Consider a lower limit - only two people are in the meeting.
If we follow the "rounding up", or "more than 2/3" rule, they both need to agree on any motions passed.
If we follow the "rounding down" rule, then they can both unilaterally pass motions, possibly contradictory ones. (Just as long as they don't need somebody to "second" the motion).
If the two disagree, one of them might end up passing a motion that any further disputed motions would be resolved by a game of "Calvinball".
In the 1980s, science was about collecting data, then doing some basic statistical tests.
Now, papers get rejected if the researcher just collects data, but doesn't add some methodological twist into the analysis. No fuzzy k-means cluster Bayesian chi test? No paper for you! (Yeah, that's an exaggeration).
As methods get more and more convoluted, making the data available becomes more important. Researchers beginning a project can use the data to validate their computational procedures, before they try to replace the data with new sources. At the same time, they are validating that the other guys work was correct. Face it, lots of errors in papers will be due to the analysis these days.
>>In short, they design their systems like a conceptual mathematics student or a computer science type might: no >>forethought into the future, at all. They're not capable of a true "engineering" task, because everything they touch is of >>the "it works perfectly, just don't touch it" variety.
Remember, if you want to look creditable you have to give both sides fair play. People think that a "balanced" analysis is more credible than a polemic.
You could admit that patents encourage big pharma to do research, then point out that they aren't really research organization but marketing ones. Then you could ask whether public research would be more or less efficient than research carried out by a sales firm. Finally, you point out the pharma is one of the strongest pro-patent arguments, as the patent is the product. Stuff like hardware and software is protected by copyright, not patents.
Arguably, it didn't work because cheap X86 chips won on the server and workstation (high volume wins in the silicon world), and the only other competitors are little things like ARM (for mobile) and maybe that parallel thingy that powers the PS3. Sun *might* have been able to create a mobile platform, and used open source to boost uptake, but that would have been a major shift.
Unix admin is considered to be unreliable and inefficient. But there's a good reason - Unix admins manage big servers with dozens of people to logging in, while Windows admins are handling a file server, a router, and a a bunch of desktops.
If Linux admins were smart, they would push for the same (simple) model that Windows admins use - desktop boxes and a few special purpose servers.
Instead, they tend to give everyone SSH access, creating a very hard-to-maintain environment.
That's why enterprises don't go Unix. (Oh, and Office...)
It takes hours for me to torrent a movie-sized file (i.e. a distro CD). I would rather pay a few dollars for a better download rate, better quality movie, etc.
But it's hard to justify $30 / movie for legal downloads, which is what the big distributors would like.
I'd guess that normal cells don't have as many, because they don't replicate as fast. But some fast-replicating cells (hair, some blood cells, etc) might have a few. Note, chemo also targets fast-replicating cells, which is why it kills cancer and makes your hair fall out.
So this would be a suped-up chemo treatment, and hopefully a bit more specific.
I think it's a sign of my age. I never liked MS much. I liked google for a while. I almost trusted them. Then I switched to Apple - google seemed a little too eager for all my personal information.
When you realize that they are all ruthless corporations out to make a buck of you, you have to admit that open source is the only non-evil option. It's not always the best option (and I'll use the best option even if it's evil, as long as there's a way to port my data), but it's the one I root for.
I still use google for search and mail, and I like my Macbook, and I like Microsoft's... em, no wait I never liked anything Microsoft (though I might duel boot one day and play some games, and the.net runtime looks like it might inspire some useful developments) but I don't like or trust the companies.
It's just odd to compare two different tech stacks (which can do just about anything) by measuring their video playback performance.
As long as hardware acceleration works, the language (or whatever you want to call it) is not a big factor. It's like comparing an apple (which may have a gorilla supporting it), in a cage match with an orange (which may have a gorilla supporting it).
Flash uses the GPU (except on OSX - boo Apple). HTML5 will use the GPU on every platform sometime in the future. I know which one my money's on.
I don't like it that HTML5 will win due to Apple's dirty tricks, but face it - sometimes the end justifies the means.
The same way you enforce adult sites to go to xxx - you don't. Embedded ratings could only be "opt-in" - just like most standards on the net. Just like.xxx would be. Anything else would just be too hard to enforce.
People who want a "kid-safe" internet could insist in embedded ratings. Some HTML tag with "xxx, violence" or whatever else they want to put in. Easy to block. Easy to implement. And people don't have to worry about domain squatters trying to register slashdot.xxx to shake down established sites.
Because wind power is variable. You can get good reliability by amalgamating regions, but if you only have one state and it's a calm day you have a power shortage.
Just a word of warning - native Australian plants are often highly flammable. Big, lush, high water gardens are reasonably fire protection. Gravel (or pretty stones) is better. (That's a little debatable, as greenery can shield a house as long as it doesn't ignite). Bamboo burns like the oversized grass it is.
Also, woodchip is dry wood. It's not remotely safe in a fire.
There are some hardy (but not flammable) plants that are good - some succulents will only burn if there's a blow torch on them, but be very picky with drought-resistant plants.
Also, avoid natural (uncleared) bush like the plague. A combination of trees, shrubs, and undergrowth can melt aluminum, especially if it's on a hill. It looks nice and environmental to be living amongst trees, but the environmental footprint is horrendous (they clear *how many* acres for their driveway?), and it's a deadly place to be if a fire starts. Imagine 10-20m flames from the natural bush, then think about the showers of embers (including burning branches carried in the fire-fueled tornado - yes, the energy from a fire can create a tornado).
I prefer to live in a low-impact cluster of cement boxes, and go to the bush when I want to enjoy it. Maybe when I have a family I'll look at something with a bit of a yard, but only one that's big enough to play in.
Slashdot Mirror
As you can see, the market will miraculously cured this mythical "shortage".
More like IPv4 is a 2" tube, and IPv6 is a 79228162514264337593543950336" tube. That's how many more addresses it contains.
I hope you took the square root, as the throughput of a tube is roughly proportional to are, right? Thus it should be a 281474976710656 inch pipe.
Consider a lower limit - only two people are in the meeting.
If we follow the "rounding up", or "more than 2/3" rule, they both need to agree on any motions passed.
If we follow the "rounding down" rule, then they can both unilaterally pass motions, possibly contradictory ones. (Just as long as they don't need somebody to "second" the motion).
If the two disagree, one of them might end up passing a motion that any further disputed motions would be resolved by a game of "Calvinball".
Not if your usual job includes calculating taxes ...
In the 1980s, science was about collecting data, then doing some basic statistical tests.
Now, papers get rejected if the researcher just collects data, but doesn't add some methodological twist into the analysis. No fuzzy k-means cluster Bayesian chi test? No paper for you! (Yeah, that's an exaggeration).
As methods get more and more convoluted, making the data available becomes more important. Researchers beginning a project can use the data to validate their computational procedures, before they try to replace the data with new sources. At the same time, they are validating that the other guys work was correct. Face it, lots of errors in papers will be due to the analysis these days.
>>In short, they design their systems like a conceptual mathematics student or a computer science type might: no
>>forethought into the future, at all. They're not capable of a true "engineering" task, because everything they touch is of >>the "it works perfectly, just don't touch it" variety.
It's called a lack of experience.
Remember, if you want to look creditable you have to give both sides fair play. People think that a "balanced" analysis is more credible than a polemic.
You could admit that patents encourage big pharma to do research, then point out that they aren't really research organization but marketing ones. Then you could ask whether public research would be more or less efficient than research carried out by a sales firm. Finally, you point out the pharma is one of the strongest pro-patent arguments, as the patent is the product. Stuff like hardware and software is protected by copyright, not patents.
Arguably, it didn't work because cheap X86 chips won on the server and workstation (high volume wins in the silicon world), and the only other competitors are little things like ARM (for mobile) and maybe that parallel thingy that powers the PS3. Sun *might* have been able to create a mobile platform, and used open source to boost uptake, but that would have been a major shift.
MySQL? They might have something more insidious in mind.
Unix admin is considered to be unreliable and inefficient. But there's a good reason - Unix admins manage big servers with dozens of people to logging in, while Windows admins are handling a file server, a router, and a a bunch of desktops.
If Linux admins were smart, they would push for the same (simple) model that Windows admins use - desktop boxes and a few special purpose servers.
Instead, they tend to give everyone SSH access, creating a very hard-to-maintain environment.
That's why enterprises don't go Unix. (Oh, and Office ...)
It takes hours for me to torrent a movie-sized file (i.e. a distro CD). I would rather pay a few dollars for a better download rate, better quality movie, etc.
But it's hard to justify $30 / movie for legal downloads, which is what the big distributors would like.
Yes it is. You learn through a variety of ways, and repetition is one of them. Wax on, wax off.
I'd guess that normal cells don't have as many, because they don't replicate as fast. But some fast-replicating cells (hair, some blood cells, etc) might have a few. Note, chemo also targets fast-replicating cells, which is why it kills cancer and makes your hair fall out.
So this would be a suped-up chemo treatment, and hopefully a bit more specific.
Damn yeah. But then MS would have been able to make a lean, mean kernel without worrying about compatibility. What would all their managers have done?
I think Microsoft had something called DCOM ... but you don't hear them bragging ;)
I think it's a sign of my age. I never liked MS much. I liked google for a while. I almost trusted them. Then I switched to Apple - google seemed a little too eager for all my personal information.
When you realize that they are all ruthless corporations out to make a buck of you, you have to admit that open source is the only non-evil option. It's not always the best option (and I'll use the best option even if it's evil, as long as there's a way to port my data), but it's the one I root for.
I still use google for search and mail, and I like my Macbook, and I like Microsoft's ... em, no wait I never liked anything Microsoft (though I might duel boot one day and play some games, and the .net runtime looks like it might inspire some useful developments) but I don't like or trust the companies.
It's just odd to compare two different tech stacks (which can do just about anything) by measuring their video playback performance.
As long as hardware acceleration works, the language (or whatever you want to call it) is not a big factor. It's like comparing an apple (which may have a gorilla supporting it), in a cage match with an orange (which may have a gorilla supporting it).
Flash uses the GPU (except on OSX - boo Apple). HTML5 will use the GPU on every platform sometime in the future. I know which one my money's on.
I don't like it that HTML5 will win due to Apple's dirty tricks, but face it - sometimes the end justifies the means.
The same way you enforce adult sites to go to xxx - you don't. Embedded ratings could only be "opt-in" - just like most standards on the net. Just like .xxx would be. Anything else would just be too hard to enforce.
Gas spins up faster than coal. Coal takes a day to spin up, while gas can pretty much spin up on demand.
A few years ago, a Mac Pro was cheaper than an equivalent Dell. That was a sweet time.
Now they seem to be lagging.
It doesn't help that they refuse to build an "XMac" - an expandable tower with desktop price / quality parts, and consumer (not server) CPUs.
People who want a "kid-safe" internet could insist in embedded ratings. Some HTML tag with "xxx, violence" or whatever else they want to put in. Easy to block. Easy to implement. And people don't have to worry about domain squatters trying to register slashdot.xxx to shake down established sites.
It's because people are more afraid of risks they can't control. They are *especially* afraid of risks that are in other people's hands.
Pilot error (or driver error if you are driving) wind gusts other drivers.
Everyone believes they are an above average driver.
Because wind power is variable. You can get good reliability by amalgamating regions, but if you only have one state and it's a calm day you have a power shortage.
The best indicator of future behavior is past behavior.
Just a word of warning - native Australian plants are often highly flammable. Big, lush, high water gardens are reasonably fire protection. Gravel (or pretty stones) is better. (That's a little debatable, as greenery can shield a house as long as it doesn't ignite). Bamboo burns like the oversized grass it is.
Also, woodchip is dry wood. It's not remotely safe in a fire.
There are some hardy (but not flammable) plants that are good - some succulents will only burn if there's a blow torch on them, but be very picky with drought-resistant plants.
Also, avoid natural (uncleared) bush like the plague. A combination of trees, shrubs, and undergrowth can melt aluminum, especially if it's on a hill. It looks nice and environmental to be living amongst trees, but the environmental footprint is horrendous (they clear *how many* acres for their driveway?), and it's a deadly place to be if a fire starts. Imagine 10-20m flames from the natural bush, then think about the showers of embers (including burning branches carried in the fire-fueled tornado - yes, the energy from a fire can create a tornado).
I prefer to live in a low-impact cluster of cement boxes, and go to the bush when I want to enjoy it. Maybe when I have a family I'll look at something with a bit of a yard, but only one that's big enough to play in.