the same government is negotiating with trade unions to reduce hourly wages, in order to boost national productivity. At a first glance, this seems like a logical pairing with basic income, but the ideas are rooted worlds apart. These trade unions mostly represent traditional 9 to 5 workers (or actually it's 8 to 4 in Finland, because we all know waking up early makes you more productive), and the topic of negotiations is presented as longer work hours for the same monthly pay. Obviously, this won't exactly create new jobs for the currently unemployed. More importantly, this is like arguing over details of horse whip manufacturing while the real world is already driving electric cars -- i.e. working less regularly and more in tune with their own lives, rather than the single, safe jobs of the baby boomer generation.
The biggest problem with C is that it doesn't have strings or arrays.
...
In the future, it will be taught as an historical example of slipshod, primitive language and compiler design.
Agreed, but I'd also argue that C was pretty nice for its time, as a kind of portable assembler. To me, C is a model of a simple CPU/computer, and it's no longer a good fit for our modern multi-CPU machines, with vector types and everything.
With higher level languages, it's easy to deal with vector and matrix types, where components are assumed independent of each other for automatic parallelization. This is how the scientific computing community managed parallel computing way before the "multicore" craze, by using suitable languages such as Fortran. Plain C wouldn't work due to being too low-level.
Of course, parallel programming in general is harder than simple vector math, but there's a more general lesson about language design: don't assume too much about the underlying hardware. If your language is based on today's hardware, chances are it won't be a good fit for future machines.
Aristotle was wrong about the relationship between mass and acceleration due to gravity. Galileo Galilei proved him wrong.
IMHO, this is the birth of science, rather than an evolutionary step. For example, back in Aristotle's days, projectile motion was understood as straight-line motion, until the object "runs out of steam" (impetus) and drops straight down. The general idea was that knowledge comes from wise men and old books, rather than actually looking at the world. With that kind of a mindset, it's impossible for the knowledge to evolve in an objectively better direction. To me, Galileo's big idea was to try and take the human out of the loop, using precise and systematic experiments to gain more direct knowledge of the world.
There are poor capitalist countries. There are rich capitalist countries. There are poor communist countries.
There are no rich communist countries.
What matters is whether the government is focused on getting out of the lives of ordinary people.
You need to distinguish between two kinds of government involvement. There's free market vs. centrally planned economy. Then there's the social policy axis. For example, Nordic countries are free-market and socialist, so we don't fall neatly into the simple capitalist vs. communist dichotomy. We're not filthy rich, but you might say we're pretty well off.
A friend of mine once remarked that touchscreen phones are a fad; it's only for a while that people can be fascinated by the sleek exterior, and they'll eventually want something that works.
He is right, but he also doesn't understand that people don't want phones. People want portable microcomputers with multiple communication methods.
A hardware input interface reduces general functionality in favor of improving some specific functionality. What we really need is a way to reintroduce tactile feedback without sacrificing the interface customization.
That's an interesting choice of words. The said friend uses things like Plan 9 and Tor at home, so I'm sure he understands the difference between a computer and a toy for consuming apps.
I agree with the general problem, though. There simply isn't enough room for a decent keyboard and display in a pocketable device, so compromises must be made. IMHO, a touchscreen makes sense in a tablet that is mostly used for reading/viewing stuff, and not so much writing. But when you communicate using text, you're basically writing half the time, so it should be one of the main foci in the hardware design as well. A slide keyboard is a decent solution that won't sacrifice portability, though it does make the body somewhat thicker. So basically I see people choosing thin over usable. In fact, it doesn't even look like a question of portability -- e.g. the N900 is more pocketable than most current tablet/slab-shaped phones.
The dumbest thing about this is that people are now using more text/IM and less talking than they did in the days of number pads. While I prefer a real QWERTY on my phone, even the humble number pad could be used for tactile text input. In fact, it had the advantage of being usable by the single hand holding the phone.
A friend of mine once remarked that touchscreen phones are a fad; it's only for a while that people can be fascinated by the sleek exterior, and they'll eventually want something that works. Unfortunately, I'm not seeing any signs why it would be passing any time soon. It seems like our entire culture is about superficial fads, and only a small minority is ever interested in getting things done.
On a side note, the entire premise of artists vs. spotty geeks is a false dichotomy. I'm sure many an artist is a kind of spotty geek too, being focused on the art rather than social life. I also like to argue that harmony in art is deeply related to math -- for example, musical harmony is based on simple fractions, and there's a huge overlap in appreciating beauty from many different disciplines. Also, nature is full of examples where beauty in form is solely due to functional evolution, and the same applies to plenty of man-made forms.
The original article only said you should call 112 (the general emergency number in all EU). I don't know where that would go where you live, maybe you should just try it.
As to why the medical community maintained the myth that drugs would not pass through the placental barrier when alcohol clearly did, that's a clearly a what-the-fuck.
Ethanol is one of the smallest organic molecules, most drugs are huge in comparison. It might help to think of it as a solvent, not unlike water.
On a general theoretical level, it's not necessarily that clear cut. If you want to convert hydrocarbons into heat, it's obviously better to capture the heat directly, rather than doing it via electricity. It's always a shame when low-entropy and concentrated energy such as electricity is degenerated into heat. OTOH, an industrial scale power plant is probably more efficient than a Primus cooker. Plus there's a good possibility that they use something other than butane, like nuclear.
Besides, the terminology of AC vs DC isn't very relevant here, especially when it comes to stoves. Resistive heating doesn't care about phase or frequency, though voltage is obviously an issue if you want to heat something other than cables. If the question is about getting off the grid and going solar, then they should just say it.
Ah, good point about the skin effect. I'd count it together with other inductive losses, none of which exist with DC.
You might also say that DC uses more of the wire in a temporal sense, as it doesn't waste time crossing zero all the time. But this is basically the peak vs. average argument again.
AFAIK, the Maemo/Linux division was always just a side project compared to their Symbian mainstream. They had Linux tablets with a cloud infrastructure 10 years ago, but it just wasn't Symbian. So Elop wasn't the sole reason that line of development died, but it's interesting how he got onboard just around the time Maemo/Meego was breaking out with the N9.
I still own and use my N800 and N900; it's been hard to find another real phone-computer when everything new is a "smart"phone with plenty of CPU and RAM you can't actually use, and no keyboards even though people are mostly typing instead of talking.
Slashdot Mirror
the same government is negotiating with trade unions to reduce hourly wages, in order to boost national productivity. At a first glance, this seems like a logical pairing with basic income, but the ideas are rooted worlds apart. These trade unions mostly represent traditional 9 to 5 workers (or actually it's 8 to 4 in Finland, because we all know waking up early makes you more productive), and the topic of negotiations is presented as longer work hours for the same monthly pay. Obviously, this won't exactly create new jobs for the currently unemployed. More importantly, this is like arguing over details of horse whip manufacturing while the real world is already driving electric cars -- i.e. working less regularly and more in tune with their own lives, rather than the single, safe jobs of the baby boomer generation.
The biggest problem with C is that it doesn't have strings or arrays.
In the future, it will be taught as an historical example of slipshod, primitive language and compiler design.
Agreed, but I'd also argue that C was pretty nice for its time, as a kind of portable assembler. To me, C is a model of a simple CPU/computer, and it's no longer a good fit for our modern multi-CPU machines, with vector types and everything.
With higher level languages, it's easy to deal with vector and matrix types, where components are assumed independent of each other for automatic parallelization. This is how the scientific computing community managed parallel computing way before the "multicore" craze, by using suitable languages such as Fortran. Plain C wouldn't work due to being too low-level.
Of course, parallel programming in general is harder than simple vector math, but there's a more general lesson about language design: don't assume too much about the underlying hardware. If your language is based on today's hardware, chances are it won't be a good fit for future machines.
Aristotle was wrong about the relationship between mass and acceleration due to gravity. Galileo Galilei proved him wrong.
IMHO, this is the birth of science, rather than an evolutionary step. For example, back in Aristotle's days, projectile motion was understood as straight-line motion, until the object "runs out of steam" (impetus) and drops straight down. The general idea was that knowledge comes from wise men and old books, rather than actually looking at the world. With that kind of a mindset, it's impossible for the knowledge to evolve in an objectively better direction. To me, Galileo's big idea was to try and take the human out of the loop, using precise and systematic experiments to gain more direct knowledge of the world.
This is a tough one. I've met plenty of people who seem to possess some level of consciousness, but their brains are far from cultured.
with prevalence of SSD, disk cache is
even more important to minimize the number of writes.
It's a joke, referring to something else you may want to drink besides water (though being a bulk lager, there isn't a huge difference).
Why, yes, in fact, everyone and everything can be *
The upcoming Carlsberg plant is a nice start. But, it will only produce 50 million gallons per day.
FTFY.
Good to know you can drink salt water with fish pee and poo and God knows what else in it.
I can't drink salt water even without those things. To make matters worse, our local drinking water comes from a lake with fish in it.
The main feature is no LED flash for taking picture
FTFY. IYKWIM.
There are poor capitalist countries. There are rich capitalist countries. There are poor communist countries.
There are no rich communist countries.
What matters is whether the government is focused on getting out of the lives of ordinary people.
You need to distinguish between two kinds of government involvement. There's free market vs. centrally planned economy. Then there's the social policy axis. For example, Nordic countries are free-market and socialist, so we don't fall neatly into the simple capitalist vs. communist dichotomy. We're not filthy rich, but you might say we're pretty well off.
For a browser which used to be concerned with privacy they seem to have decided to do everything possible to reverse that.
They should separate the actual browser part from the current behemoth, in good Unix style. I suggest the name 'Phoenix'.
A friend of mine once remarked that touchscreen phones are a fad; it's only for a while that people can be fascinated by the sleek exterior, and they'll eventually want something that works.
He is right, but he also doesn't understand that people don't want phones. People want portable microcomputers with multiple communication methods. A hardware input interface reduces general functionality in favor of improving some specific functionality. What we really need is a way to reintroduce tactile feedback without sacrificing the interface customization.
That's an interesting choice of words. The said friend uses things like Plan 9 and Tor at home, so I'm sure he understands the difference between a computer and a toy for consuming apps.
I agree with the general problem, though. There simply isn't enough room for a decent keyboard and display in a pocketable device, so compromises must be made. IMHO, a touchscreen makes sense in a tablet that is mostly used for reading/viewing stuff, and not so much writing. But when you communicate using text, you're basically writing half the time, so it should be one of the main foci in the hardware design as well. A slide keyboard is a decent solution that won't sacrifice portability, though it does make the body somewhat thicker. So basically I see people choosing thin over usable. In fact, it doesn't even look like a question of portability -- e.g. the N900 is more pocketable than most current tablet/slab-shaped phones.
- Everything is a touch screen
The dumbest thing about this is that people are now using more text/IM and less talking than they did in the days of number pads. While I prefer a real QWERTY on my phone, even the humble number pad could be used for tactile text input. In fact, it had the advantage of being usable by the single hand holding the phone.
A friend of mine once remarked that touchscreen phones are a fad; it's only for a while that people can be fascinated by the sleek exterior, and they'll eventually want something that works. Unfortunately, I'm not seeing any signs why it would be passing any time soon. It seems like our entire culture is about superficial fads, and only a small minority is ever interested in getting things done.
On a side note, the entire premise of artists vs. spotty geeks is a false dichotomy. I'm sure many an artist is a kind of spotty geek too, being focused on the art rather than social life. I also like to argue that harmony in art is deeply related to math -- for example, musical harmony is based on simple fractions, and there's a huge overlap in appreciating beauty from many different disciplines. Also, nature is full of examples where beauty in form is solely due to functional evolution, and the same applies to plenty of man-made forms.
Either you keep with the times
I can't do that without wearing a time-piece, you insensitive clod!
My experience in life has been that people who are easily offended are usually insecure and have low self esteem.
So this would probably apply to MOST of the worlds Muslims...
Fuckin sad bunch.
On the bright side, if you steal a bike, you can show off your "riding with no hands".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The original article only said you should call 112 (the general emergency number in all EU). I don't know where that would go where you live, maybe you should just try it.
The molecules which make up all objects, including criminals, move substantially slower when it's cold as hell.
And that's why we were so late to the game with digital cell phones and Free operating systems.
As to why the medical community maintained the myth that drugs would not pass through the placental barrier when alcohol clearly did, that's a clearly a what-the-fuck.
Ethanol is one of the smallest organic molecules, most drugs are huge in comparison. It might help to think of it as a solvent, not unlike water.
000027? That's the combination to my luggage!
The same as the number of (electric) eels to charge a hovercraft, plus interest from the Monty Python skit to the movie.
On a general theoretical level, it's not necessarily that clear cut. If you want to convert hydrocarbons into heat, it's obviously better to capture the heat directly, rather than doing it via electricity. It's always a shame when low-entropy and concentrated energy such as electricity is degenerated into heat. OTOH, an industrial scale power plant is probably more efficient than a Primus cooker. Plus there's a good possibility that they use something other than butane, like nuclear.
Besides, the terminology of AC vs DC isn't very relevant here, especially when it comes to stoves. Resistive heating doesn't care about phase or frequency, though voltage is obviously an issue if you want to heat something other than cables. If the question is about getting off the grid and going solar, then they should just say it.
Ah, good point about the skin effect. I'd count it together with other inductive losses, none of which exist with DC. You might also say that DC uses more of the wire in a temporal sense, as it doesn't waste time crossing zero all the time. But this is basically the peak vs. average argument again.
AFAIK, the Maemo/Linux division was always just a side project compared to their Symbian mainstream. They had Linux tablets with a cloud infrastructure 10 years ago, but it just wasn't Symbian. So Elop wasn't the sole reason that line of development died, but it's interesting how he got onboard just around the time Maemo/Meego was breaking out with the N9.
I still own and use my N800 and N900; it's been hard to find another real phone-computer when everything new is a "smart"phone with plenty of CPU and RAM you can't actually use, and no keyboards even though people are mostly typing instead of talking.