It's CLR (Common Language Runtime), not CRL; probably just a minor typo. I've had a few inexplicable one-time errors in a.NET app of mine on some XP machines that don't seem to appear in Vista or 7, but yeah, in general compatibility between different supported Windows versions is a complete non-issue.
I think the poem is written a little poorly, in the following sense: the narrator appears to switch between perspectives several times. The first perspective is someone who honestly cares about which road should be taken, and who is convinced that there is a difference. The second perspective is a cynic who wants to mock the first person. To be clear, I'd say the first perspective shows up in lines 3-8 and 14-15, with the cynic in 9-13 and 16-20. The switching lends itself to a misreading of the poem.
I listen for repeated hard drive noise when a machine seems to have hung. A lot of the time you can hear a "click...clickclickclick...click" repeating again and again (or something similar; usually a bit more complex) when it really has hung.
Wouldn't it be marvelous if physics worked out to allow humans to sustain indefinite exponential growth in our economy and energy usage? Saying it does seems like a very human-centric view of the universe. I think most everyone secretly expects efficient faster-than-light travel to simply be a matter of time and scientific progress, but what if it's just plain not possible in our universe? The laws of physics don't care if we can make our science fiction come to life, only we do.
No, so long as the watchdog program isn't what's encountering these errors. Say the watchdog program runs your program in a tiny memory space--8 bits, so that the number of states isn't mind-blowing. An OOM error would modify this 8-bit state, cause the program to halt, or be ignored, depending on how errors are handled. Memory reclamation at any point would change the 8-bit state (possibly not modifying it at all), but all that would do is delay the inevitable. For instance, if you're in an infinite loop, after 2^8 + 1 = 257 iterations, you must have repeated your state. Perhaps without memory reclamation you might have detected the infinite loop after 60 iterations instead of 257, but oh well.
I just looked at the UAH undergraduate physics course requirements. Are you saying you never encountered vectors in eg. PH 301 Intermediate Mechanics (which claims to cover variational calculus) or in PH 305 Mathematical Methods in Physics (which claims to cover some E&M and vector calculus)? Or perhaps the requirements have since changed?
In any case, those requirements are... lax, at least compared to my undergrad ones. Everyone, regardless of major, had to take multivariable calculus, linear algebra, DE's, prob stats, special relativity, a very basic introduction to quantum, mechanics, E&M, two physics labs, two general chem courses, two chem labs, and an intro CS course. (There were a few more, but those are the relevant ones here.) That fulfills almost all of the physics requirements listed on the page I linked, except for the upper level electives: wow. I wonder if I could have triple majored there and done less work.
I don't think the point is to create a perfect detector. An extreme enough man could get a bank of several thousand sentences or sentence fragments written by women and piece them together to create their own posts. That should be virtually impossible to detect, but it's stupid to even try.
From the paper, in their data set 47.7% of tweets were from females, 32.8% were from males, and the rest was unspecified. Tossing out the unspecified ones, guessing "female" all the time would then give ~59% accuracy. On the surface that makes the 65.9% figure in the summary very lackluster, though better figures are reported with more information elsewhere in the article.
Published in the International Journal of Oncology, and carried out by researchers from the University Hospital of Örebro and Umeå University (Sweden), the study found that long-term usage increased the risk of all malignant tumors by 30 percent, and astrocytomas in particular by 40 percent.
But this article says (apparently about the same study)
People who started using mobiles as teenagers, and have done so for at least 10 years, were 4.9 times more likely to develop astrocytoma as compared to controls, the researchers added.
Neither article bothers to give enough identifying information for this study for me to actually find the paper (even further reinforcing my impression of widespread journalistic incompetence...). Anybody have a link at least to an abstract?
I love the mathematical physicist John Baez's stuff. (He's the singer Joan Baez's cousin.) He has a blog and a bunch of stuff on his web page including several hundred issues of This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (be warned: it's incredibly mathy, and high-level). There's tons more on his web page that's just plain interesting. I love that you can tell from his horrible site design that it was made by someone who's interested in content rather than fluff.
Interesting fact: More Jedi are injured due to oxygen toxicity from breathing pure oxygen at depth than by any other training accidents, including lightsaber fumbling.
Wow, I had no idea! Now I see why they were so speedy about getting Luke his prosthetic hand--the Jedi had a lot of experience replacing body parts.
@2: But Star Wars Episode I used a device that looked like it was extracting oxygen from the water to let the Jedi breathe. Are you saying that wasn't factually accurate?
I see now. I misread "they" for "me", so I interpreted the joke from the perspective of lazy scientists instead of unscrupulous scientists. For instance, the following might be a lazy scientist's code:
if (review == positive && product_made_by == someone_they_received_cash_from)
I feel bad blocking ads on free sites. I get something from the site, and it seems fair for them to get something from me (a slightly higher statistic on some marketing company survey, I imagine). That said, I don't think I've ever clicked on an ad, with two exceptions: accidents, and googling something only to find the exact page I wanted in the ad at the top. Both of those are rare.
Slashdot Mirror
I was guessing the GP was just ignoring unhandled exceptions in managed code, since it's obvious that a program can crash from a basic runtime error.
It's CLR (Common Language Runtime), not CRL; probably just a minor typo. I've had a few inexplicable one-time errors in a .NET app of mine on some XP machines that don't seem to appear in Vista or 7, but yeah, in general compatibility between different supported Windows versions is a complete non-issue.
No.
I think the poem is written a little poorly, in the following sense: the narrator appears to switch between perspectives several times. The first perspective is someone who honestly cares about which road should be taken, and who is convinced that there is a difference. The second perspective is a cynic who wants to mock the first person. To be clear, I'd say the first perspective shows up in lines 3-8 and 14-15, with the cynic in 9-13 and 16-20. The switching lends itself to a misreading of the poem.
I imagine this could be useful for debuggers. Of course I didn't RTFA.
I listen for repeated hard drive noise when a machine seems to have hung. A lot of the time you can hear a "click...clickclickclick...click" repeating again and again (or something similar; usually a bit more complex) when it really has hung.
Wouldn't it be marvelous if physics worked out to allow humans to sustain indefinite exponential growth in our economy and energy usage? Saying it does seems like a very human-centric view of the universe. I think most everyone secretly expects efficient faster-than-light travel to simply be a matter of time and scientific progress, but what if it's just plain not possible in our universe? The laws of physics don't care if we can make our science fiction come to life, only we do.
No, so long as the watchdog program isn't what's encountering these errors. Say the watchdog program runs your program in a tiny memory space--8 bits, so that the number of states isn't mind-blowing. An OOM error would modify this 8-bit state, cause the program to halt, or be ignored, depending on how errors are handled. Memory reclamation at any point would change the 8-bit state (possibly not modifying it at all), but all that would do is delay the inevitable. For instance, if you're in an infinite loop, after 2^8 + 1 = 257 iterations, you must have repeated your state. Perhaps without memory reclamation you might have detected the infinite loop after 60 iterations instead of 257, but oh well.
I just looked at the UAH undergraduate physics course requirements. Are you saying you never encountered vectors in eg. PH 301 Intermediate Mechanics (which claims to cover variational calculus) or in PH 305 Mathematical Methods in Physics (which claims to cover some E&M and vector calculus)? Or perhaps the requirements have since changed?
In any case, those requirements are... lax, at least compared to my undergrad ones. Everyone, regardless of major, had to take multivariable calculus, linear algebra, DE's, prob stats, special relativity, a very basic introduction to quantum, mechanics, E&M, two physics labs, two general chem courses, two chem labs, and an intro CS course. (There were a few more, but those are the relevant ones here.) That fulfills almost all of the physics requirements listed on the page I linked, except for the upper level electives: wow. I wonder if I could have triple majored there and done less work.
You mean libelous, since it's in print. But otherwise I agree with you: the article is poorly written garbage, and the summary is decently insightful.
I don't think the point is to create a perfect detector. An extreme enough man could get a bank of several thousand sentences or sentence fragments written by women and piece them together to create their own posts. That should be virtually impossible to detect, but it's stupid to even try.
Women write differently. I wouldn't say they write worse, just differently.
From my own vast experience, I predict you are a man.
From the paper, in their data set 47.7% of tweets were from females, 32.8% were from males, and the rest was unspecified. Tossing out the unspecified ones, guessing "female" all the time would then give ~59% accuracy. On the surface that makes the 65.9% figure in the summary very lackluster, though better figures are reported with more information elsewhere in the article.
Published in the International Journal of Oncology, and carried out by researchers from the University Hospital of Örebro and Umeå University (Sweden), the study found that long-term usage increased the risk of all malignant tumors by 30 percent, and astrocytomas in particular by 40 percent.
But this article says (apparently about the same study)
People who started using mobiles as teenagers, and have done so for at least 10 years, were 4.9 times more likely to develop astrocytoma as compared to controls, the researchers added.
Neither article bothers to give enough identifying information for this study for me to actually find the paper (even further reinforcing my impression of widespread journalistic incompetence...). Anybody have a link at least to an abstract?
I love the mathematical physicist John Baez's stuff. (He's the singer Joan Baez's cousin.) He has a blog and a bunch of stuff on his web page including several hundred issues of This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (be warned: it's incredibly mathy, and high-level). There's tons more on his web page that's just plain interesting. I love that you can tell from his horrible site design that it was made by someone who's interested in content rather than fluff.
Interesting fact: More Jedi are injured due to oxygen toxicity from breathing pure oxygen at depth than by any other training accidents, including lightsaber fumbling.
Wow, I had no idea! Now I see why they were so speedy about getting Luke his prosthetic hand--the Jedi had a lot of experience replacing body parts.
@2: But Star Wars Episode I used a device that looked like it was extracting oxygen from the water to let the Jedi breathe. Are you saying that wasn't factually accurate?
That seems problematic, with the variation in satellite size.
I see now. I misread "they" for "me", so I interpreted the joke from the perspective of lazy scientists instead of unscrupulous scientists. For instance, the following might be a lazy scientist's code:
if (review == positive && product_made_by == someone_they_received_cash_from)
hi
test
test
test test
I'm confused. Shouldn't it be review == positive?
While I like your post, I don't see how its relevant as a response to mine. Maybe you didn't mean to respond to my comment?
I feel bad blocking ads on free sites. I get something from the site, and it seems fair for them to get something from me (a slightly higher statistic on some marketing company survey, I imagine). That said, I don't think I've ever clicked on an ad, with two exceptions: accidents, and googling something only to find the exact page I wanted in the ad at the top. Both of those are rare.