Neat stuff. You should add some example circuits, maybe near the "Load Schematic" you could add "Load Examples" or something. To get people familiar, possibly add examples of known logic building blocks like an n-bit adder, or a select-logic-gate circuit, or maybe a counter.
So now you'll get whacked with a rolled-up newspaper for being sensationalist in the headline, but not by me.
Exactly -- If I submitted a story with the title "Cosmic X-Rays Cure Cancer", if it even got posted, the first comment would be "the title implies that X-rays from space cure cancer!". I try to submit stuff that will generate interesting discussion, so I try getting the gist of the subject in the summary, because I know most people don't RTFA.
In this case, It's not really about the fact that it was thought of by astronomers, but rather that it could advance radiation treatment (which is like a sledgehammer), into a more focuses, targeted system. That is what's interesting about the story. The fact that it's linked to astronomy is just an interesting tidbit, of no significant importance -- but it does make it more interesting than just "advances in radiation therapy".
Ok, so you're obviously in the EE field. Haven't you ever discussed a circuit on a forum? Haven't you seen the links to huge PNGs/JPGs or PDFs that you have to open in a new window/tab (and then wait for the PDF reader to load)? This doesn't require you to *install* anything, just to have a browser. If you encountered this "in the wild", and knew nothing about it, you'd get the idea in a few seconds. It doesn't require anything from you.
I'm a huge PIC fan. Actually I'm a huge microcontroller fan. These days, almost every new project I start working on *begins* with choosing an MCU. Having said that, if I'm designing a narrow-purpose board for someone, I'll always look at a non-programmable solution first.
MCUs can reduce cost, complexity, component count, etc., but if you're making a "black box" solution, then you have to consider that maybe down the line either the client or someone else will want to modify the function of the project, at which point there's a higher chance they'd have problems with an MCU that contains code, than a dedicated solution. Obviously, if the component count is doubled by using dedicated ICs, I'll explain this to the client and have them make the decision.
If you're working on a project where you know who's going to maintain it (possibly only yourself), then sure, PICs all around. But there are still many scenarios where dedicated ICs are the better choice.
I'd be wary of using a browser *without* noscript. But noscript is a whitelist mechanism -- you allow what you trust. It's turned off for Slashdot, for example, but I wouldn't google something and wander around with scripting enabled for everything. If only because you don't know how much horsepower you're going to need on a webpage you've yet to enter (with 14 different libraries, logging scripts, sniffer scripts, ad network scripts, etc.). If you want something to work, you say so explicitly. It doesn't mean you eschew all javascript.
You can embed more than one schematic in a page. If you're on a forum and want to compare circuits and gradually change/modify them, this is far better than PDFs. Right now the most common method(at least in my experience) is to attach a large PNG, which you have to open if a separate window/tab.
Well, the headline is wrong too. X-rays are not used for stargazing. Stargazing is a passive only endeavor. X-rays are emission only deal.
I actually knew that when I submitted this, but it was the closest headline I could fit. The problem is that you can only fit so many characters into a headline, so when I submit stories I often have to truncate the title to a point where it's no longer technically accurate. I think they have to limit the title length so it "fits" in RSS feeds (as one line, rather than a split sentence).
The first thing to go is grammar, and if it's not short enough by then you have to abbreviate anyway you can.
It's actually in the summary as well:
"...X-rays that are used by astronomers for determining the various chemical abundances inside stars..."
So he complained after reading the headline, and part of the summary. In true Slashdot fashion.
I'm using Firefox 5.0 right now, and it's probably the best browser they've made thus far. They're already working on future versions. If they feel they can develop additional software that's adjacent (or possibly contains overlapping code) to the browser, then why not? If their function, in your eyes, is to make a good desktop browser, then you should be pleased. Just ignore everything else they do if you find it distracting.
Thank you for your constructive criticism. The title is actually the title as it appears on Discovery.com, and the part that's in quotes is ( -- wait for it -- ) a quote. I'm sure that Discovery News has a feedback section -- you should contact them asap, and include your edifying CAPS-LOCK comments.
I was just pointing out that there are crazy racist assholes everywhere. Any forum online has to deal with nutjobs, and the existence of these types of comments just shows that a site isn't moderating its comments properly. Racist posts on Slashdot get modded down almost immediately, I actually think it's one of the better moderation systems I've encountered.
If an organization is in a position to erect a paywall, they will likely do so. If you inquire into it, they'll bombard you with bureaucracy and tell you that, in fact, you're only paying a symbolic amount for the work they do, and you should be thankful. Academia and science journals are big fans of this approach.
You can only get a Geek Card(TM) if you pass the Standard Nerdacity Exam, and interview before your local Council of Geekery. Inquire at your local Dorkstation.
Rock-hard evidence, that is. Comments on a website.
Do you view Slashdot comments "raw"? If you do, you know that about 20% of Slashdot readers are Klan members. Sure, they get modded down, but they're not *erased*. This allows White Supremacy groups to communicate on Slashdot, where they know they have like-minded friends.
The history of the moon is a subject that keeps being revised and researched. If you asked 20 years ago: "What is the Moon's origin?", it's likely that you'd be told it was a planet that got caught in Earth's gravity, because using the information they had then, it was the most likely theory. Now the Giant Impact Hypothesis is favored. And water on the moon? Just a few years ago that would be a joke. Any new information helps.
I dunno... I watched Natural Born Killers the other day, and killing people seems pretty fun. But I should download some first-person shooters and train before I go and get that semi-automatic.
Oh, by the way, did anyone check what movies this guy watched? Not that a MOVIE would have anything to do with his actions... I mean, that would be absurd. A movie is just pictures on a screen, while video games are clearly both the motivation and the how-to guides of murderers.
Yeah, let's get down to the heart of the matter: Jews. Obviously this was orchestrated by the apartheid Zionist state, to extent their genocidal reach. It makes all the sense in the world. After this massacre, no one will dare vote in favor of of an independent Palestinian state. If they do, they'll be the next target.
From the Wikipedia article:
"A common criticism is that the initial bitcoin distribution is heavily advantageous towards early-adopters. As stated, bitcoins are distributed ("generated") as an award for the solution to a difficult proof-of-work problem. The drawback is that the amount of work that has to be done for one bitcoin is currently over 500,000 times more than the amount of work at which the first bitcoins were going. As more people join, and also because of a reward function that halves the number of rewarded bitcoins every so many blocks, it becomes harder to generate bitcoins over time, using the same computing power."
Initial group of users get the advantage... The more users join, the more value the initial group owns.
I'm thinking of a shape. A polyhedron. Followed by the word "scheme".
I'm wondering what exactly you consider "aging", but anyway: How about "with age comes experience"? Nerds tend to work in technical fields, and experience in pretty much any technical field will teach you that the more complex a system is, the more likely it is to fail. Now, obviously you've got an entire battalion of nerds working at NASA, many of whom are "aging", so I'm assuming that they're relying on their age/experience to make the right decisions.
I also don't see how "an aging user base" is a weakness, which we don't even know to be the case, unless you've got access to demographic information that I don't. It's entirely possible that more "aging" users have stopped visiting the site, compared to the new ones that have joined.
Earth's atmosphere is entirely different. If you tried using the same scale, the same thrusters, and the same weight, the entire thing would crash. I'm sure there were separate tests of the individual steps, using dummy loads, but I can't find any videos of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, here's a link to the same story on esa.int. Hopefully now that the source of the same story has changed, it's more to your linking.
Neat stuff. You should add some example circuits, maybe near the "Load Schematic" you could add "Load Examples" or something. To get people familiar, possibly add examples of known logic building blocks like an n-bit adder, or a select-logic-gate circuit, or maybe a counter.
So now you'll get whacked with a rolled-up newspaper for being sensationalist in the headline, but not by me.
Exactly -- If I submitted a story with the title "Cosmic X-Rays Cure Cancer", if it even got posted, the first comment would be "the title implies that X-rays from space cure cancer!". I try to submit stuff that will generate interesting discussion, so I try getting the gist of the subject in the summary, because I know most people don't RTFA.
In this case, It's not really about the fact that it was thought of by astronomers, but rather that it could advance radiation treatment (which is like a sledgehammer), into a more focuses, targeted system. That is what's interesting about the story. The fact that it's linked to astronomy is just an interesting tidbit, of no significant importance -- but it does make it more interesting than just "advances in radiation therapy".
Ok, so you're obviously in the EE field. Haven't you ever discussed a circuit on a forum? Haven't you seen the links to huge PNGs/JPGs or PDFs that you have to open in a new window/tab (and then wait for the PDF reader to load)? This doesn't require you to *install* anything, just to have a browser. If you encountered this "in the wild", and knew nothing about it, you'd get the idea in a few seconds. It doesn't require anything from you.
I guess I'm saying I don't see why you'd object.
I'm a huge PIC fan. Actually I'm a huge microcontroller fan. These days, almost every new project I start working on *begins* with choosing an MCU. Having said that, if I'm designing a narrow-purpose board for someone, I'll always look at a non-programmable solution first.
MCUs can reduce cost, complexity, component count, etc., but if you're making a "black box" solution, then you have to consider that maybe down the line either the client or someone else will want to modify the function of the project, at which point there's a higher chance they'd have problems with an MCU that contains code, than a dedicated solution. Obviously, if the component count is doubled by using dedicated ICs, I'll explain this to the client and have them make the decision.
If you're working on a project where you know who's going to maintain it (possibly only yourself), then sure, PICs all around. But there are still many scenarios where dedicated ICs are the better choice.
I'd be wary of using a browser *without* noscript. But noscript is a whitelist mechanism -- you allow what you trust. It's turned off for Slashdot, for example, but I wouldn't google something and wander around with scripting enabled for everything. If only because you don't know how much horsepower you're going to need on a webpage you've yet to enter (with 14 different libraries, logging scripts, sniffer scripts, ad network scripts, etc.). If you want something to work, you say so explicitly. It doesn't mean you eschew all javascript.
You can embed more than one schematic in a page. If you're on a forum and want to compare circuits and gradually change/modify them, this is far better than PDFs. Right now the most common method(at least in my experience) is to attach a large PNG, which you have to open if a separate window/tab.
Well, the headline is wrong too. X-rays are not used for stargazing. Stargazing is a passive only endeavor. X-rays are emission only deal.
I actually knew that when I submitted this, but it was the closest headline I could fit. The problem is that you can only fit so many characters into a headline, so when I submit stories I often have to truncate the title to a point where it's no longer technically accurate. I think they have to limit the title length so it "fits" in RSS feeds (as one line, rather than a split sentence).
The first thing to go is grammar, and if it's not short enough by then you have to abbreviate anyway you can.
It's actually in the summary as well:
"...X-rays that are used by astronomers for determining the various chemical abundances inside stars..."
So he complained after reading the headline, and part of the summary. In true Slashdot fashion.
Totally.
I'm using Firefox 5.0 right now, and it's probably the best browser they've made thus far. They're already working on future versions. If they feel they can develop additional software that's adjacent (or possibly contains overlapping code) to the browser, then why not? If their function, in your eyes, is to make a good desktop browser, then you should be pleased. Just ignore everything else they do if you find it distracting.
Thank you for your constructive criticism. The title is actually the title as it appears on Discovery.com, and the part that's in quotes is ( -- wait for it -- ) a quote. I'm sure that Discovery News has a feedback section -- you should contact them asap, and include your edifying CAPS-LOCK comments.
I was just pointing out that there are crazy racist assholes everywhere. Any forum online has to deal with nutjobs, and the existence of these types of comments just shows that a site isn't moderating its comments properly. Racist posts on Slashdot get modded down almost immediately, I actually think it's one of the better moderation systems I've encountered.
If an organization is in a position to erect a paywall, they will likely do so. If you inquire into it, they'll bombard you with bureaucracy and tell you that, in fact, you're only paying a symbolic amount for the work they do, and you should be thankful. Academia and science journals are big fans of this approach.
Dude... You actually watched that thing? My condolences.
Ignore this post, it's an imposter.
You can only get a Geek Card(TM) if you pass the Standard Nerdacity Exam, and interview before your local Council of Geekery. Inquire at your local Dorkstation.
Rock-hard evidence, that is. Comments on a website.
Do you view Slashdot comments "raw"? If you do, you know that about 20% of Slashdot readers are Klan members. Sure, they get modded down, but they're not *erased*. This allows White Supremacy groups to communicate on Slashdot, where they know they have like-minded friends.
Hmm... If you dropped Dexter from that list, it'd be 98% of the people reading Slashdot.
You'd need the pringles can hack to get that far.
The history of the moon is a subject that keeps being revised and researched. If you asked 20 years ago: "What is the Moon's origin?", it's likely that you'd be told it was a planet that got caught in Earth's gravity, because using the information they had then, it was the most likely theory. Now the Giant Impact Hypothesis is favored. And water on the moon? Just a few years ago that would be a joke. Any new information helps.
I dunno... I watched Natural Born Killers the other day, and killing people seems pretty fun. But I should download some first-person shooters and train before I go and get that semi-automatic.
Oh, by the way, did anyone check what movies this guy watched? Not that a MOVIE would have anything to do with his actions... I mean, that would be absurd. A movie is just pictures on a screen, while video games are clearly both the motivation and the how-to guides of murderers.
Yeah, let's get down to the heart of the matter: Jews. Obviously this was orchestrated by the apartheid Zionist state, to extent their genocidal reach. It makes all the sense in the world. After this massacre, no one will dare vote in favor of of an independent Palestinian state. If they do, they'll be the next target.
From the Wikipedia article:
"A common criticism is that the initial bitcoin distribution is heavily advantageous towards early-adopters. As stated, bitcoins are distributed ("generated") as an award for the solution to a difficult proof-of-work problem. The drawback is that the amount of work that has to be done for one bitcoin is currently over 500,000 times more than the amount of work at which the first bitcoins were going. As more people join, and also because of a reward function that halves the number of rewarded bitcoins every so many blocks, it becomes harder to generate bitcoins over time, using the same computing power."
Initial group of users get the advantage... The more users join, the more value the initial group owns.
I'm thinking of a shape. A polyhedron. Followed by the word "scheme".
I'm wondering what exactly you consider "aging", but anyway: How about "with age comes experience"? Nerds tend to work in technical fields, and experience in pretty much any technical field will teach you that the more complex a system is, the more likely it is to fail. Now, obviously you've got an entire battalion of nerds working at NASA, many of whom are "aging", so I'm assuming that they're relying on their age/experience to make the right decisions.
I also don't see how "an aging user base" is a weakness, which we don't even know to be the case, unless you've got access to demographic information that I don't. It's entirely possible that more "aging" users have stopped visiting the site, compared to the new ones that have joined.
Here's the only physical test I found: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YasCQRAWRwU
Earth's atmosphere is entirely different. If you tried using the same scale, the same thrusters, and the same weight, the entire thing would crash. I'm sure there were separate tests of the individual steps, using dummy loads, but I can't find any videos of them.