Generate the password. Print it using an embosser (same ones as the banks and hospitals use), on a small piece of plastic -- something small enough to fit on your keychain. Then you can make those things expire once a month, to keep your card supplier happy;)
If you consider intramarital rape too, then I'm not surprised. Basically every time when woman says "no, I don't want to have sex now", yet she is forced to do it. I'd even consider 25% to be lowballed.
LOL re STS-75 "incident". Those are not UFOs. Think about what the illumination was when this stuff was being filmed. Assuming it was filmed through the front windows, they likely had side light through the side windows, and this would be classical dark field visualization of dust. Large-enough dust particles will behave exactly like this in weightless environment. Small ones will do Brownian motion, larger ones will move in apparently straight lines. Besides, this video suffers from bad overexposure and is focused for infinity (or so one hopes) -- anything that's nearby will be big and blurry. Exactly like the dust, ekhm, UFOs, seen floating around.
Now, who want to bet that if those hackers would just run email/password or firstlast/password combinations against major online banking websites, they'd get quite a few hits? This is kinda serious, and precisely the reason I stopped using common passwords and just use a fresh keepassx-generated password for everything.
You forgot one step: run gimps. I've been to a place with a bunch of rather crusty early P4 PCs. One in three (n=50) would fail gimps stress tests within 24 hours. Naturally enough, there were complaints of "Windows crashes" etc. on those very machines.
How easy was it for you to learn to read? Functional binocular vision, for whatever reason, helps with learning to read, so it may have been an early indicator.
Evolution is a fact. It has been observed in present times, speciation and all. Whether that contradicts Bible in any way I don't know.
What is a theory that's, umm, contentious, is that evolution is the source of the diversity of life we have on Earth. That obviously cannot be directly observed without a time machine or somesuch.
Bible is full of contradictions, and to me "bible scholar" at best a literary researcher, and at worst an oxymoron.
This picture AFAICT shows a grading page from the class book (LHS). The class book had pages for grades for each subject, for attendance, etc. It seems this format was spread across former Soviet bloc. You can notice that the class had 40 students (ugh). The grades are 2 to 5, with 2 being a failing grade. Student #37 was named Shrayer V. (in a loose transliteration), and was decent enough (only one 2, mostly 4s and 5s).
AFAIK, with most commonplace GC implementations, the short-lived objects have O(1) cost.
If you do a lot of allocations and soon thereafter you don't reference them anymore, the GC cost - in a decent implementation - will be zero for deallocation, and essentially O(1) for allocation. That's not bad IMHO. For deallocation, if it's not referenced then it's not touched. Only stuff that's disposable has a cost, but then you don't really want to be churning through lots of those.
I think that part of the problem is that there are still human developers on the other side of the keyboard. Code that utilizes asynchronous I/O in the general case, where you may be accessing multiple files from different places in your application, is just a pain to write in languages like C or C++.
You need at least sensible coroutine support to make it palatable, IMHO. To really utilize async I/O without spawning many threads that each use sync I/O, you need to have cooperative multitasking -- thus coroutines or somesuch.
Watch the video. Tell me what sort of a threat was the guy who was dying there. Even if he *had* picked up a weapon, he wouldn't be a threat. No way for him to aim and hit anything. He could barely move. Worst thing he could have done with say an RPG is to blow up a wall somewhere nearby, probably inflicting further damage to himself. No way to raise it up, no way to hit the chopper.
What bothers me is the conversations you hear in the background. The soldiers essentially being happy about the killing. Just listen to that.
I mean, come on, rules of war or not, you're killing people. There's nothing to be happy about. Soldiers who are happy about killing others -- is that what it came to? I thought it was about duty and necessary evil, with full realization it is wrong. No matter how supposedly bad the enemy is. Apparently to them it's just as much fun as playing a video game. And my taxes support that? I'm ashamed.
As far as I can see it, iPad is a perfect device for certain on-the-floor uses in a business. Think warehousing, production, etc. A lot of businesses use some almost-custom, already obsolete and expensive to maintain solutions as far as handheld thin clients go. An iPad is a really slick think client, and about the only thing that's missing is a built-in barcode scanner. Perhaps someone will come up with a bluetooth barcode scanner that somehow snaps onto an iPad; there are of course multiple bluetooth barcode scanners out there, they are just quite bulky in themselves.
For typical floor applications, they can run just fine in the browser. Safari has all the necessary functionality to develop quite slick apps.
Basically, for on-the-floor business uses, you can choose between iPod Touch where small screen is OK, and iPad where you need to see more detail (like plant operation diagram, status pages, etc). I'm certainly thinking of coming up with a nice way to integrate iPad into a small-scale instrumentation manufacturing business. It'd be a perfect companion for quality control, testing, etc.
Also, most automatics will engage the torque converter lockout around 45mph or so, so the fuel efficiency discourse is out of the window if you're driving on the freeway. Most of the relative inefficiency of the automatic transmission is in the torque converter, the core transmission itself is less efficient only because it runs an internal hydraulic pump to energize the valves. Such a pump is not present in a manual. That's all the efficiency difference there is between a manual and an automatic at highway speeds. A puny hydraulic pump.
1. On most automatics AFAIK, winter mode starts are from 3rd gear. Torque converter adds another layer of "softening" to the whole experience, so I believe any pro-manual argument there is entirely made up, unless you like to keep replacing your clutch every season -- admittedly, maybe it rocks someone's boat. Wouldn't rock mine.
2. LOL. You're anthropomorphizing a control algorithm. It has no "harder time" deciding anything. Floor the throttle quickly, and it will downshift two gears. Floor the throttle less quickly, it will downshift one gear. End of story. Maybe it's just my luck, but all automatics I ever drove would do that. Alas, I know that many people are scared of flooring their accelerator. Supposedly it hurts the car or some such nonsense. I put it into the same bin with people who believe that flooring an engine in neutral will somehow damage it.
3. The automatic on my car has D,2,1 positions, and it will happily downshift from engine braking, even keeping my engine just below redline while doing so. If I'm driving and move the shifter to "1" and keep the foot off the accelerator, the engine will be kept as close to redline as possible; in fact in "1" position it will be kept ~1500rpm closer to redline than in "2" position -- that way I can select the intensity of engine braking. Maybe it's not common in most automatics??
4. Fun is a personal thing. To me driving is not fun and I'd rather not do it at all. It's a necessity of living in a city with no functional public transportation, and with suburban sprawl.
Automatics require a different kind of control actions than manuals. If you have no experience or understanding of it, then surely it'll feel very crappy to you. Once you learn, you should have no problems.
As far as three-pedal manual transmissions go, they are more efficient but potentially a whole lot less safe.
The lowest reaction times in dense traffic can be achieved when the number of pedals equals the number of feet.
Manual transmission would be fine and dandy if it had an automatic clutch, like in some race cars. Otherwise, I'm a two-foot automatic driver, and I'd feel really unsafe in highway traffic it the clutch was there. I can drive a manual just fine, but not always having a foot dedicated to accelerator and brake makes me feel rather insecure.
It's handy to be able to just slam the accelerator and have the transmission downshift.
Assuming that you're accelerating in dense traffic, where for safety you have your left foot on the brake and not on the clutch, it takes 2-3x as long to restore torque output at the wheel when downshifting with a manual car, than with a decent automatic. I have measured it, arguably only on two cars, but they were same model late 90s vintage Volvos, only thing that differed was the transmission. And I tried my darnest to do it quickly.
So I think that the "feeling in control" with a manual transmission is exaggerated: you arguably have less control in certain common situations, like lane-shifting on a congested highway.
Try it out. Seriously. Maybe you'll gain a little different outlook on life: things aren't just so because you imagine them to be. That's how Greeks were doing a lot of their "science", and it took almost two millenia for that mindset to be shed.
As far as I'm concerned, this shit is supposed to just work. It's sold and advertised like that. I don't think it's so unrealistic to expect it to, um, you know, perform well?
Lasers "spread out" like everything else out there. There's no magic to it.
Lasers just happen to be fairly monochromatic light sources. We suck at making optics for wideband light, but making optics for monochromatic light is kid's play, in comparison. The only reason laser light doesn't "spread out" is that we can rather easily make optics to keep it from spreading out. Those optics can be a part of the laser's resonator cavity -- like in a He-Ne laser, or the laser source can be highly divergent (like a laser diode) and you can then slap an external lens to collimate the beam. Such lens would absolutely suck if you tried to use them to collimate visible light, simply because for every color (wavelength) you'd require a different setting of your lens. So you can have the lens focus, say, red light rather well, but it won't do well at all for any other color.
When a laser is powerful enough *and* it shines in a medium of some sort (not in vacuum!), you can get self-focusing effect, but that only works for as long as your medium is optically saturated IIRC. Once your power density drops enough, the self-focusing stops.
Slashdot Mirror
Generate the password. Print it using an embosser (same ones as the banks and hospitals use), on a small piece of plastic -- something small enough to fit on your keychain. Then you can make those things expire once a month, to keep your card supplier happy ;)
If you consider intramarital rape too, then I'm not surprised. Basically every time when woman says "no, I don't want to have sex now", yet she is forced to do it. I'd even consider 25% to be lowballed.
Where do I sign up?
LOL re STS-75 "incident". Those are not UFOs. Think about what the illumination was when this stuff was being filmed. Assuming it was filmed through the front windows, they likely had side light through the side windows, and this would be classical dark field visualization of dust. Large-enough dust particles will behave exactly like this in weightless environment. Small ones will do Brownian motion, larger ones will move in apparently straight lines. Besides, this video suffers from bad overexposure and is focused for infinity (or so one hopes) -- anything that's nearby will be big and blurry. Exactly like the dust, ekhm, UFOs, seen floating around.
Now, who want to bet that if those hackers would just run email/password or firstlast/password combinations against major online banking websites, they'd get quite a few hits? This is kinda serious, and precisely the reason I stopped using common passwords and just use a fresh keepassx-generated password for everything.
You forgot one step: run gimps. I've been to a place with a bunch of rather crusty early P4 PCs. One in three (n=50) would fail gimps stress tests within 24 hours. Naturally enough, there were complaints of "Windows crashes" etc. on those very machines.
How easy was it for you to learn to read? Functional binocular vision, for whatever reason, helps with learning to read, so it may have been an early indicator.
Evolution is a fact. It has been observed in present times, speciation and all. Whether that contradicts Bible in any way I don't know.
What is a theory that's, umm, contentious, is that evolution is the source of the diversity of life we have on Earth. That obviously cannot be directly observed without a time machine or somesuch.
Bible is full of contradictions, and to me "bible scholar" at best a literary researcher, and at worst an oxymoron.
This picture AFAICT shows a grading page from the class book (LHS). The class book had pages for grades for each subject, for attendance, etc. It seems this format was spread across former Soviet bloc. You can notice that the class had 40 students (ugh). The grades are 2 to 5, with 2 being a failing grade. Student #37 was named Shrayer V. (in a loose transliteration), and was decent enough (only one 2, mostly 4s and 5s).
AFAIK, with most commonplace GC implementations, the short-lived objects have O(1) cost.
If you do a lot of allocations and soon thereafter you don't reference them anymore, the GC cost - in a decent implementation - will be zero for deallocation, and essentially O(1) for allocation. That's not bad IMHO. For deallocation, if it's not referenced then it's not touched. Only stuff that's disposable has a cost, but then you don't really want to be churning through lots of those.
I think that part of the problem is that there are still human developers on the other side of the keyboard. Code that utilizes asynchronous I/O in the general case, where you may be accessing multiple files from different places in your application, is just a pain to write in languages like C or C++.
You need at least sensible coroutine support to make it palatable, IMHO. To really utilize async I/O without spawning many threads that each use sync I/O, you need to have cooperative multitasking -- thus coroutines or somesuch.
Watch the video. Tell me what sort of a threat was the guy who was dying there. Even if he *had* picked up a weapon, he wouldn't be a threat. No way for him to aim and hit anything. He could barely move. Worst thing he could have done with say an RPG is to blow up a wall somewhere nearby, probably inflicting further damage to himself. No way to raise it up, no way to hit the chopper.
What bothers me is the conversations you hear in the background. The soldiers essentially being happy about the killing. Just listen to that.
I mean, come on, rules of war or not, you're killing people. There's nothing to be happy about. Soldiers who are happy about killing others -- is that what it came to? I thought it was about duty and necessary evil, with full realization it is wrong. No matter how supposedly bad the enemy is. Apparently to them it's just as much fun as playing a video game. And my taxes support that? I'm ashamed.
As far as I can see it, iPad is a perfect device for certain on-the-floor uses in a business. Think warehousing, production, etc. A lot of businesses use some almost-custom, already obsolete and expensive to maintain solutions as far as handheld thin clients go. An iPad is a really slick think client, and about the only thing that's missing is a built-in barcode scanner. Perhaps someone will come up with a bluetooth barcode scanner that somehow snaps onto an iPad; there are of course multiple bluetooth barcode scanners out there, they are just quite bulky in themselves.
For typical floor applications, they can run just fine in the browser. Safari has all the necessary functionality to develop quite slick apps.
Basically, for on-the-floor business uses, you can choose between iPod Touch where small screen is OK, and iPad where you need to see more detail (like plant operation diagram, status pages, etc). I'm certainly thinking of coming up with a nice way to integrate iPad into a small-scale instrumentation manufacturing business. It'd be a perfect companion for quality control, testing, etc.
Unless it's well encrypted, it should be pretty trivial to open it up, extract the EEPROM where they store it, copy it down and decode the data.
Is that an S40, BTW?
Maybe that's one more argument for two foot driving, then? I do that on an automatic, and there's no going back for me.
Also, most automatics will engage the torque converter lockout around 45mph or so, so the fuel efficiency discourse is out of the window if you're driving on the freeway. Most of the relative inefficiency of the automatic transmission is in the torque converter, the core transmission itself is less efficient only because it runs an internal hydraulic pump to energize the valves. Such a pump is not present in a manual. That's all the efficiency difference there is between a manual and an automatic at highway speeds. A puny hydraulic pump.
1. On most automatics AFAIK, winter mode starts are from 3rd gear. Torque converter adds another layer of "softening" to the whole experience, so I believe any pro-manual argument there is entirely made up, unless you like to keep replacing your clutch every season -- admittedly, maybe it rocks someone's boat. Wouldn't rock mine.
2. LOL. You're anthropomorphizing a control algorithm. It has no "harder time" deciding anything. Floor the throttle quickly, and it will downshift two gears. Floor the throttle less quickly, it will downshift one gear. End of story. Maybe it's just my luck, but all automatics I ever drove would do that. Alas, I know that many people are scared of flooring their accelerator. Supposedly it hurts the car or some such nonsense. I put it into the same bin with people who believe that flooring an engine in neutral will somehow damage it.
3. The automatic on my car has D,2,1 positions, and it will happily downshift from engine braking, even keeping my engine just below redline while doing so. If I'm driving and move the shifter to "1" and keep the foot off the accelerator, the engine will be kept as close to redline as possible; in fact in "1" position it will be kept ~1500rpm closer to redline than in "2" position -- that way I can select the intensity of engine braking. Maybe it's not common in most automatics??
4. Fun is a personal thing. To me driving is not fun and I'd rather not do it at all. It's a necessity of living in a city with no functional public transportation, and with suburban sprawl.
Automatics require a different kind of control actions than manuals. If you have no experience or understanding of it, then surely it'll feel very crappy to you. Once you learn, you should have no problems.
As far as three-pedal manual transmissions go, they are more efficient but potentially a whole lot less safe.
The lowest reaction times in dense traffic can be achieved when the number of pedals equals the number of feet.
Manual transmission would be fine and dandy if it had an automatic clutch, like in some race cars. Otherwise, I'm a two-foot automatic driver, and I'd feel really unsafe in highway traffic it the clutch was there. I can drive a manual just fine, but not always having a foot dedicated to accelerator and brake makes me feel rather insecure.
It's handy to be able to just slam the accelerator and have the transmission downshift.
Assuming that you're accelerating in dense traffic, where for safety you have your left foot on the brake and not on the clutch, it takes 2-3x as long to restore torque output at the wheel when downshifting with a manual car, than with a decent automatic. I have measured it, arguably only on two cars, but they were same model late 90s vintage Volvos, only thing that differed was the transmission. And I tried my darnest to do it quickly.
So I think that the "feeling in control" with a manual transmission is exaggerated: you arguably have less control in certain common situations, like lane-shifting on a congested highway.
I think most decent automatics have a "wet" or "snow" modes, where they will do exactly that: start in 3rd gear. So what's your point?
You can't release the clutch fully without stalling?!
1. Stick in neutral.
2. Accelerator and clutch to the metal. The engine should redline.
3. Stick to 1st gear.
4. Clutch out as fast as it goes.
Maybe it's my clutch, but it just doesn't stall. It jerks, the RPMs drop, but it doesn't
stall. Now it's a 6 cylinder 3L engine, but still.
Try it out. Seriously. Maybe you'll gain a little different outlook on life: things aren't just so because you imagine them to be. That's how Greeks were doing a lot of their "science", and it took almost two millenia for that mindset to be shed.
As far as I'm concerned, this shit is supposed to just work. It's sold and advertised like that. I don't think it's so unrealistic to expect it to, um, you know, perform well?
Lasers "spread out" like everything else out there. There's no magic to it.
Lasers just happen to be fairly monochromatic light sources. We suck at making optics for
wideband light, but making optics for monochromatic light is kid's play, in comparison.
The only reason laser light doesn't "spread out" is that we can rather easily make
optics to keep it from spreading out. Those optics can be a part of the laser's resonator
cavity -- like in a He-Ne laser, or the laser source can be highly divergent (like a laser
diode) and you can then slap an external lens to collimate the beam. Such lens would
absolutely suck if you tried to use them to collimate visible light, simply because for
every color (wavelength) you'd require a different setting of your lens. So you can have
the lens focus, say, red light rather well, but it won't do well at all for any other color.
When a laser is powerful enough *and* it shines in a medium of some sort (not in vacuum!),
you can get self-focusing effect, but that only works for as long as your medium is optically
saturated IIRC. Once your power density drops enough, the self-focusing stops.