If one party is in the United States, and the other party is in the United Kingdom, how can you say that "the entire act occurred in the United States"? It'd make as much sense to say that the entire act occurred in the United Kingdom.
Tell you what, let's split the difference and say that the act occurred midway between the two countries, right in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. The "entire act" occurred in international waters, so neither country has any jurisdiction to prosecute him!
If you're talking about those hideous ultra-bright blindness beams that assholes have been putting on their cars lately, refusing to install them is in everyone's best interest.
This web thing is pretty new, after all. We need to give them time to adapt their process. Right now they're probably still waiting to see where it goes.
ALTERNATE BONUS ENDING:
Actually, apart from all the internal search links which are probably auto-generated, there is one external link in that article that was clearly inserted by hand: the phrase "in his Web site" links to Jerry Avenaim's website.
In other words, they didn't bother with the links actually relevant to the story's content, but they took time to link to the personal website of some photographer guy they interviewed. That's just adding insult to injury.
See, NYT, it's not called a web because we like to imagine spiders crawling all over our internets. It's called that because pages are supposed to be joined into an interconnected mesh through hyperlinks. So, when your article on the bad photos on Wikipedia doesn't include a single link to the bad photos themselves, or to any page on wikipedia at all (I've checked, "wikipedia.org" doesn't occur even once in the page source), the impression you're giving is not "we're a respectable news organization", it's "we fail at the internet forever, kick us."
By "natural conditions", do you mean that their habitats are now separated by the irrigation works and so they don't meet? If you took a bird from side A and moved it on side B, would it be able to mate?
* Software IS a series of algorithms strung together (as an aside, a series of algorithms interacting is itself an algorithm)
Actually, that depends on what you mean by "algorithm" and "interacting". In computer science, it is common to employ a definition of "algorithm" that makes it equivalent to what a Turing machine can compute (see the very first sentence of that article). In this sense, an algorithm is provided its input at the start of its execution, processes it deterministically, and produces its output when it terminates (if it terminates, of course).
While this is a very useful definition in many situations, it does not describe the computer and the program I'm using to write this comment right now. The reason is that this is an interactive system, engaged in ongoing communication with a human (me). This is not a batch operation that transforms input into output (the equivalent of a mathematical function, or of a Turing machine): instead, the program waits for me to provide input, and provides output itself, at several steps during its execution. (Turing would have called this an oracle machine, with me as the oracle.)
Each keypress is processed algorithmically and an output is produced, but the combination of those algorithms in an event loop is clearly not an algorithm itself: it takes input and produces output at several points during its execution, and it does not even need to terminate to be useful (in fact, if the program did terminate while I'm writing this comment, it would be considered a failure!).
Therefore, there is at least one very common and useful definition of algorithm such that
a series of interacting algorithm is not necessarily an algorithm, and
many useful and common computer programs are not in fact algorithms.
That said, I do believe that software is math and that software patents should not be considered valid.
This is great news, but I was disappointed to read that they still had to operate in the end. Recently I've read stories about how doctors are reconsidering the need of surgical treatment of prostate cancer in benign cases, due to the bad side effects involved. In particular, prostate surgery has a very high risk of causing impotence. It would be nice if this new method could replace surgery altogether, at least for less severe cases.
That's not true. I ran 10.3 on a 233 MHz iMac G3 (a machine designed for Mac OS 9), and used that as my main machine for a couple of years. It ran fine.
I had no idea that ohloh hosted open source projects. My only exposure to them has been in the form of those annoying animated GIFs that display ohloh statistics on some open source project pages (typically hosted elsewhere). I hated those so much that one of the two explicit blocks in my Privoxy user.action file was "www.ohloh.net/projects/\d+/badge_js". To put that in perspective, the other block was for ".on.nimp.org".
With software like TexShop, I already have all I want, in a great package.
So you use a Mac, right? I'm still looking for the perfect LaTeX editor for Mac. With TeXShop, managing a complex, multi-file document is a pain. TextMate's single-character undo is just as painful. I'd like to hear more people's suggestions.
Re:Much more than you think leaves Word & Co.
on
MS Word 2010 Takes On TeX
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I like TeX better than Word, but what I like about it is that it lets me concentrate on the content and obtain something that looks "good enough" (to a technical/academic audience) with minimal effort. I actually think Computer Modern looks hideous, but I just don't care. If I had to publish a book that actually looks good, though, neither Word nor TeX would be the right tool for the job.
Unfortunately, many sites require you to set up a secret question for password recovery. Disabling that facility is actually desirable if you want to enjoy the strength of password security.
BTW, I thought "$X. Period." was bad, but "$X. Full stop." is twice worse. And he used it multiple times in the course of the article. At this point, I hate him regardless of whether he's right or not.
Maybe what should have been done was to standardize a "buffer" data type consisting of a pointer and a size. Then they could have guaranteed that a buffer's size is always passed along with its base pointer. When you only want to refer to part of a buffer, you would use a function (or even an operator, if they made "buffer" a primitive type) that alters the base pointer and/or the size appropriately. It would have been both safer and syntactically more convenient in many cases.
(Speaking of which, isn't it a bit disingenous to compare Safari 4 BETA to the current version of Firefox? Why not compare the Firefox beta then? Smells of yeller-bellied journalism to me.)
It could be that most of their Safari visitors are using the beta, while most of their Firefox visitors are using a release version. Since they're trying to correlate a browser's market share with its performance, it would make some sense to choose the most common version of each contender.
Disclaimer: I am not saying this is the case, just offering it as a possible explanation.
Slashdot Mirror
If one party is in the United States, and the other party is in the United Kingdom, how can you say that "the entire act occurred in the United States"? It'd make as much sense to say that the entire act occurred in the United Kingdom.
Tell you what, let's split the difference and say that the act occurred midway between the two countries, right in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. The "entire act" occurred in international waters, so neither country has any jurisdiction to prosecute him!
If you're talking about those hideous ultra-bright blindness beams that assholes have been putting on their cars lately, refusing to install them is in everyone's best interest.
This web thing is pretty new, after all. We need to give them time to adapt their process. Right now they're probably still waiting to see where it goes.
ALTERNATE BONUS ENDING:
Actually, apart from all the internal search links which are probably auto-generated, there is one external link in that article that was clearly inserted by hand: the phrase "in his Web site" links to Jerry Avenaim's website.
In other words, they didn't bother with the links actually relevant to the story's content, but they took time to link to the personal website of some photographer guy they interviewed. That's just adding insult to injury.
See, NYT, it's not called a web because we like to imagine spiders crawling all over our internets. It's called that because pages are supposed to be joined into an interconnected mesh through hyperlinks. So, when your article on the bad photos on Wikipedia doesn't include a single link to the bad photos themselves, or to any page on wikipedia at all (I've checked, "wikipedia.org" doesn't occur even once in the page source), the impression you're giving is not "we're a respectable news organization", it's "we fail at the internet forever, kick us."
By "natural conditions", do you mean that their habitats are now separated by the irrigation works and so they don't meet? If you took a bird from side A and moved it on side B, would it be able to mate?
* Software IS a series of algorithms strung together (as an aside, a series of algorithms interacting is itself an algorithm)
Actually, that depends on what you mean by "algorithm" and "interacting". In computer science, it is common to employ a definition of "algorithm" that makes it equivalent to what a Turing machine can compute (see the very first sentence of that article). In this sense, an algorithm is provided its input at the start of its execution, processes it deterministically, and produces its output when it terminates (if it terminates, of course).
While this is a very useful definition in many situations, it does not describe the computer and the program I'm using to write this comment right now. The reason is that this is an interactive system, engaged in ongoing communication with a human (me). This is not a batch operation that transforms input into output (the equivalent of a mathematical function, or of a Turing machine): instead, the program waits for me to provide input, and provides output itself, at several steps during its execution. (Turing would have called this an oracle machine, with me as the oracle.)
Each keypress is processed algorithmically and an output is produced, but the combination of those algorithms in an event loop is clearly not an algorithm itself: it takes input and produces output at several points during its execution, and it does not even need to terminate to be useful (in fact, if the program did terminate while I'm writing this comment, it would be considered a failure!).
Therefore, there is at least one very common and useful definition of algorithm such that
That said, I do believe that software is math and that software patents should not be considered valid.
because the networks, for which X was designed, did not have "significant" latency
This should be: because the networks for which X was designed did not have "significant" latency.
That loose synchronization is the price, that X-windows designers did not want to pay.
This should be: That loose synchronization is the price that X-windows designers did not want to pay.
"Hatena" doesn't really mean "enigma". It's actually an interjection, and a more accurate translation would be something like "Weird!" or "Oh man!".
This is great news, but I was disappointed to read that they still had to operate in the end. Recently I've read stories about how doctors are reconsidering the need of surgical treatment of prostate cancer in benign cases, due to the bad side effects involved. In particular, prostate surgery has a very high risk of causing impotence. It would be nice if this new method could replace surgery altogether, at least for less severe cases.
Does it look Mac-like yet?
Mod parent up. And here is a page that explains some common misconceptions.
That's not true. I ran 10.3 on a 233 MHz iMac G3 (a machine designed for Mac OS 9), and used that as my main machine for a couple of years. It ran fine.
I had no idea that ohloh hosted open source projects. My only exposure to them has been in the form of those annoying animated GIFs that display ohloh statistics on some open source project pages (typically hosted elsewhere).
I hated those so much that one of the two explicit blocks in my Privoxy user.action file was "www.ohloh.net/projects/\d+/badge_js". To put that in perspective, the other block was for ".on.nimp.org".
With software like TexShop, I already have all I want, in a great package.
So you use a Mac, right? I'm still looking for the perfect LaTeX editor for Mac. With TeXShop, managing a complex, multi-file document is a pain. TextMate's single-character undo is just as painful. I'd like to hear more people's suggestions.
I like TeX better than Word, but what I like about it is that it lets me concentrate on the content and obtain something that looks "good enough" (to a technical/academic audience) with minimal effort. I actually think Computer Modern looks hideous, but I just don't care.
If I had to publish a book that actually looks good, though, neither Word nor TeX would be the right tool for the job.
Unfortunately, many sites require you to set up a secret question for password recovery. Disabling that facility is actually desirable if you want to enjoy the strength of password security.
Coming up next: the Pope's guide to good sex
Almost.
Crucial issue.
The question is which anecdote echoes most readers' experience.
It's also really expensive, especially if you want to use it as an always-on connection.
BTW, I thought "$X. Period." was bad, but "$X. Full stop." is twice worse. And he used it multiple times in the course of the article. At this point, I hate him regardless of whether he's right or not.
Maybe what should have been done was to standardize a "buffer" data type consisting of a pointer and a size. Then they could have guaranteed that a buffer's size is always passed along with its base pointer. When you only want to refer to part of a buffer, you would use a function (or even an operator, if they made "buffer" a primitive type) that alters the base pointer and/or the size appropriately. It would have been both safer and syntactically more convenient in many cases.
(Speaking of which, isn't it a bit disingenous to compare Safari 4 BETA to the current version of Firefox? Why not compare the Firefox beta then? Smells of yeller-bellied journalism to me.)
It could be that most of their Safari visitors are using the beta, while most of their Firefox visitors are using a release version. Since they're trying to correlate a browser's market share with its performance, it would make some sense to choose the most common version of each contender.
Disclaimer: I am not saying this is the case, just offering it as a possible explanation.
Indeed, molds are nothing to scoff at. Mark Tatum lost half his face to a toxic mold infection.
In deadly Australia, even the plants are out to get you.