program you can come up with (the empty string is a trivial example) you can generate a countable infinity of other valid programs by appending "\n__END__\n" and then each and every possible string.
This works in purely-interpreted languages as well... just make sure the program unconditionally ends by a certain point in the file, and then put whatever you want after that point and it will never get parsed, let alone run. This is what makes sharchives work.:)
They also do volatile microcode loading IIRC, so you could deliver an OS "driver" that runs early at boot and closes the window... provided the flaw is within the realm of microcode patching anyway.
anyway, wtf are you talking about here? It *IS* 'called party pays'... that's the whole point. I don't understand you. The cellphone user pays a regular fee for their service, *AND* to receive calls and txts.
Try thinking, please. If it was "called party pays", that would mean that if I had a landline phone and you called me from a cellphone, I would pay the airtime fees.
I don't get why US people put up with the receiver of a call or txt paying. It's absurd to me. Does the receiver of a letter pay? No. So why does the receiver of a call or txt pay??
Two reasons, both of them quite sensible.
The first is that the US had significant cell phone use back when they were really expensive. If it's 1980 and I'm calling Mr. Hotshot on his carphone at a buck-fifty a minute, who should pay? Me, or Mr. Hotshot?
The second is that I don't need to know whether I'm calling a cell phone or not. It costs me the same either way. No need to memorize which numbers are mobile and which aren't. If I know what kind of phone I'm using, I know what my rate structure is. The recipient of my call knows what kind of phone he's using, and he knows what his rates are. We don't have to care about each other, we just talk.
The third (yes I said there were two) is that it's just fucking common sense. Remember, it's not "called party pays", it's "mobile party pays". Pays for what? Mobile service. You mean... the person with the cell phone pays to use the cell phone? Why, yes!
I am not a programmer myself, but i know a bunch, and just about every one I know or have talked languages with systematically abhor Java (the words slow and bloated come up often) I dislike Java, but the JVM isn't slow. On the contrary, it's the fastest VM I can think of, and is pretty close to C++ in terms of performance. When did C++ get promoted to "not slow"?:)
A party could easily come to the party that appeals to the left and the right. Nope. The US has no love for centrists whatsoever. They're perceived as weak. Not really trying. Which almost comes close to revealing the truth. I don't care about them either. I consider "not a complete fuckup as a human being" to be a more worthy criterion... not that I expect to see anyone pass that one anytime soon.
You have to vote both these parties out if you want to get rid of this stuff. Not just the candidates that voted for this bill. Which is why I don't understand the absence of third party choice in the USA. There's nothing wrong with voting for a third party. You're showing that you aren't interested in the top two choices. If enough of you had the courage to vote for a third party, it wouldn't be a problem. The fear of vote splitting is an excuse. Your vote is never a throw away vote, even if it's for a third party. You've got that upside-down and backwards. Our system is made up entirely of technicalities and vote-splitting, and not the least bit of any sort of public representation. Would be fairer to say "your vote is always a throw-away vote" because most voters have almost no impact on outcomes. But people are even less inclined to have the balls to believe that one and act accordingly.
this seems to be very similar to an idea that Penrose had in the 70s and has been discussing a little bit recently, called the Weyl curvature hypothesis. The thing that seems to be novel about the hypothesis of Erickcek et al. is that apparently they have a mechanism for a new universe to pop up in a non-empty "parent" universe; Penrose's idea depends on the parent universe being completely devoid of massive objects, which depends (among other things) on proton decay and a truly huge amount of time.
Given that we know these things, why is it so hard to understand how a superconductor works? I mean there's only so many forces that could be at work here between the atoms in the material. You've already reduced it too far. There are more things in heaven and earth, Anonymous Coward, than atoms.
100MB/sec? Assuming that the capital "B" is the intent, that means it would take close to 3 hours to write a full 1TB disk. Is that fast enough for most backup applications? I mean, obviously it would be fine for archival purposes, but it doesn't seem practical for daily backups.
Well... that exceeds the maximum sustained read speeds of most hard drives... so I'd say it's not particularly a limitation:)
"Partitioning" a disc for error resilience doesn't really help, or you would see it in use with today's big hard drives. Strong error-correcting codes are more effective, and they're already in use on every kind of optical media.
Ah, but you don't know for sure. Some of it is in the stores, just rebranded. I recall that at one point it was pretty easy to find TY CDRs at retail as Fuji discs, Their DVDs show up as well, although it's a real guessing game. On the other hand, they're very easy to find online. Search Google or Amazon or Newegg or whoever you like.:)
Come back when your "ocean evaporation" theory can explain why Venus is twice as hot as Mercury.... Dur, because Mercury has no atmosphere to speak of? Half the distance from the sun that Earth is, a twentieth the mass, and tidally locked into three rotations for every two revolutions? Not exactly the ideal candidate for climate study... and Venus? You realize Venus has an atmosphere that not only is more than 95% CO2, compared to 0.04% on Earth, but is also nearly a hundred times denser? To what degree do you think that observing the difference between 95% CO2 @ 90 atm and 0.04% CO2 @ 1 atm, or the difference between 95% CO2 @ 90 atm and 3% CO2 @ ~0 atm will give you insight on the difference between 0.04% CO2 @ 1 atm vs. 0.045% CO2 @ 1 atm?
Likewise, right does not mean natural right By me it does, unless explicit context is provided ("you have the right under this contract..." or "John Doe has a right in this piece of property"). Recast what I've said in light of that. What can be created, assigned, denied, or surrendered are cut from a whole different cloth from the rights the constitution was intended to protect, and so ought to enjoy a different term. To call privileges and permissions and agreements and protection rackets "rights" is to cloud an important issue, so I don't.
Hey, I thought that if you were going to bring your own definitions to the table, you would at least pick ones that would give you an argument, instead of a tautology. If "right" refers to the law, "the constitution is always right" is not wrong, but meaningless. If "right" refers to something superior to law, "the constitution is always right" is wrong. At least I had something to say instead of begging the question under the radar.
That said, I can't find any excuse for the use of "right" and "wrong" to refer to matters of legality. They're overworked enough covering morality ("killing is wrong"), accuracy ("your claims are all wrong"), and appropriateness ("this is wrong tool... never use this"). Legality has its own perfectly good terminology, so why use terms that clash with those of morality, unless to confuse?
Slashdot Mirror
Dipshit, dumbass, and erector of straw men.
They didn't ask sam512, so why bother?
I just find it odd that with the introduction of a new collider this one has finally found something.
Right, because the Tevatron hasn't found anything at all in the past 25 years. Ever hear of the top quark? Remember that article a year ago about the "Cascade B" particle? You may have seen it, it was on Slashdot.
Of course there's a lot of crap on CPAN. But there's also a lot of really good stuff, and there are tools to help you find the best of the good stuff. Besides which, having someone else's complete and utter crap to work with can still give you a head start compared to doing everything from scratch. Not to mention, in one-off projects you can sometimes just use the utter crap, get the job done, and not have to tell anyone.
And then there's perl, where + is reserved for addition, and . is concatenation, and you don't need casts or stupid crap like "" + foo. Ah, the wonders of making different things different.
If the internet has taught us anything it's that the Infinite Monkeys Corollary is more important than the Infinite Monkeys Theorem. The corollary reminds us that it doesn't matter whether the monkeys turn out Hamlet, because you'll need to read through an infinity of worthless crap before you find it.
I don't think my Toshiba T1000 really generates enough heat to need a liquid-metal heatsink.
There is actually a (handwavy) proof that Perl has a "bigger" set of valid programs than most languages, but it's not for the reason you think. It's because perl has the __END__ and __DATA__ tokens, which signal the end of program code to the compiler. Anything at all after those is "legal" and can be accessed by the program. Which means that for any valid perl program you can come up with (the empty string is a trivial example) you can generate a countable infinity of other valid programs by appending "\n__END__\n" and then each and every possible string.
This works in purely-interpreted languages as well... just make sure the program unconditionally ends by a certain point in the file, and then put whatever you want after that point and it will never get parsed, let alone run. This is what makes sharchives work. :)
They also do volatile microcode loading IIRC, so you could deliver an OS "driver" that runs early at boot and closes the window... provided the flaw is within the realm of microcode patching anyway.
anyway, wtf are you talking about here? It *IS* 'called party pays'... that's the whole point. I don't understand you. The cellphone user pays a regular fee for their service, *AND* to receive calls and txts.
Try thinking, please. If it was "called party pays", that would mean that if I had a landline phone and you called me from a cellphone, I would pay the airtime fees.
I don't get why US people put up with the receiver of a call or txt paying. It's absurd to me. Does the receiver of a letter pay? No. So why does the receiver of a call or txt pay??
Two reasons, both of them quite sensible.
The first is that the US had significant cell phone use back when they were really expensive. If it's 1980 and I'm calling Mr. Hotshot on his carphone at a buck-fifty a minute, who should pay? Me, or Mr. Hotshot?
The second is that I don't need to know whether I'm calling a cell phone or not. It costs me the same either way. No need to memorize which numbers are mobile and which aren't. If I know what kind of phone I'm using, I know what my rate structure is. The recipient of my call knows what kind of phone he's using, and he knows what his rates are. We don't have to care about each other, we just talk.
The third (yes I said there were two) is that it's just fucking common sense. Remember, it's not "called party pays", it's "mobile party pays". Pays for what? Mobile service. You mean... the person with the cell phone pays to use the cell phone? Why, yes!
this seems to be very similar to an idea that Penrose had in the 70s and has been discussing a little bit recently, called the Weyl curvature hypothesis. The thing that seems to be novel about the hypothesis of Erickcek et al. is that apparently they have a mechanism for a new universe to pop up in a non-empty "parent" universe; Penrose's idea depends on the parent universe being completely devoid of massive objects, which depends (among other things) on proton decay and a truly huge amount of time.
100MB/sec? Assuming that the capital "B" is the intent, that means it would take close to 3 hours to write a full 1TB disk. Is that fast enough for most backup applications? I mean, obviously it would be fine for archival purposes, but it doesn't seem practical for daily backups.
Well... that exceeds the maximum sustained read speeds of most hard drives... so I'd say it's not particularly a limitation"Partitioning" a disc for error resilience doesn't really help, or you would see it in use with today's big hard drives. Strong error-correcting codes are more effective, and they're already in use on every kind of optical media.
Ah, but you don't know for sure. Some of it is in the stores, just rebranded. I recall that at one point it was pretty easy to find TY CDRs at retail as Fuji discs, Their DVDs show up as well, although it's a real guessing game. On the other hand, they're very easy to find online. Search Google or Amazon or Newegg or whoever you like. :)
Also, he's dead.
In fact I think it was first mentioned on slashdot as an example of how cool GNURadio was. :)
Hey, I thought that if you were going to bring your own definitions to the table, you would at least pick ones that would give you an argument, instead of a tautology. If "right" refers to the law, "the constitution is always right" is not wrong, but meaningless. If "right" refers to something superior to law, "the constitution is always right" is wrong. At least I had something to say instead of begging the question under the radar.
That said, I can't find any excuse for the use of "right" and "wrong" to refer to matters of legality. They're overworked enough covering morality ("killing is wrong"), accuracy ("your claims are all wrong"), and appropriateness ("this is wrong tool... never use this"). Legality has its own perfectly good terminology, so why use terms that clash with those of morality, unless to confuse?