Sure for single-language documents like HTML, you can use a lang= attribute and hope the browser handles it right, but you certainly can't mix the two together very easily.
Pretty easy to mix them in HTML. For example:
<p lang='en'>The Japanese version is '<span lang='ja'>将</span>' and the Simplified Chinese version is '<span lang='zh-Hans'>将</span>'.</p>
My browser displays the appropriate glyph in each instance.
The problem with unification is that metadata is often either unavailable or inadequate. The goal should be to represent all characters in plain text, not rely on specific document formats to provide context.
How would a music player app handle a file tagged with a unified character? How would a file manager handle it? There is no context, no metadata to tell it what language is in use and what font to select.
Older Unicode standards included control sequences which could be inserted in plain text to indicate language. This is still supported in some applications to influence font choice. However, the feature was removed in favour of external markup, probably because it was really hard to edit (most text editors don't really handle non-printing characters very well.)
Even in HTML you only get to set one language for the entire document.
This is simply incorrect. Language in HTML can be set on any element.
Its eponymous management system runs globally on roughly 229,300 solar plants that typically pump out 5.66TWh of electrical energy a day, or so we're told.
So averaged over an entire day, those 229,300 plants have a typical combined output of 235GW -- about 1MW per plant.
NP-hard problems are absolutely not all equivalent. NP-hard is a class of decision problems which literally means any problem which is "at least as difficult" as problems which are in NP.
To posit that all NP-hard problems are equivalent would imply that there's some sort of upper bound on problem "difficulty". This is absurd for a number of reasons. First of all, this claim implies that NP is equal to EXPSPACE (EXPSPACE-complete problems are NP-hard after all) which is not true (there is known to be an inequality between these two sets). But moreover NP-hard problems are not necessarily even computable -- the halting problem is NP-hard! To claim this is equivalent to 3-SAT is just ridiculous.
tl;dr: The Venn diagrams in the article shows the relationship between these complexity classes correctly but the writer seems very confused about them.
implemented in a subset of C++ programming language.
Doesn't C itself technically fit that criteria?
No, not even close. For this to be true, a necessary (but not sufficient) requirement is for every syntactically valid C program to also be a syntactically valid C++ program. This is obviously not the case: for example, C allows the use of "new" as an identifier, while C++ does not. I'd wager that most C programs would not even build with a C++ compiler unless the writers specifically put in the effort to make it work.
There are many other differences, and over the past 20+ years C and C++ have been diverging as new features are added to each language.
Obviously nobody has found an exception to disprove it yet. The dude wouldn't be offering a pile of money if he were just looking to disprove it...he would just funnel the money into some supercomputer time to step through an absurd amount of integers until he comes up with an exception.
The set of integers to test is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think that Graham's number is a lot, but that's just peanuts compared to the integers.
If a conjecture could be disproven by simply throwing computational resources at the problem, chances are that it's not particularly interesting. Many open problems in number theory have known lower bounds well above anything that could possibly be tested by a computer. For example, there is no odd perfect number less than 10**1500.
It just happens to be such a convenient number in their preferred units?
Obviously the number 100 was chosen for its convenience. From Wikipedia (Kármán line):
Although the calculated altitude was not exactly 100 km, Kármán proposed that 100 km be the designated boundary to space, since the round number is more memorable, and the calculated altitude varies minutely as certain parameters are varied. An international committee recommended the 100 km line to the FAI, and upon adoption, it became widely accepted as the boundary to space for many purposes.
I've advocated making all even months 30 days and all odd months except November 31 days with November receiving the leap year day. Simplifies things completely and never leaves people guessing, except for if it's a leapyear or not.
If we're going to change the months, we should just have 13 months of 28 days
each, a nice even 4 weeks per month. That has one leftover day per year (two
on leap years), which would not be part of any month or week. We'll call those
"nameless days" or something and would fall between saturday of the last week of the year,
and sunday of the first week of the next year. Those days would be holidays
and everyone can have a big new year's party.
I bought one of those Unicomp keyboards and I was very disappointed
with the build quality. It looks like they just made a cheap plastic housing
for the keyboard but there was none of the heft of an original IBM model
M.
I have a Unicomp SpaceSaver 104 and a Customizer 104. I would not buy the Customizer
again; it has all of the bulk of the classic Model M without the same build
quality. On the other hand, I love the SpaceSaver -- while it's likely not as
effective for self-defense as the classic Model M is, I love typing on this
as much as my ~30yr old IBM keyboard (which still works great!), and it uses
less desk space, and is natively USB. It also doesn't feel as flimsy as the
Customizer does, probably simply due to there being less plastic overall.
I also use a Das, which I don't like typing on as much as the SpaceSaver but
it is extremely well built. Maybe I'll replace all the key switches in it
with these green ones if they're more like buckling springs!
It was quite possibly fitted with electronic accelerator and break paddles for hand-use or similar.
No wonder! The driver probably had intended to activate the brake control, but accidentally hit the break switch instead. Then, naturally, the car broke.
Watson screwed up the Final Jepoardy problem in the first match, which was (category: US Cities): "Its largest airport was named for a World War II hero; its second largest, for a World War II battle."
What kind of drug would a staple need? It's job is to hold reams of paper together securely.
Unfortunately, most staples are quite inept at holding even one ream of paper together, let alone multiple reams. They are normally not in a position with much job security, as they usually can barely even support a quire of bond paper.
The drugs let these millions of inadequate staples feel better about themselves.
OK, 16 digits. That's about 2**53 possibilities, although the numbers are not all chosen randomly so you should be able to reduce the search space significantly.
Still well within the realm of possibility for brute force by a determined adversary, but you may need more than a few desktops to pull it off.
It's pretty easy to salt + hash every card number and then just track the hashes.
You may as well just store the card numbers in plaintext. There are
what, 12 digits in a visa number? That's less than 2**36 possible card
numbers. It wouldn't take more than a few minutes for a modest cluster to test every card number and find the one which matched a given salt & hash.
The in-kernel write support for NTFS only allows you to write to an
existing file, and only allows you to write the same amount of data as the
exact files size and name on the disk.
This is not quite accurate: support for extending existing files w/ the in-kernel driver has been available for some time (ca. 2005). Apparently it can fail to extend the file if it is excessively fragmented, however.
I know USB can't handle as many simultaneous key hits as PS/2.. but don't see how that would apply here.
This is only half true. The 6+4 simultaneous key limit is part of the HID boot protocol for keyboards, which is a restricted subset of the USB HID interface meant for limited environments such as the system boot firmware.
The full USB HID protocol has no such limits, but it seems that most keyboards only support the boot protocol for whatever reason.
The GPL states that if source code is GPLed then the distributor must
offer to provide the source code to anyone who receives a binary.
While this is close, it is not quite right. If the "offer for source" option of the GPLv2 section 2(b) is used, the offer must be valid for any third party; not just those who received binaries. Otherwise, the right for recipients of such an offer to pass it on under section 2(c) would not be meaningful.
However, if you accompany binaries with source according to section 2(a), then you have no further obligations to distribute source to third parties.
And I can actually read the damn thing without having to learn
someone's idea of a keyboard-based hypertext system. I can tell you I'd much
rather have a halfway-decent man page than a wonderful info page.
I agree that the GNU info program has a rather annoying interface
(presumably it makes perfect sense to GNU Emacs users). But the Texinfo
source from which info documents are generated will target multiple outputs,
including PDF and HTML. For packages using the GNU build system these are
built with "make pdf" and "make html" respectively. Moreover, GNU packages
typically make the manual available for download in a number of formats on the
package website.
Just use the all-on-one-page HTML version in w3m and you have something
that is essentially identical to a giant man page, except with internal
cross-references and hyperlinks.
Even if the code was considered infringing, it would only need to be revealed to those customers that asked for it before three years (since the ruling in this case?) have passed.
IANAL, but I don't understand where this comes from. TFA says that code in question is licensed under the GPL, version 2. According to section 3 of the license, distributing binaries requires you to do either:
(a) "Accompany [the binary] with the... source code...." or
(b) "Accompany [the binary] with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give *any third party*, for a charge no more than your cost
of physically performing source distribution... the corresponding
source code..." [emphasis mine]
(there is an option (c), but it is unlikely to apply in this case).
Note that if you choose option (b), then you must distribute source to anyone who asks. Moreover, Red Hat alleges that Twin Peaks Software has done neither of these things. If Red Hat is correct, then Twin Peaks Software has no right to distribute any binaries at all, until they have their license reinstated by Red Hat.
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty easy to mix them in HTML. For example:
My browser displays the appropriate glyph in each instance.
Older Unicode standards included control sequences which could be inserted in plain text to indicate language. This is still supported in some applications to influence font choice. However, the feature was removed in favour of external markup, probably because it was really hard to edit (most text editors don't really handle non-printing characters very well.)
This is simply incorrect. Language in HTML can be set on any element.
The article says exactly what is meant:
So averaged over an entire day, those 229,300 plants have a typical combined output of 235GW -- about 1MW per plant.
NP-hard problems are absolutely not all equivalent. NP-hard is a class of decision problems which literally means any problem which is "at least as difficult" as problems which are in NP. To posit that all NP-hard problems are equivalent would imply that there's some sort of upper bound on problem "difficulty". This is absurd for a number of reasons. First of all, this claim implies that NP is equal to EXPSPACE (EXPSPACE-complete problems are NP-hard after all) which is not true (there is known to be an inequality between these two sets). But moreover NP-hard problems are not necessarily even computable -- the halting problem is NP-hard! To claim this is equivalent to 3-SAT is just ridiculous. tl;dr: The Venn diagrams in the article shows the relationship between these complexity classes correctly but the writer seems very confused about them.
implemented in a subset of C++ programming language.
Doesn't C itself technically fit that criteria?
No, not even close. For this to be true, a necessary (but not sufficient) requirement is for every syntactically valid C program to also be a syntactically valid C++ program. This is obviously not the case: for example, C allows the use of "new" as an identifier, while C++ does not. I'd wager that most C programs would not even build with a C++ compiler unless the writers specifically put in the effort to make it work.
There are many other differences, and over the past 20+ years C and C++ have been diverging as new features are added to each language.
listening to Mozart, with eye drops in order that their eyes won't wither ? Sorry Dude, It's been already tried ...
Nobody's tried Mozart; only Ludwig van Beethoven.
Obviously nobody has found an exception to disprove it yet. The dude wouldn't be offering a pile of money if he were just looking to disprove it...he would just funnel the money into some supercomputer time to step through an absurd amount of integers until he comes up with an exception.
The set of integers to test is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think that Graham's number is a lot, but that's just peanuts compared to the integers.
If a conjecture could be disproven by simply throwing computational resources at the problem, chances are that it's not particularly interesting. Many open problems in number theory have known lower bounds well above anything that could possibly be tested by a computer. For example, there is no odd perfect number less than 10**1500.
And sentences like "who hit who"
Obviously, the first baseman hit Who.
It just happens to be such a convenient number in their preferred units?
Obviously the number 100 was chosen for its convenience. From Wikipedia (Kármán line):
Although the calculated altitude was not exactly 100 km, Kármán proposed that 100 km be the designated boundary to space, since the round number is more memorable, and the calculated altitude varies minutely as certain parameters are varied. An international committee recommended the 100 km line to the FAI, and upon adoption, it became widely accepted as the boundary to space for many purposes.
I've advocated making all even months 30 days and all odd months except November 31 days with November receiving the leap year day. Simplifies things completely and never leaves people guessing, except for if it's a leapyear or not.
If we're going to change the months, we should just have 13 months of 28 days each, a nice even 4 weeks per month. That has one leftover day per year (two on leap years), which would not be part of any month or week. We'll call those "nameless days" or something and would fall between saturday of the last week of the year, and sunday of the first week of the next year. Those days would be holidays and everyone can have a big new year's party.
I bought one of those Unicomp keyboards and I was very disappointed with the build quality. It looks like they just made a cheap plastic housing for the keyboard but there was none of the heft of an original IBM model M.
I have a Unicomp SpaceSaver 104 and a Customizer 104. I would not buy the Customizer again; it has all of the bulk of the classic Model M without the same build quality. On the other hand, I love the SpaceSaver -- while it's likely not as effective for self-defense as the classic Model M is, I love typing on this as much as my ~30yr old IBM keyboard (which still works great!), and it uses less desk space, and is natively USB. It also doesn't feel as flimsy as the Customizer does, probably simply due to there being less plastic overall.
I also use a Das, which I don't like typing on as much as the SpaceSaver but it is extremely well built. Maybe I'll replace all the key switches in it with these green ones if they're more like buckling springs!
It was quite possibly fitted with electronic accelerator and break paddles for hand-use or similar.
No wonder! The driver probably had intended to activate the brake control, but accidentally hit the break switch instead. Then, naturally, the car broke.
WTF does your comment have to do with airports?
Watson screwed up the Final Jepoardy problem in the first match, which was (category: US Cities): "Its largest airport was named for a World War II hero; its second largest, for a World War II battle."
What kind of drug would a staple need? It's job is to hold reams of paper together securely.
Unfortunately, most staples are quite inept at holding even one ream of paper together, let alone multiple reams. They are normally not in a position with much job security, as they usually can barely even support a quire of bond paper.
The drugs let these millions of inadequate staples feel better about themselves.
When the letter C you spy, place the E before the I.
Like you do in words like sceince, soceity, anceint, speceis, glaceir, fanceir, efficeincy, ...
Seriously, the "I before E except after C" adage is a load of crap not based in reality.
There are what, 12 digits in a visa number?
OK, 16 digits. That's about 2**53 possibilities, although the numbers are not all chosen randomly so you should be able to reduce the search space significantly. Still well within the realm of possibility for brute force by a determined adversary, but you may need more than a few desktops to pull it off.
It's pretty easy to salt + hash every card number and then just track the hashes.
You may as well just store the card numbers in plaintext. There are what, 12 digits in a visa number? That's less than 2**36 possible card numbers. It wouldn't take more than a few minutes for a modest cluster to test every card number and find the one which matched a given salt & hash.
The in-kernel write support for NTFS only allows you to write to an existing file, and only allows you to write the same amount of data as the exact files size and name on the disk.
This is not quite accurate: support for extending existing files w/ the in-kernel driver has been available for some time (ca. 2005). Apparently it can fail to extend the file if it is excessively fragmented, however.
I know USB can't handle as many simultaneous key hits as PS/2.. but don't see how that would apply here.
This is only half true. The 6+4 simultaneous key limit is part of the HID boot protocol for keyboards, which is a restricted subset of the USB HID interface meant for limited environments such as the system boot firmware.
The full USB HID protocol has no such limits, but it seems that most keyboards only support the boot protocol for whatever reason.
Gah, all section numbers in my post are off-by-one. They should have been referring to sections 3(b), 3(c) and 3(a), respectively.
The GPL states that if source code is GPLed then the distributor must offer to provide the source code to anyone who receives a binary.
While this is close, it is not quite right. If the "offer for source" option of the GPLv2 section 2(b) is used, the offer must be valid for any third party; not just those who received binaries. Otherwise, the right for recipients of such an offer to pass it on under section 2(c) would not be meaningful.
However, if you accompany binaries with source according to section 2(a), then you have no further obligations to distribute source to third parties.
And I can actually read the damn thing without having to learn someone's idea of a keyboard-based hypertext system. I can tell you I'd much rather have a halfway-decent man page than a wonderful info page.
I agree that the GNU info program has a rather annoying interface (presumably it makes perfect sense to GNU Emacs users). But the Texinfo source from which info documents are generated will target multiple outputs, including PDF and HTML. For packages using the GNU build system these are built with "make pdf" and "make html" respectively. Moreover, GNU packages typically make the manual available for download in a number of formats on the package website.
Just use the all-on-one-page HTML version in w3m and you have something that is essentially identical to a giant man page, except with internal cross-references and hyperlinks.
Even if the code was considered infringing, it would only need to be
revealed to those customers that asked for it before three years (since the
ruling in this case?) have passed.
IANAL, but I don't understand where this comes from. TFA says that code
in question is licensed under the GPL, version 2. According to section 3
of the license, distributing binaries requires you to do either:
(a) "Accompany [the binary] with the ... source code ...." ... the corresponding ..." [emphasis mine]
or
(b) "Accompany [the binary] with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give *any third party*, for a charge no more than your cost
of physically performing source distribution
source code
(there is an option (c), but it is unlikely to apply in this case).
Note that if you choose option (b), then you must distribute source to anyone
who asks. Moreover, Red Hat alleges that Twin Peaks Software has done neither
of these things. If Red Hat is correct, then Twin Peaks Software has no
right to distribute any binaries at all, until they have their license
reinstated by Red Hat.
i can think of LOTS of 'projects' that could've saved the trillions of dollars, in absolute, 100% waste. ... The B2 bomber. The stealth
bomber.
Aren't those two just different names for exactly the same plane?
The A5 is the smallest Cortex processor available
Really? I figured that the Cortex-M0 would be smaller. The M0 doesn't even have a cache. Indeed, ARM's Cortex-M0 product page agrees, saying:
The ARM Cortex(tm)-M0 processor is the smallest ARM processor available.
so it's not clear why the article is calling the A5 the smallest?