if we neglect air resistance (which would probably be negligible), then the phone will measure *no* acceleration at all at any point during its rise and fall.
When anything falls to Earth under gravity it is accelerating at ~9.8m/s downwards. The reason why you are weightless during free fall is because you are not resisting the acceleration.
From this principle, Einstein deduced that free-fall is actually inertial motion. Objects in free-fall do not really accelerate. In an inertial frame of reference bodies (and light) obey Newton's first law, moving at constant velocity in straight lines. Analogously, in a curved spacetime the worldline of an inertial particle or pulse of light is as straight as possible (in space and time).[2] Such a worldline is called a geodesic. Viewed across time from the viewpoint of an observer "stationary" on the surface of a gravitating body, the geodesics appear to curve towards the body. This is why an accelerometer in free-fall doesn't register any acceleration; there isn't any.
I would assume you meant to say 'sign with your private key'. As noted above, encrypting with the private key so everyone can decrypt it would be pointless.
That's how signing works - by encrypting the message (or more usually a secure hash of your message) with your private key. If the recipient can decrypt the hash correctly with your public key, he knows it was you that encrypted it - or somebody who has obtained your private key.
The annoying thing about this is the lack of evidence.
Do we really allow the government to ban anything it wants, even when there is no evidence it is harmful?
I love my country, but I have to admit that, here in the UK, the answer to that question is apparently yes. All that's needed, it seems, is a badly researched and ill informed article in the Daily Mail that panders to the prejudices of its rabid right wing readership.
I strongly suspect Google Glass will be helpful to drivers and reduce accidents. It will probably cause a few accidents but on balance it will prevent more, because people will be getting directions without looking away from their windscreen as they now must do to look at a map or GPS. And never mind the hundreds of blinking neon signs crowding out our streets with the express intention of distracting us from the road to look at them - how about a ban on those?
You don't need to look at your satnav, it reads the instructions out to you precisely so you don't have to look away from the road.
You can write laws until you're blue in the face but you aren't addressing the behavior with any of them.
Yes you are. The existence of the law indicates to them that their behaviour is unacceptable. If they get caught still doing it, the punishment reinforces the indication. If none of this works to change their behaviour, the law allows their driving privileges to be removed after a number of repeat offences.
Google's real motivations afford them selling out customers for the value of their "private" information.
Google does not sell out its customers. If, like me, you have never handed any money over to Google but you have used their apps, Search etc, you are not a customer, you are product. Google's customers are the people who advertise with them.
The UK does have a constitution and it is all written down. It's not written down in one place but is an aggregate of a number of Acts of Parliament.
In some ways, this makes it difficult for ordinary people to know what it is but it does have the advantage that it's not treated with quasi religious zeal so a stupid anachronistic and downright dangerous clause like the US's second amendment has a realistic chance of getting repealed.
The Ipad is DRM. The kids cannot study, share or modify the code or freely run the programs as they wish. The kids are beholden to whatver rules Apple imposes. A better route would be an open device that allows for an understanding of how it works along with innovation.
Out in the real world nobody gives a flying fuck how their devices work as long as they do work. These iPads are not being bought as devices to help people learn to program, so it really doesn't matter if they are open or not.
The real tragedy here is not that the new shiny text book e-readers are Apple built, but that they are spending the money on shiny technical gizmos of any colour rather than better teachers and teaching. It is a clear demonstration of incompetence on the part of the relevant authorities.
A month ago the idea that the US government was monitoring the entire internet, had access to every major ISPs records and could listen to anyone's phone calls at any time was a joke.
But they have exceptional people at NCIS. I've watched Timothy McGee crack a 256 bit symmetrical cipher in an afternoon using just his desktop PC which is especially astonishing given that the way he delivered the line "256 bit symmetrical cipher" strongly implied that he had no clue what a 256 bit symmetrical cipher is.
The native types are immutable effectively. The expression 5 + 3 doesn't change the value of 5, it returns an "object" withe the value 8. I think the problem arises from the name of the function which sort of implies you are doing something to the receiver. Objective-C has an analogous class to BigNumber but its methods are less ambiguous and they make it obvious that the receiver isn't changing, just returning the result of the addition, so translating the syntax back to Java, the method would be bigNumberByAdding() which is less ambiguous but even more of a problem when you are trying to implement a complex formula.
Smalltalk had it right. You can send + as a message with one parameter.
I like your attitude. When I was a child, there was no Internet, but I could easily have been exposed to sex just by walking into my parents' bedroom at the wrong moment. I just can't believe how irresponsible they were. Why was there no law mandating that bedroom doors must remain locked at all times unless people opt out in writing?
Unfortunately I don't think English has a convenient word or phrase to describe study of artifacts of modern history.
Yes it does, the word is "archaeology".
You can argue that the literal translation from the Greek doesn't fit, but in English, it's often the case that a word changes its meaning over time. It's quite normal and not a problem at all as long as everybody understands what everybody else means when they say the word.
I'm not a fan of guns myself and would never carry one for self defence, even if I was allowed to in my country, but, if a country is going to allow its citizens to carry guns, then a prerequisite is surely that they practice with their weapons at the range on a regular basis. If you are in the situation of actually needing your gun, you are likely to be under extreme stress and if you are not intimately familiar with every aspect of operating your weapon, it'll probably end badly.
Anyway, the point is that you will probably be using your gun regularly and therefore changing the batteries regularly.
SQL is not a way to store data. Whoever gave you that idea? SQL is a language used to manipulate and modify relational databases. It can also be used with minor modifications to query other types of database e.g. a JCR compliant content store.
Similarly a relational database doesn't have to use SQL as a query language e.g. the original Postgres and Ingres both used QUEL.
By the way, the correct way to deal with arrays of strings is to normalise your schema first because that gives the most relational model with the best flexibility and is the "right" solutions" and then, if there is a performance issue, denormalise the string array again. PostrgeSQL has an array type, by the way.
But you need to realise that the man competition for Cobol at the time when it was invented was assembler. Cobol is only as self documenting as any other high level language.
Data corruption is much easier to spot with clear text and can even be easily fixed compared to binary data. In this respect, HTTP 2.0 is a complete step backwards.
Actually the problem is already solved. If you look at one of the fewbinaryprotocols still in use, you will often notice a field in the header (or trailer) called "checksum" or CRC. This is a number computed by applying a mathematical function to the rest of the header or message. If a message gets corrupted in transmission, the checksum - calculated by the receiver using the same function - will be wrong. The receiver can then request retransmission without the necessity for a human to even know there was a problem.
There are no advantages to a text based protocol other than the ability to debug it using basic tools like telnet or a text editor. This is, I will concede, a pretty big advantage, however, it goes away once you start using encryption or compression.
Oh, and text based protocols are not without their own problems, the first of which that springs to mind is "what character set was used". It's amazing how few people understand that the charset="utf-8" bit in the first line of an XML file means you have to use UTF-8, to encode the rest of the file - not whatever character set the user has selected on his PC or that an HTTP message without any character set information should be in ISO-8859-1 and not UTF-8.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not even as if John Lennon is the only dead Beatle.
George Harrison died in 2001 and Paul McCartney died (pretty badly) during the opening ceremony of of the 2012 Olympics.
if we neglect air resistance (which would probably be negligible), then the phone will measure *no* acceleration at all at any point during its rise and fall.
When anything falls to Earth under gravity it is accelerating at ~9.8m/s downwards. The reason why you are weightless during free fall is because you are not resisting the acceleration.
Einstein says "wrong".
Sorry, you fail physics
Ironic, no?
Ironic? Yes.
I would assume you meant to say 'sign with your private key'. As noted above, encrypting with the private key so everyone can decrypt it would be pointless.
That's how signing works - by encrypting the message (or more usually a secure hash of your message) with your private key. If the recipient can decrypt the hash correctly with your public key, he knows it was you that encrypted it - or somebody who has obtained your private key.
The annoying thing about this is the lack of evidence.
Do we really allow the government to ban anything it wants, even when there is no evidence it is harmful?
I love my country, but I have to admit that, here in the UK, the answer to that question is apparently yes. All that's needed, it seems, is a badly researched and ill informed article in the Daily Mail that panders to the prejudices of its rabid right wing readership.
I strongly suspect Google Glass will be helpful to drivers and reduce accidents. It will probably cause a few accidents but on balance it will prevent more, because people will be getting directions without looking away from their windscreen as they now must do to look at a map or GPS. And never mind the hundreds of blinking neon signs crowding out our streets with the express intention of distracting us from the road to look at them - how about a ban on those?
You don't need to look at your satnav, it reads the instructions out to you precisely so you don't have to look away from the road.
You can write laws until you're blue in the face but you aren't addressing the behavior with any of them.
Yes you are. The existence of the law indicates to them that their behaviour is unacceptable. If they get caught still doing it, the punishment reinforces the indication. If none of this works to change their behaviour, the law allows their driving privileges to be removed after a number of repeat offences.
Google's real motivations afford them selling out customers for the value of their "private" information.
Google does not sell out its customers. If, like me, you have never handed any money over to Google but you have used their apps, Search etc, you are not a customer, you are product. Google's customers are the people who advertise with them.
The UK does have a constitution and it is all written down. It's not written down in one place but is an aggregate of a number of Acts of Parliament.
In some ways, this makes it difficult for ordinary people to know what it is but it does have the advantage that it's not treated with quasi religious zeal so a stupid anachronistic and downright dangerous clause like the US's second amendment has a realistic chance of getting repealed.
The Ipad is DRM. The kids cannot study, share or modify the code or freely run the programs as they wish. The kids are beholden to whatver rules Apple imposes. A better route would be an open device that allows for an understanding of how it works along with innovation.
Out in the real world nobody gives a flying fuck how their devices work as long as they do work. These iPads are not being bought as devices to help people learn to program, so it really doesn't matter if they are open or not.
The real tragedy here is not that the new shiny text book e-readers are Apple built, but that they are spending the money on shiny technical gizmos of any colour rather than better teachers and teaching. It is a clear demonstration of incompetence on the part of the relevant authorities.
A month ago the idea that the US government was monitoring the entire internet, had access to every major ISPs records and could listen to anyone's phone calls at any time was a joke.
Was it? It seemed totally plausible to me.
But they have exceptional people at NCIS. I've watched Timothy McGee crack a 256 bit symmetrical cipher in an afternoon using just his desktop PC which is especially astonishing given that the way he delivered the line "256 bit symmetrical cipher" strongly implied that he had no clue what a 256 bit symmetrical cipher is.
The native types are immutable effectively. The expression 5 + 3 doesn't change the value of 5, it returns an "object" withe the value 8. I think the problem arises from the name of the function which sort of implies you are doing something to the receiver. Objective-C has an analogous class to BigNumber but its methods are less ambiguous and they make it obvious that the receiver isn't changing, just returning the result of the addition, so translating the syntax back to Java, the method would be bigNumberByAdding() which is less ambiguous but even more of a problem when you are trying to implement a complex formula.
Smalltalk had it right. You can send + as a message with one parameter.
I like your attitude. When I was a child, there was no Internet, but I could easily have been exposed to sex just by walking into my parents' bedroom at the wrong moment. I just can't believe how irresponsible they were. Why was there no law mandating that bedroom doors must remain locked at all times unless people opt out in writing?
Why do you feel insulted? Archaeologists frequently dig relatively modern sites. There's no reason to get insulted about it.
Unfortunately I don't think English has a convenient word or phrase to describe study of artifacts of modern history.
Yes it does, the word is "archaeology".
You can argue that the literal translation from the Greek doesn't fit, but in English, it's often the case that a word changes its meaning over time. It's quite normal and not a problem at all as long as everybody understands what everybody else means when they say the word.
Nope. There were U-boats in World War 1.
In fact, the German unrestricted U-boat campaign of 1917 was one of the reasons why the USA entered the war.
I'm not a fan of guns myself and would never carry one for self defence, even if I was allowed to in my country, but, if a country is going to allow its citizens to carry guns, then a prerequisite is surely that they practice with their weapons at the range on a regular basis. If you are in the situation of actually needing your gun, you are likely to be under extreme stress and if you are not intimately familiar with every aspect of operating your weapon, it'll probably end badly.
Anyway, the point is that you will probably be using your gun regularly and therefore changing the batteries regularly.
SQL is not a way to store data. Whoever gave you that idea? SQL is a language used to manipulate and modify relational databases. It can also be used with minor modifications to query other types of database e.g. a JCR compliant content store.
Similarly a relational database doesn't have to use SQL as a query language e.g. the original Postgres and Ingres both used QUEL.
By the way, the correct way to deal with arrays of strings is to normalise your schema first because that gives the most relational model with the best flexibility and is the "right" solutions" and then, if there is a performance issue, denormalise the string array again. PostrgeSQL has an array type, by the way.
PostreSQL's ancestry is more related to the (probably defunct now) commercial Ingres database manager.
But you need to realise that the man competition for Cobol at the time when it was invented was assembler. Cobol is only as self documenting as any other high level language.
Yes I'm kicking myself now that Google Maps is no longer available on i-devices.
Oh, wait, that's a lie.
Whether he had it coming to him or not, it's murder unless you go through due process to make sure he deserved it.
How has this not been modded up to +5 fucking hilarious?
Data corruption is much easier to spot with clear text and can even be easily fixed compared to binary data. In this respect, HTTP 2.0 is a complete step backwards.
Actually the problem is already solved. If you look at one of the few binary protocols still in use, you will often notice a field in the header (or trailer) called "checksum" or CRC. This is a number computed by applying a mathematical function to the rest of the header or message. If a message gets corrupted in transmission, the checksum - calculated by the receiver using the same function - will be wrong. The receiver can then request retransmission without the necessity for a human to even know there was a problem.
There are no advantages to a text based protocol other than the ability to debug it using basic tools like telnet or a text editor. This is, I will concede, a pretty big advantage, however, it goes away once you start using encryption or compression.
Oh, and text based protocols are not without their own problems, the first of which that springs to mind is "what character set was used". It's amazing how few people understand that the charset="utf-8" bit in the first line of an XML file means you have to use UTF-8, to encode the rest of the file - not whatever character set the user has selected on his PC or that an HTTP message without any character set information should be in ISO-8859-1 and not UTF-8.
No, just drop the "script".
Great idea. Since it will no longer be interpreted, it won't really be a scripting language, so we can drop the "script" part of the name.