I disagree. As a matter of fact, I think 24/7 GPS tracking has nothing to do with trust at all, in the sense that it is neither trust nor untrust -- it's a precaution. If the kid is in a bad situation where the GPS tracking is useful (abduction) or if I think there is probable cause he should not be trusted at that time (rarely, but could occur), I have a failsafe. Yes, the failsafe can fail itself, etc... but this is what I mean. Disclaimer: I am shopping for a locked-to-few-numbers, gps-enabled cell phone to give to Lucas (7yo) this Xmas. I _do_ think that, besides being helpful in some situations, it can become really useful on coordinating school pick-up, etc. etc.
Radar survey can take a couple of months, but it wouldn't be destructive, only annoying. And, if AOL wants to dig the parents' farm, they certainly have some evidence that the guy bought gold and platinum and at least some hearsay that the guy planted it there. They may even know approximately where; so, no, the only reason to fight this is that the money is there.
A dual system? You know, where you do single-cycle mul/div in one "LNS half" of the register and then, in another number of cycles, on background, you update the other "float half". OR you do single-cycle add/sub in the "float half" and update the "LNS half" on the background.
The GPLv3 says that: IF: 1. you are going to use GPLv3'd software, 2. to distribute it with some hardware, 3. and said hardware demands the software to be signed, THEN: you must release some way/key to sign other (potentially modified) versions of the same software to run in the same hardware.
There's an evident problem, however, with technology being effectively the sole focus; many (arguably most) of the significant drivers of change in the world today have more to do with religion, or economics, or the environment than with technological toys. Looking only (or primarily) at new gadgets misses out on the big picture.
The problem with this argument is that all of religion, economics, and environment are, ultimately, about gadgets. Think about it.
the post where I said that although I can hear the thing, and find it annoying, it's not physically painful really unless you stay 10min+ listening to it in a headset.
But, to be factual and just about your post, after I read it, I tested it here at home with me (35), my wife (34), the maid (30+), by brother-in-law and his wife (33, 29), my mom and my mother-in-law (50+, does not hear it), my son (7), all cranking up my speakers (as the real device would be). Every one of us (that can hear it -- including my son) just find it annoying, and would be annoyed to be in the next porch if this was turned on in an old geezer's porch, but it would not hurt us (I didn't tell the others what that was about so I could get blind results). IMHO, people who said the noise was painful were being overly dramatical. And I tested (my powered 15W RMS speakers to the max) and determined that ONE thin wall is enough to block que sound completely.
IN OTHER WORDS: all the tests I conducted lead to the following results: 1. The sound is annoying as hell to anyone that can hear it, but NOT physically harming or painful. 2. 35 year olds _can_ hear it. 3. 50 year olds can _not_ hear it. 4. MAIN CONCLUSION: if the old geezer is your next-door street neighbour and you live in houses that share a wall, it would be annoying to hang around your porch, too. Don't do that. Especially because hanging with your buddies in your porch certainly is noisy and annoying to him, too -- that's why he installed it to begin with. Just go inside and the noise will go away. No, you don't have the right to hang on your own porch if you are being noisy and annoying to your neighbours. That's it.
Users of said device, as I understand it, just want teens/kids to stay away from Their porches/storefronts. The range of the device is just enough so they'll hang around in other venue. Now, when a group of kids is in YOUR porch, or in YOUR driveway just "hanging out", they are normally loud. I know, when my 7yo was a newborn I used to get in my driveway and say to a bunch of kids "please, get out of here, you are being noisy and will wake up the baby", every saturday. And they kept coming back. So, (minus the part where [a] besides being 35, the mosquito noise annoys me too and [b] it would certainly wake up the baby) a device like that would be nice to keep them out. That is why I am saying: if your neighbour has one of those, just hang out in your home or anywhere NOT his porch/yard. Because that's the range the device usually has. It's NOT anyone's right to make noises in front of my house (down here, it's a felony called "disturbance of peace"), despite of the time of the day.
Everything I hear about those device is that if you pass them by, you will not notice it (amongst other urban sounds) but if you try to hang around it, it'll ANNOY you. And annoying is not assaulting. No one is forcing you to hang around the old geezer's porch.
Do those devices have a 3-mile radius of range? Because, if not, it's a lot easier just to stay out of range. Come on, if the old geezer does not want you around his yard, why do you have to hang out just there? Call your friends to your home, set up a good monopoly game or other table game. Just get as far away as you can from the device. Cheaper. Easier.
For anyone who has moral concerns over smashing the property of an elderly person, said person should take into consideration the fact that this elderly person has installed a device which targets young neighbors regardless of their actions or behavior. Punishing all individuals of a given group regardless of guilt is certainly immoral. Furthermore, said elderly neighbor has plenty of options through the local police department in dealing with disturbances and has no right to take things into their own hands.
I'm sure that is why the old geezer put the thing up there anyway. "regardless of their actions" is a bit strong -- someone is hanging around there, aren't you? and are they perfectly silent and peaceful everytime? not? The mosquito thing is better than the old solutions of spraying cold water or throwing eggs.
the PP meant "have to buy" as in opposition to "the company gives them to you as a bonus" (like the execs); for instance
ordinary employee: annual salary $30k annual stock options of $5k mean: you can buy $5k of company's stock (and keep the remaining $25k), provided you wait a year before selling it. If one year after, your stock is worth $1k, you shelled out $4k for nothing; if the stock is worth $10k, then you won another $5k. (best case: gain; worst case: loss)
executive: annual salary $100k annual stock bonus of $20k means: after one year, he can either have $20k in money or the value of $20k in stock (at the price of the beginning). If one year after, his stock is worth $1k, he chooses $20k in money; if it's worth $40, well, he chooses that. (worst case: no loss; best case: gain)
The case is: light does bend occasionally. Think black holes and massive objects (like the Sun and Earth). They bend light. So, yes, the way to do that is to generate some carefully-controlled gravity distortion field that pulled light from every (important) side of the invisible person, generated some copy of some part of that light (so the invisible person could see something) and deflected, bending, the otherwise "straight" lightrays so they come across as if nothing was there. The main problem: we can't control gravity at all with our current tech. We don't even know for sure if gravitons exist AFAICR from my quantum physics class in 1990. (Maybe I need an update. Please?) Actually, we don't know jack shit about how gravity is transmitted (again, maybe I need an update, and if so, I would welcome it). We don't know how to generate a "brute" gravity/antigrav field, and we certainly don't know how to generate a "fine-tuned" one (that would distort the light path just the way we liked it).
Amarok is a better player than iTunes IMHO. And SharpMusique does a good job of letting you get things off iTMS -- and your songs come un-DRM-d to boot. HTH,
I have already mentioned before, but here's the recipy to my videoclub: 300 people together (easily gathered if you work in a 3000+ employee firm) / 10,000 DVDs. To get a subscription, one pays upfront R$ 100 (less than US$ 50) -- actually, you can divide that in five installments of R$ 20 and we have an arrangement with Payroll so it's just taken off your paycheck. Monthly, we pay R$ 28 (US$ 12) -- again, you can let it just be taken from your paycheck. Movies are divided in three categories: blockbusters, novelties and catalog. At any time, you can have five DVDs with you: at most one blockbuster and one novelty (or two novelties and no blockbuster). You must return your blockbuster in one workday (so, if you get it on Friday you can return it on Monday) [*], your novelties in two workdays [*], and your catalog movies in SIX workdays [*]. It works pretty well, and we end up with the same non-paradox: I constantly return movies I hadn't had the time to watch.
[*] the fines for being late are R$ 5/day for blockbusters, R$ 2.5/day for novelties and R$ 1/day for catalog: for comparison in the Blockbuster(TM) down here, we pay R$ 7 per movie per 48 hours -- for any title.
Hi Kjella! The points, IMHO, are: 1. Higher-level languages can (and will) be faster than lower-level languages -- if the compiler takes advantage of extra information supplied by the programmer. 2. C is a low-level language. 3. Good, optimizing, C compilers are becoming more and more complex, because: 3a. the low-level abstractions present in C don't match well with current processors; and 3b. they make the programmer "undo" some optimization and hope the compiler can redo it. 4. C passes really few information to the compiler (because it's weakly typed), so it can't optimize a lot of stuff that can be optimized in higher-level languages. 5. Assembly == lots of control; but if you want to optimize a whole system, code it in a higher level language and optmize only a small part of it -- in assembly, if needed.
You are looking at much, much less than 1,000,000 lines to review and optimize.
Which is exactly my point. If you are coding 10-100 million lines of assembly, you will only look at a small fraction of them to optimize, and you'll do a crappier job in years that the optmizing compilers would do in hours. A good optimizing compilers will do global register usage information, for example, that could keep a lot of variables in registers or at least in the processor cache; things HARD to do by humans, EASY to do by computers.
Maybe I didn't express myself well, but... yes, it's possible but normally it's not viable. Optimization (global optimization especially) is a repetitive, mechanical, task... which is best and fastest made by a computer than by a human being. Yes, I can think of clever ways for tweaking every part of a 1,000,000 LOC C (10M - 100M LOC asm) system, BUT I would take 100 years to do that! And an optimizing compiler in a fast machine will do a job 99% as good as I would in one hour -- two tops.
An expert assembly programmer in a CPU which he knows well can still do much better than a compiler.
FOR ONE FUNCTION. If you programmed the whole system in asm, you'd see that the assembler+you combo would lose so many opportunities for optimization that a good compiler got. And that's the whole point of the article.
Assembly still gets used a lot for microcontrollers, even micros that come with, or even are designed around, higher-level languages (the Parallax Propeller for example). In general, you first write your code in whatever is it that is available (C, Java, Spin etc.) to make sure the algorithm works, then convert it to asm, sometimes by hand and sometimes starting from the assembled high-level code and tweaking it.
And then, you'll still have code slower than a good global-optimizing compiler would produce.
As a measurement geek, I can tell you couldn't be more wrong. The problem is: Ok, now you have 1/10,000,000 of the pole-to-equator distance in 1791. Now WTF is that? How much exactly? Have you ever seen two rulers where an inch are exactly the same size? If you measure your ruler WRT the meter, and then another ruler WRT the first ruler, etc, etc, the error will accumulate, and soon you'll have an inch with 2cm and another inch with 3cm. And no pieces of nothing will fit together: imagine if the pins in your computer's processor with 1/10mm error in the distance between them would fit in the socket (answer: NO) So, we define all units in terms of thing we can measure again and again and again with minimum (preferably zero) error. (do you know that the 1m platinum bar, made two centuries ago, lost almost 1/10 mm already due to some oxidation or somesuch?) And: temperature is not something you see in a thermometer, it's the mean speed of the molecules vibration. It HAS a meaning.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree.
As a matter of fact, I think 24/7 GPS tracking has nothing to do with trust at all, in the sense that it is neither trust nor untrust -- it's a precaution. If the kid is in a bad situation where the GPS tracking is useful (abduction) or if I think there is probable cause he should not be trusted at that time (rarely, but could occur), I have a failsafe. Yes, the failsafe can fail itself, etc... but this is what I mean.
Disclaimer: I am shopping for a locked-to-few-numbers, gps-enabled cell phone to give to Lucas (7yo) this Xmas. I _do_ think that, besides being helpful in some situations, it can become really useful on coordinating school pick-up, etc. etc.
Radar survey can take a couple of months, but it wouldn't be destructive, only annoying.
And, if AOL wants to dig the parents' farm, they certainly have some evidence that the guy bought gold and platinum and at least some hearsay that the guy planted it there. They may even know approximately where; so, no, the only reason to fight this is that the money is there.
A dual system? You know, where you do single-cycle mul/div in one "LNS half" of the register and then, in another number of cycles, on background, you update the other "float half". OR you do single-cycle add/sub in the "float half" and update the "LNS half" on the background.
The GPLv3 says that:
IF:
1. you are going to use GPLv3'd software,
2. to distribute it with some hardware,
3. and said hardware demands the software to be signed,
THEN:
you must release some way/key to sign other (potentially modified) versions of the same software to run in the same hardware.
HTH
Actually, the only working solution to close the proxy hole is NAT + proxy whitelisting.
the post where I said that although I can hear the thing, and find it annoying, it's not physically painful really unless you stay 10min+ listening to it in a headset.
But, to be factual and just about your post, after I read it, I tested it here at home with me (35), my wife (34), the maid (30+), by brother-in-law and his wife (33, 29), my mom and my mother-in-law (50+, does not hear it), my son (7), all cranking up my speakers (as the real device would be). Every one of us (that can hear it -- including my son) just find it annoying, and would be annoyed to be in the next porch if this was turned on in an old geezer's porch, but it would not hurt us (I didn't tell the others what that was about so I could get blind results). IMHO, people who said the noise was painful were being overly dramatical. And I tested (my powered 15W RMS speakers to the max) and determined that ONE thin wall is enough to block que sound completely.
IN OTHER WORDS: all the tests I conducted lead to the following results:
1. The sound is annoying as hell to anyone that can hear it, but NOT physically harming or painful.
2. 35 year olds _can_ hear it.
3. 50 year olds can _not_ hear it.
4. MAIN CONCLUSION: if the old geezer is your next-door street neighbour and you live in houses that share a wall, it would be annoying to hang around your porch, too. Don't do that. Especially because hanging with your buddies in your porch certainly is noisy and annoying to him, too -- that's why he installed it to begin with. Just go inside and the noise will go away. No, you don't have the right to hang on your own porch if you are being noisy and annoying to your neighbours. That's it.
Users of said device, as I understand it, just want teens/kids to stay away from Their porches/storefronts. The range of the device is just enough so they'll hang around in other venue. Now, when a group of kids is in YOUR porch, or in YOUR driveway just "hanging out", they are normally loud. I know, when my 7yo was a newborn I used to get in my driveway and say to a bunch of kids "please, get out of here, you are being noisy and will wake up the baby", every saturday. And they kept coming back. So, (minus the part where [a] besides being 35, the mosquito noise annoys me too and [b] it would certainly wake up the baby) a device like that would be nice to keep them out.
That is why I am saying: if your neighbour has one of those, just hang out in your home or anywhere NOT his porch/yard. Because that's the range the device usually has. It's NOT anyone's right to make noises in front of my house (down here, it's a felony called "disturbance of peace"), despite of the time of the day.
I want a disc with 1cm radius TOPS, with 4G+ of storage.
Everything I hear about those device is that if you pass them by, you will not notice it (amongst other urban sounds) but if you try to hang around it, it'll ANNOY you. And annoying is not assaulting. No one is forcing you to hang around the old geezer's porch.
I'm sure that is why the old geezer put the thing up there anyway. "regardless of their actions" is a bit strong -- someone is hanging around there, aren't you? and are they perfectly silent and peaceful everytime? not? The mosquito thing is better than the old solutions of spraying cold water or throwing eggs.
the PP meant "have to buy" as in opposition to "the company gives them to you as a bonus" (like the execs); for instance
ordinary employee:
annual salary $30k
annual stock options of $5k mean: you can buy $5k of company's stock (and keep the remaining $25k), provided you wait a year before selling it. If one year after, your stock is worth $1k, you shelled out $4k for nothing; if the stock is worth $10k, then you won another $5k. (best case: gain; worst case: loss)
executive:
annual salary $100k
annual stock bonus of $20k means: after one year, he can either have $20k in money or the value of $20k in stock (at the price of the beginning). If one year after, his stock is worth $1k, he chooses $20k in money; if it's worth $40, well, he chooses that. (worst case: no loss; best case: gain)
or somesuch.
HTH
And _that_, alone, is really hard do achieve.
The case is: light does bend occasionally.
Think black holes and massive objects (like the Sun and Earth). They bend light. So, yes, the way to do that is to generate some carefully-controlled gravity distortion field that pulled light from every (important) side of the invisible person, generated some copy of some part of that light (so the invisible person could see something) and deflected, bending, the otherwise "straight" lightrays so they come across as if nothing was there.
The main problem: we can't control gravity at all with our current tech.
We don't even know for sure if gravitons exist AFAICR from my quantum physics class in 1990. (Maybe I need an update. Please?)
Actually, we don't know jack shit about how gravity is transmitted (again, maybe I need an update, and if so, I would welcome it).
We don't know how to generate a "brute" gravity/antigrav field, and we certainly don't know how to generate a "fine-tuned" one (that would distort the light path just the way we liked it).
but I manage to get him to tidy his room (and even other rooms in the house) and to speak respectfully to his elders.
Amarok is a better player than iTunes IMHO.
And SharpMusique does a good job of letting you get things off iTMS -- and your songs come un-DRM-d to boot.
HTH,
I have already mentioned before, but here's the recipy to my videoclub: 300 people together (easily gathered if you work in a 3000+ employee firm) / 10,000 DVDs. To get a subscription, one pays upfront R$ 100 (less than US$ 50) -- actually, you can divide that in five installments of R$ 20 and we have an arrangement with Payroll so it's just taken off your paycheck. Monthly, we pay R$ 28 (US$ 12) -- again, you can let it just be taken from your paycheck. Movies are divided in three categories: blockbusters, novelties and catalog. At any time, you can have five DVDs with you: at most one blockbuster and one novelty (or two novelties and no blockbuster). You must return your blockbuster in one workday (so, if you get it on Friday you can return it on Monday) [*], your novelties in two workdays [*], and your catalog movies in SIX workdays [*]. It works pretty well, and we end up with the same non-paradox: I constantly return movies I hadn't had the time to watch.
[*] the fines for being late are R$ 5/day for blockbusters, R$ 2.5/day for novelties and R$ 1/day for catalog: for comparison in the Blockbuster(TM) down here, we pay R$ 7 per movie per 48 hours -- for any title.
Hi Kjella! The points, IMHO, are:
1. Higher-level languages can (and will) be faster than lower-level languages -- if the compiler takes advantage of extra information supplied by the programmer.
2. C is a low-level language.
3. Good, optimizing, C compilers are becoming more and more complex, because:
3a. the low-level abstractions present in C don't match well with current processors; and
3b. they make the programmer "undo" some optimization and hope the compiler can redo it.
4. C passes really few information to the compiler (because it's weakly typed), so it can't optimize a lot of stuff that can be optimized in higher-level languages.
5. Assembly == lots of control; but if you want to optimize a whole system, code it in a higher level language and optmize only a small part of it -- in assembly, if needed.
Maybe I didn't express myself well, but... yes, it's possible but normally it's not viable. Optimization (global optimization especially) is a repetitive, mechanical, task... which is best and fastest made by a computer than by a human being. Yes, I can think of clever ways for tweaking every part of a 1,000,000 LOC C (10M - 100M LOC asm) system, BUT I would take 100 years to do that! And an optimizing compiler in a fast machine will do a job 99% as good as I would in one hour -- two tops.
As a measurement geek, I can tell you couldn't be more wrong.
The problem is: Ok, now you have 1/10,000,000 of the pole-to-equator distance in 1791. Now WTF is that? How much exactly? Have you ever seen two rulers where an inch are exactly the same size? If you measure your ruler WRT the meter, and then another ruler WRT the first ruler, etc, etc, the error will accumulate, and soon you'll have an inch with 2cm and another inch with 3cm. And no pieces of nothing will fit together: imagine if the pins in your computer's processor with 1/10mm error in the distance between them would fit in the socket (answer: NO)
So, we define all units in terms of thing we can measure again and again and again with minimum (preferably zero) error. (do you know that the 1m platinum bar, made two centuries ago, lost almost 1/10 mm already due to some oxidation or somesuch?)
And: temperature is not something you see in a thermometer, it's the mean speed of the molecules vibration. It HAS a meaning.
In Soviet Russia, Slashdot's advice follows YOU!