> Simplifying one of your statements:"You're interested in producing energy. Watts are a measure of production of energy."
That's not simplifying, that's removing any reference to a rate of change. And thus completely changing the meaning.
And if you think your solar cell is a power *source*, you are so freaking off base, there's no point in attempting meaningful scientific dialogue with you, you have no respect for terminology at all.
"Chain - A chain contains a ruleset of rules that are applied on packets that traverses the chain."
Recursion: see recursion
This is like shooting fish in a barrel. With dynamite. Whoever wrote that document should be ashamed. Or shot, to prevent him producing such crap again.
That's not documentation, that's rambling bollocks.
Going to a random page: "If the IP filter implementation is strictly following the definition, it would in other words..."
No, "in other words" is only appropriate after you've worded things once and are about to re-iterate using different terminology, in other words are using "other words" to describe the same thing.
"less than $2 a watt" is about as meaningful as "less than 2 square steradians per kelvin-volt" in this context.
You're interested in producing energy. Watts are not a measure of energy, but of rate of change (production or dissipation) of energy.
For example, store all this unit's energy in the mother of all capacitors, and discharge that by shorting it, and you'll get a mind-boggling number of watts. So you would justifiably be able to reword the meaningless press-release statement as "less than a tiny fraction of a cent per watt", and maintain its truth. Which is none, as it's meaningless.
Whoever wrote that article has absolutely no interest in communicating clearly.
When such people are supportive of D-Wave, it adds no credibility to D-Wave at all. If anything, it reinforces the prejudices that many have against them.
So, they've left "stealth" mode, and are now in full-on "buzzword bingo" mode?
And if you want to do it in a computer environment, there's been a Perl module for 15 years: http://search.cpan.org/~dconway/Quantum-Superpositions-1.03/lib/Quantum/Superpositions.pm
Sarin was used by terrorists over 50 years after it was discovered. Anthrax was used by terrorists over 100 years after it was discovered.
If you don't see that as supporting the claim that terrorists don't use newly discovered agents, then frankly I don't know what would. Whilst I'm thinking about that problem, perhaps you could put together a list of citations for terrorist uses of all of the other bio and nerve agents that official research laboratories have invented over the decades. Citing only 2 cases really does nothing to counter the GPP's claim.
Absolutely. Comments are for amateurs who think that they can placate people with comments rather than good readable code. Alas some people can be so placated, but they're not the coders who actually have to deal with the code. (E.g. maintenance programmers.)
Sure, comment things that aren't expressible as code. Such as *why* you're doing something. If you keep your functions sensible sizes, then a simple 1-line comment should be sufficient to explain what the whole thing does, and you don't need to go into *how* it does that - the how should be precisely described by the code itself, as you say.
I just had a 6 month software engineering job, where, in simple terms, I didn't write a single line of code. Or design anything. Or review anything. Or test anything. Good money, but I just ran away as it was clearly a waste of my life, which is the single most limited resource I posess.
Oh - got an interesting challenge for a programmer? Contact me, I'm mobile...
Maybe he's expecting *you*, as the scientist, to trust, but verify those trials exist, as apparently that's the message that seems to have leaked out about what science is, for some strange reason.
I think there's another even more obvious reason why it's a dumb idea - namely that it confuses data with the presentation of that data. QR codes are just data. You could transmit that data as a hex string, as a base-64 string, or even as raw bytes, it's just data. The fact that he's even named the protocol after what is just a completely arbitrary way of encoding data implies that he's way too obsessed about the irrelevant thing.
Different, but similar, anecdote: We had a course on the telecoms network infrastructure once at a job way back. Right at the start, the instructor asked us "what kinds of things do you think you might want to transmit over a network?". One smartarse immediately said "data". Alas the dozy idiot (instructor) then kept pressing us for examples of "data". I think I followed up with "arbitrary binary data", but he still didn't get the hint. Data's just data, stop trying to wrap it up and pretend it's something else.
As long as there's enough negative feedback, catastrophe will be averted, it will brake at annoying. However, the damping hasn't been put to the test yet, and there's some evidence of positive feedback in some parts of the system.
I'd like to amend your sentence such that instead of "If US debt were seen as unsafe...", it reads "When US debt..."
You haven't confused me for a partisan yank, have you? I have no more respect for that current educated corrupt bastard than I did for your previous retarded corrupt bastard.
To go from a Helsinki harbour to an Otaniemi (just across the Helsinki "border" in Espoo) business park is a 4.50e adult single fare. Even with a prepaid travel card it's about 3.50e. Of course, if you stay within the Helskinki area, it's cheaper, but a lot of people have to cross the Espoo/Helsinki border every day, I guess a bus crosses the Länsiväyla (Lansivayla, if my 8-bit gets mangled) bridge at least once per minute on averate at peak times.
Looking at the map, the region doesn't even cover all of Helsinki, missing out Hertoniemi and anything further east, even if it includes important population centres in Espoo such as Leppavaara and Otaniemi. So I'd be surprised by your 750000 figure. Almost certainly over half a million though. But of course, you're correct about the compactness.
Slashdot Mirror
> Simplifying one of your statements:"You're interested in producing energy. Watts are a measure of production of energy."
That's not simplifying, that's removing any reference to a rate of change. And thus completely changing the meaning.
And if you think your solar cell is a power *source*, you are so freaking off base, there's no point in attempting meaningful scientific dialogue with you, you have no respect for terminology at all.
You're equivocating "broken".
Same page, from the definition section:
"Chain - A chain contains a ruleset of rules that are applied on packets that traverses the chain."
Recursion: see recursion
This is like shooting fish in a barrel. With dynamite. Whoever wrote that document should be ashamed. Or shot, to prevent him producing such crap again.
That's not documentation, that's rambling bollocks.
..."
Going to a random page: "If the IP filter implementation is strictly following the definition, it would in other words
No, "in other words" is only appropriate after you've worded things once and are about to re-iterate using different terminology, in other words are using "other words" to describe the same thing.
By that standard, this device is also photosynthesising.
Just because a tree did it in the past, doesn't mean this device is doing it by using a tree.
"less than $2 a watt" is about as meaningful as "less than 2 square steradians per kelvin-volt" in this context.
You're interested in producing energy. Watts are not a measure of energy, but of rate of change (production or dissipation) of energy.
For example, store all this unit's energy in the mother of all capacitors, and discharge that by shorting it, and you'll get a mind-boggling number of watts. So you would justifiably be able to reword the meaningless press-release statement as "less than a tiny fraction of a cent per watt", and maintain its truth. Which is none, as it's meaningless.
Whoever wrote that article has absolutely no interest in communicating clearly.
When such people are supportive of D-Wave, it adds no credibility to D-Wave at all. If anything, it reinforces the prejudices that many have against them.
So, they've left "stealth" mode, and are now in full-on "buzzword bingo" mode?
And if you want to do it in a computer environment, there's been a Perl module for 15 years:
http://search.cpan.org/~dconway/Quantum-Superpositions-1.03/lib/Quantum/Superpositions.pm
Sarin was used by terrorists over 50 years after it was discovered.
Anthrax was used by terrorists over 100 years after it was discovered.
If you don't see that as supporting the claim that terrorists don't use newly discovered agents, then frankly I don't know what would. Whilst I'm thinking about that problem, perhaps you could put together a list of citations for terrorist uses of all of the other bio and nerve agents that official research laboratories have invented over the decades. Citing only 2 cases really does nothing to counter the GPP's claim.
Yes, but at least you now know there's something worth striving for - a real target!
I also find that a token you pass to them on every single transaction seems to be an illogical way of having them not connect your transactions.
Absolutely. Comments are for amateurs who think that they can placate people with comments rather than good readable code. Alas some people can be so placated, but they're not the coders who actually have to deal with the code. (E.g. maintenance programmers.)
Sure, comment things that aren't expressible as code. Such as *why* you're doing something. If you keep your functions sensible sizes, then a simple 1-line comment should be sufficient to explain what the whole thing does, and you don't need to go into *how* it does that - the how should be precisely described by the code itself, as you say.
WTF? No need for 2 instruction decodes and pipeline slots:
LEA EAX, [EAX*4 + 4]
I just had a 6 month software engineering job, where, in simple terms, I didn't write a single line of code. Or design anything. Or review anything. Or test anything. Good money, but I just ran away as it was clearly a waste of my life, which is the single most limited resource I posess.
Oh - got an interesting challenge for a programmer? Contact me, I'm mobile...
Maybe he's expecting *you*, as the scientist, to trust, but verify those trials exist, as apparently that's the message that seems to have leaked out about what science is, for some strange reason.
I think there's another even more obvious reason why it's a dumb idea - namely that it confuses data with the presentation of that data. QR codes are just data. You could transmit that data as a hex string, as a base-64 string, or even as raw bytes, it's just data. The fact that he's even named the protocol after what is just a completely arbitrary way of encoding data implies that he's way too obsessed about the irrelevant thing.
Different, but similar, anecdote: We had a course on the telecoms network infrastructure once at a job way back. Right at the start, the instructor asked us "what kinds of things do you think you might want to transmit over a network?". One smartarse immediately said "data". Alas the dozy idiot (instructor) then kept pressing us for examples of "data". I think I followed up with "arbitrary binary data", but he still didn't get the hint. Data's just data, stop trying to wrap it up and pretend it's something else.
As long as there's enough negative feedback, catastrophe will be averted, it will brake at annoying. However, the damping hasn't been put to the test yet, and there's some evidence of positive feedback in some parts of the system.
...", it reads "When US debt ..."
I'd like to amend your sentence such that instead of "If US debt were seen as unsafe
ITYM "potted meat food product":
http://www.thesneeze.com/steve-dont-eat-it/
You haven't confused me for a partisan yank, have you? I have no more respect for that current educated corrupt bastard than I did for your previous retarded corrupt bastard.
> don't elections have consequences?
If elections achieved anything, don't you think they'd be outlawed?
Emacs of cause automated this, but that only goes back to 1987, apparently.
M-x spook
http://stuff.mit.edu/afs/sipb/project/perlmacs/share/emacs/20.3/lisp/play/spook.el
To go from a Helsinki harbour to an Otaniemi (just across the Helsinki "border" in Espoo) business park is a 4.50e adult single fare. Even with a prepaid travel card it's about 3.50e. Of course, if you stay within the Helskinki area, it's cheaper, but a lot of people have to cross the Espoo/Helsinki border every day, I guess a bus crosses the Länsiväyla (Lansivayla, if my 8-bit gets mangled) bridge at least once per minute on averate at peak times.
And that's the daytime rate. Want a cab on Vappu-eve? You're looking at 8.50e before you've even started moving.
And I would add that this has been the case for about 20 years too. There was 98% penetration back in the mid 90s.
Looking at the map, the region doesn't even cover all of Helsinki, missing out Hertoniemi and anything further east, even if it includes important population centres in Espoo such as Leppavaara and Otaniemi. So I'd be surprised by your 750000 figure. Almost certainly over half a million though. But of course, you're correct about the compactness.