Perhaps, but they've got to survive a few years until the actual autonomous vehicles arrive. They already exist in certain controlled situations, e.g. warehouses with automated forklifts. I expect automated trucks to show up before automated cars because the incremental cost would be less, so you can afford a fancier system. And it would save tremendous amounts of money. You'd probably still need one driver on a long haul, but not a shift change, and no down time. The fully automated cars will be a year or two later, and at first they'll be really high end.
Sigh.
I'd like to have such a car, because I don't drive. But an affordable one looks like 5-7 years away.
It doesn't look that bad. The underlying code that does the work will be the same, and I can see that different screen layouts might find different versions of the menu layout preferable. And the menu layout itself should be pretty simple as code.
It's a whole lot better than those that try to optimize everything to fit on a small phone screen. Those are basically unusable.
Umnh... The vote was a non-binding plebiscite. As a matter of law they are not required to follow through with it, only as a matter of politics. The appearance is that as a matter of politics they are posturing as if they are going to follow through, but it's not certain that they actually have that intent. Maybe they do. But only maybe. They still haven't formally requested to leave.
P.S.: The vote was not an agreement. It was closer to a statement of policy. There's LOTs of details that an actual agreement would involve. E.g., "If Ireland stays in the EU and Northern Ireland departs with the UK, what are the provisions against smuggling?".
That was actually my first reaction. After all, Ubuntu is easy to install, easy to use, and cheaper than the competition. And as long as they don't want to do anything exotic it should be just as good or better.
But thinking it over, I'm not so sure. Most people wouldn't dare touch their OS, and the margin of profit is higher for installing MSWind. Just charge them per hour or fraction thereof. You can be doing something else during most of the install.
Well, that's definitely standard "Free Market" theory. And it bears a certain relation to truth, but I wouldn't go so far as to assert that it *was* true. Humans are known to NOT be rational economic agents, especially where sex or social standing are involved.. But it should be less wrong than the current policies.
It helps by being interesting to the students. Got some other really simple interpreter that yields interesting results and maps nicely onto assembler? If so, pick that, and be just as satisfactory. Some of the MUD interpreters (at least used to) have the equivalent of registers, jump tests, program counters, address registers, etc. What you do(did) with it is design a simple Zorkish game. It's valuable only for the same reason that essays are valuable in English classes.
Both C++ and Java are LOUSY first languages. C is all right, but not really great. Still, you can get quick results with C, so teach a month or two of C and then switch to something like a simple assembler (it'll have to be the assembler for a pseudo-machine rather than a real one, as the real machines have gotten too complex). I believe that some of the MUDs have suitable pseudo-machines, or if not that, perhaps the Perl6 pseudo-machine. MIX would have it's points, but with a MUD machine you can get fast results that are interesting. It needs to address variable allocation, indirection, registers, etc. Even the i6502 was more complex than is ideal. From that point of view MIX was nearly ideal, but it didn't yield interesting results easily. Then ideally you'd cover extending the MUD with routines written in C, but I think this is already probably more than a first year course.
One thing I really missed when I got out of college was that none of my courses had covered handling files. But unless the interpreter handles that easily perhaps that should be left for the second course. It's not really basic. OTOH, large hard disks have made the topic much more important.
I understand the C# has some advantages over Java, but as I don't use either this is just second- or third-hand information. I really *should* investigate C# more thoroughly, but it's my expectation that it's not any better than Java, and Java isn't a viable choice for various reasons, but the main one is the piss-poor handling of unicode strings. I could understand utf-8 or utf-32, but utf-16 is a garbage choice made for historical reasons.
This article give me yet another reason to avoid Java.
The name is clearly drama, and not evidence, but it could be the guy's handle...or one of them. If I saw myself as a sinister mastermind behind the throne I might use that pseudonym. It wouldn't reveal much about me except that I know a bit of history, and give a bit of insight into how I saw myself which would be pretty obvious anyway.
I doubt that ANYONE takes that as evidence. (FWIW the only connection I have with Russia is a bit of reading material and the name of a hamburger ["A Taste of Russia"] that I ate a couple of days ago.)
IIUC, when you trace this back the the original article (for this kind of article, not necessarily this particular article), it means it was routed through a Russian ISP. Even then I'm not sure they take into account the possibility of forged headers.
That said, for the kind of attack this is reported to be there's no particular reason to doubt that the attack came from Russia. But even so why claim government involvement when it's the kind of attack a high school kid could put together? Of course, this doesn't prove the Russian government wasn't involved. Or the Nigerian government. Possibly there is evidence in "Who's selling the goods?", but that's inferential, as information can be sold repeatedly...and sold on by the buyer.
I think that the phrase "this attack" is being used in multiple senses. I don't even think you're disagreeing with each other, just not understanding each other.
"this attack" 1) This instance of an attack. 2) This variety or technique for attacking a site.
Both meanings are valid, but if you mix them up misunderstanding results.
This isn't the first, or worst, time Price-Waterhouse have featured in the news. I thought (and hoped) they had gone out of business after the time they hit national news for fraudulent work. I just wasn't aware the PwC was Price-Waterhouse or I wouldn't have been at all surprised... and would have suspected that the bug was intentional.
The meaning of "prove" in "The exception proves the rule" is tests. Prove has a long history outside of math, and the math meaning is a specialization. You can still consider a "proof" of a conjecture as a test of it, and that meaning works, and that's the origin of the use of proof in that context.
All that said, you can point to two or three rich and powerful people who ended up in jail, but you won't find many, and you'll find many that should have. So as a statistical measure, you can say rich people don't usually end up in jail even if they blatantly should.
Yes, I know I'm being nitpicky, but that phrase always bugs me.
Well, perhaps I'm thinking of another one, but I understood that a later version of the experiment using the same device was intended to achieve actual hydrogen fusion and that they were hoping to get slightly more than they required to run it.
That's not correct. A SPSS designed to power other vehicles in space would not necessarily, or even probably, be a lot more expensive than other ways of powering them. It might also be useful for lunar bases, but that's a lot less likely.
One sized to transmit power down to earth would, indeed, probably be excessively expensive. Certainly with current technologies. The problem with powering "vehicles" in space is directionality, and, to a lesser extent, beam spreading. But the needed power levels are sufficiently low that directionality would dominate...unless you start thinking of this as a way to power a vasimir or an interstellar probe. Even so, it would likely be cheap compared to the alternatives (though for an interstellar probe a moon based site might be preferable, if you could live with only being powered for two weeks out of every four).
Actually, IIUC, this device *is* intended to eventually generate more power than it requires to run. Just not much more. As you note, it's main purpose is research.
Not all renewable resources require large area. Solar Space Power Satellites, e.g., don't require a lot of area, and have a potential smooth path of development (via powering other vehicles in space, e.g. allowing ion rockets to go beyond Jupiter without using on board fission power).
OTOH, SPSS aren't all that flexible, and if you use tightly focusable E.M. to deliver the power they have the potential to be dangerous. (Delivery to Earth by microwave looks pretty good, but it would louse up a part of the radio spectrum that can easily get through rain. And power transmission via laser is going to either be very low power or very dangerous.)
IOW, every single form of energy generation/delivery has it's drawbacks. Solar and wind can't be started up whenever you need them, e.g., necessitating lots of network ballast and storage.
That's an overbroad statement, but it's true that this is being well oversold as a "clean energy source". But if it can be made to work properly there are several environments where it would be the best choice. The questions are things like "How much maintenance would it require?", "How self-contained can it be made?", "How small/light/cheap can it be made?" Etc.
This should produce a lot less waste than a fission reactor (though there are interesting claims being made about the molten salt reactors) and after full development might be the superior choice of power in places like Antarctica, the moon, Mars, interstellar ships, etc. The problem is getting from this early development model to a final model.
Slashdot Mirror
Only if it included executive pensions and severance pay.
Perhaps, but they've got to survive a few years until the actual autonomous vehicles arrive. They already exist in certain controlled situations, e.g. warehouses with automated forklifts. I expect automated trucks to show up before automated cars because the incremental cost would be less, so you can afford a fancier system. And it would save tremendous amounts of money. You'd probably still need one driver on a long haul, but not a shift change, and no down time. The fully automated cars will be a year or two later, and at first they'll be really high end.
Sigh.
I'd like to have such a car, because I don't drive. But an affordable one looks like 5-7 years away.
It doesn't look that bad. The underlying code that does the work will be the same, and I can see that different screen layouts might find different versions of the menu layout preferable. And the menu layout itself should be pretty simple as code.
It's a whole lot better than those that try to optimize everything to fit on a small phone screen. Those are basically unusable.
Umnh... The vote was a non-binding plebiscite. As a matter of law they are not required to follow through with it, only as a matter of politics. The appearance is that as a matter of politics they are posturing as if they are going to follow through, but it's not certain that they actually have that intent. Maybe they do. But only maybe. They still haven't formally requested to leave.
P.S.: The vote was not an agreement. It was closer to a statement of policy. There's LOTs of details that an actual agreement would involve. E.g., "If Ireland stays in the EU and Northern Ireland departs with the UK, what are the provisions against smuggling?".
Perhaps he's trying to teach people how much they should trust the claimed motives of politicians?
So doing a search:
BBFW Broadband Fixed Wireless
BBFW Berry Bros. FireWood Co. (Phoenix, AZ)
What did YOU have in mind? Neither of those seem to fit well into your sentence.
That was actually my first reaction. After all, Ubuntu is easy to install, easy to use, and cheaper than the competition. And as long as they don't want to do anything exotic it should be just as good or better.
But thinking it over, I'm not so sure. Most people wouldn't dare touch their OS, and the margin of profit is higher for installing MSWind. Just charge them per hour or fraction thereof. You can be doing something else during most of the install.
Does the porn blocker need to work? What percentage of false positives are allowed? What percentage of false negatives?
But the math for zero-sum games is so much simpler...
Well, that's definitely standard "Free Market" theory. And it bears a certain relation to truth, but I wouldn't go so far as to assert that it *was* true. Humans are known to NOT be rational economic agents, especially where sex or social standing are involved.. But it should be less wrong than the current policies.
It helps by being interesting to the students. Got some other really simple interpreter that yields interesting results and maps nicely onto assembler? If so, pick that, and be just as satisfactory. Some of the MUD interpreters (at least used to) have the equivalent of registers, jump tests, program counters, address registers, etc. What you do(did) with it is design a simple Zorkish game. It's valuable only for the same reason that essays are valuable in English classes.
Both C++ and Java are LOUSY first languages. C is all right, but not really great. Still, you can get quick results with C, so teach a month or two of C and then switch to something like a simple assembler (it'll have to be the assembler for a pseudo-machine rather than a real one, as the real machines have gotten too complex). I believe that some of the MUDs have suitable pseudo-machines, or if not that, perhaps the Perl6 pseudo-machine. MIX would have it's points, but with a MUD machine you can get fast results that are interesting. It needs to address variable allocation, indirection, registers, etc. Even the i6502 was more complex than is ideal. From that point of view MIX was nearly ideal, but it didn't yield interesting results easily. Then ideally you'd cover extending the MUD with routines written in C, but I think this is already probably more than a first year course.
One thing I really missed when I got out of college was that none of my courses had covered handling files. But unless the interpreter handles that easily perhaps that should be left for the second course. It's not really basic. OTOH, large hard disks have made the topic much more important.
I understand the C# has some advantages over Java, but as I don't use either this is just second- or third-hand information. I really *should* investigate C# more thoroughly, but it's my expectation that it's not any better than Java, and Java isn't a viable choice for various reasons, but the main one is the piss-poor handling of unicode strings. I could understand utf-8 or utf-32, but utf-16 is a garbage choice made for historical reasons.
This article give me yet another reason to avoid Java.
The name is clearly drama, and not evidence, but it could be the guy's handle...or one of them. If I saw myself as a sinister mastermind behind the throne I might use that pseudonym. It wouldn't reveal much about me except that I know a bit of history, and give a bit of insight into how I saw myself which would be pretty obvious anyway.
I doubt that ANYONE takes that as evidence. (FWIW the only connection I have with Russia is a bit of reading material and the name of a hamburger ["A Taste of Russia"] that I ate a couple of days ago.)
Bingo! We have a winner!
And notice that this has been known for over a decade, and neither party did anything to fix it. (Except in the sense of "fixing a horse race".)
IIUC, when you trace this back the the original article (for this kind of article, not necessarily this particular article), it means it was routed through a Russian ISP. Even then I'm not sure they take into account the possibility of forged headers.
That said, for the kind of attack this is reported to be there's no particular reason to doubt that the attack came from Russia. But even so why claim government involvement when it's the kind of attack a high school kid could put together? Of course, this doesn't prove the Russian government wasn't involved. Or the Nigerian government. Possibly there is evidence in "Who's selling the goods?", but that's inferential, as information can be sold repeatedly...and sold on by the buyer.
I think that the phrase "this attack" is being used in multiple senses. I don't even think you're disagreeing with each other, just not understanding each other.
"this attack" 1) This instance of an attack. 2) This variety or technique for attacking a site.
Both meanings are valid, but if you mix them up misunderstanding results.
This isn't the first, or worst, time Price-Waterhouse have featured in the news. I thought (and hoped) they had gone out of business after the time they hit national news for fraudulent work. I just wasn't aware the PwC was Price-Waterhouse or I wouldn't have been at all surprised ... and would have suspected that the bug was intentional.
No the correct formatting is YYYY/MM/DD. That's the only one that sorts correctly.
The meaning of "prove" in "The exception proves the rule" is tests. Prove has a long history outside of math, and the math meaning is a specialization. You can still consider a "proof" of a conjecture as a test of it, and that meaning works, and that's the origin of the use of proof in that context.
All that said, you can point to two or three rich and powerful people who ended up in jail, but you won't find many, and you'll find many that should have. So as a statistical measure, you can say rich people don't usually end up in jail even if they blatantly should.
Yes, I know I'm being nitpicky, but that phrase always bugs me.
Well, perhaps I'm thinking of another one, but I understood that a later version of the experiment using the same device was intended to achieve actual hydrogen fusion and that they were hoping to get slightly more than they required to run it.
That's not correct. A SPSS designed to power other vehicles in space would not necessarily, or even probably, be a lot more expensive than other ways of powering them. It might also be useful for lunar bases, but that's a lot less likely.
One sized to transmit power down to earth would, indeed, probably be excessively expensive. Certainly with current technologies. The problem with powering "vehicles" in space is directionality, and, to a lesser extent, beam spreading. But the needed power levels are sufficiently low that directionality would dominate...unless you start thinking of this as a way to power a vasimir or an interstellar probe. Even so, it would likely be cheap compared to the alternatives (though for an interstellar probe a moon based site might be preferable, if you could live with only being powered for two weeks out of every four).
Actually, IIUC, this device *is* intended to eventually generate more power than it requires to run. Just not much more. As you note, it's main purpose is research.
Not all renewable resources require large area. Solar Space Power Satellites, e.g., don't require a lot of area, and have a potential smooth path of development (via powering other vehicles in space, e.g. allowing ion rockets to go beyond Jupiter without using on board fission power).
OTOH, SPSS aren't all that flexible, and if you use tightly focusable E.M. to deliver the power they have the potential to be dangerous. (Delivery to Earth by microwave looks pretty good, but it would louse up a part of the radio spectrum that can easily get through rain. And power transmission via laser is going to either be very low power or very dangerous.)
IOW, every single form of energy generation/delivery has it's drawbacks. Solar and wind can't be started up whenever you need them, e.g., necessitating lots of network ballast and storage.
That's an overbroad statement, but it's true that this is being well oversold as a "clean energy source". But if it can be made to work properly there are several environments where it would be the best choice. The questions are things like "How much maintenance would it require?", "How self-contained can it be made?", "How small/light/cheap can it be made?" Etc.
This should produce a lot less waste than a fission reactor (though there are interesting claims being made about the molten salt reactors) and after full development might be the superior choice of power in places like Antarctica, the moon, Mars, interstellar ships, etc. The problem is getting from this early development model to a final model.