Nothing wrong to you maybe, personally I think no matter what the game, the players should all be playing by the same rules.
The effect of which will be to ensure that an entrenched monopoly can never be taken down, even by a better competitor.
That depends on which set of rules are applied to everyone.
Having two sets of rules may be acceptable but a single set that works for all is often better.
I got the same question. Wasted some time trying to figure it out then decided to write it down.
Five teenagers are of various heights.
Alex is taller than Dennis, who is shorter than Eunice.
So A > D and E > D
Chris is shorter than Bob, but taller than Alex.
So B > C > A
Who among them is the third tallest? Putting it all together
B > C > A > D
and E > D
Therefore the following are all possible:
Bob > Chris > Alex > Eunice > Dennis
Bob > Chris > Eunice > Alex > Dennis
Bob > Eunice > Chris > Alex > Dennis
Eunice > Bob > Chris > Alex > Dennis
Obviously, there's no third tallest so there was a mistake in the question and it was supposed to say that Dennis was taller than Eunice. This makes Alex the 3rd tallest.
It was actually a question to tell if you could fix the question.:-)
I don't know about this particular instance but I find that a lot of useless code is often left in applications because nobody knows what the code does and, even though it's probably dead code, nobody is willing to take the time to refactor the code or remove the dead code.
The problem is that dead code very often leads to maintenance nightmares and sometimes to an avalanche of bugs. The code gets ugly fast because programmers code around it. I've even seen test scripts written to return "OK" results for buggy code because they thought the code was doing something useful. I'm not kidding.
Like I said, I don't know about this particular instance, and security and encryption tools are a different beast, but I've found that it's sometimes better to remove code when nobody knows what it does then to maintain the code. If it was useful, you'll find out soon enough, in most cases before it's released, and you can put the code back with proper documentation.
First, yes you interpreted my meaning of imperceivable correctly. That is, our current technology is not good enough to tell the difference.
What I don't understand is how hypothesizing that photons moving at a speed which is not equal to c' but sufficiently fast that their speed cannot currently be measured as different would invalidate the current theory of relativity. It would only invalidate the idea that photons move at the highest possible speed. They still move really, really, really fast.
Also, aren't there other particles that move close to the speed of light? Would not being able to demonstrate that these particles are not moving at the speed of light invalidate the theory? Note that the two previous questions are not rhetorical.
About the last point: "timelike" observers. Yes, your explanation does help. It demonstrates just how amazingly hard it is to wrap one's mind around this. Your comment about "when infinities appear in science it means something has gone wrong" is basically why I am questioning the speed of photons. My idea is that what we call c (or c') is our "observation" of something moving at an infinite speed.
Since you seem to respond to new people thinking about these issues and you seem to know what you're talking about I'll ask you this.
There seems to be a lot of times when you need to do something which should only take a couple of cycles but because you might get interrupted, you need to use a lock to do the work.
Do you know why CPUs don't offer a user space equivalent to the interrupt disabling instruction? This could be time based. So if I needed to update a queue's head pointer after testing the tail pointer, I could use this instruction which would guarantee that I would either get preempted immediately or ensure that I have a minimum of say 20 cycles available. I might still have to worry about multiple cores accessing the data but there are other solutions for that.
Such an instruction would make it possible to avoid locks with very little (no) penalty. If your time slice is nearly over trying to lock would have caused a preemption anyways and guaranteeing a few cycles wouldn't cause any problems.
A smart assembler editor could even highlight the instructions that would have time to get executed during the reserved time.
Thanks for the reply and for clarifying what I was trying to express better than I could.
Another stupid question if I may? If I understand correctly, the cosmic speed limit (let's call it c') is a speed you can never reach. From that, my understanding is that c' is not an actual speed but it's actually the perceivable speed limit.
If photons are traveling at a speed which is so large that we perceive it to be close to c', how would that affect observation since, by definition, the difference in speed would be imperceivable from our perspective?
Basically what I'm saying is that it seems more probable that photons are traveling at a speed which we perceive to be the limit than that photons are in an infinite number of locations at once. As Sherlock Holmes said:
when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?
Also, it might seem counter intuitive that something would go so fast that we wouldn't be able to tell the difference between it and c' but let's assume a traveler is moving at what we perceive to be 0.9 times c'. What we would perceive to be between 0.99999 times c' and c' would have a larger range for that traveler. In a sense, if a traveler was moving fast enough, he might be able to distinguish c from c' while we couldn't.
How would you account for the millions of people through time who claim to have had visions, dreams, etc., from God? Some are shysters, but some claim it genuinely. Are they crazy?
Some are "crazy." Still, the brain is not a perfect machine. It can be fooled in many ways. Some examples: optical illusions, chemical imbalance, sensory overload, lack of oxygen. I'm pretty sure that many of the people who made these claims honestly believed them to be true. When such claims are made that are observable by others they are invariably shown to be wrong. That should tell you something.
Can you disprove his existence? Of course not, that's the whole point. Can't prove it, either, that's why it's faith.
Maybe you can't prove that God doesn't exist but I'm willing to accept some proof that he/she/it does exist and so will most people. So yes, God can be proven to exist. That is, "gods don't exist" is falsifiable whereas "god exists" is not.
Also, although you can't prove that "gods" don't exist, an independent observer should be able to prove that a religion is wrong. All major religions have been demonstrated to be wrong on multiple occasions. Belief in "gods" doesn't preclude the belief in alien lifeforms but it does preclude belief in the current version of the catholic religion.
Do photons actually travel at the speed of light? That is, are they traveling with speed c or are they traveling at a speed so fast that we can't make the distinction? If they are actually traveling at speed c then, yes, the photon - as far as it's concerned - is instantaneously at every point between its source and its destination. If, on the other hand, it's going at a speed which, in our frame of reference, is indistinguishable (given current technology) from c then it's not instantaneous.
Can it be proven that photons are actually traveling at the speed of light and not simply so fast that we can't tell the difference?
...
Contrast with the Windows/Mac world. Each 3rd party application, game, utility, etc. has to have it's own mechanism to find out if it has been updated, code to bug you to update, etc.... Hopefully, this will change in Windows as well. There have been a few failed attempts before however, there's Appupdater that seems to be going in the right direction. Also Apache is using Maven2 and Ivy to "document" their projects. This should make it easier to install these projects (on any platform).
Disclaimer: I've had to look these things up lately but I'm no expert on the subject.
If they wanted to be complete dicks about it, they could charge a $50 distribution fee and only offer a printed copy by snail mail. Wouldn't that be legit w/ the GPL?
I think that it might be OK (50$ may be hard to justify) but then they'd have to put a procedure in place to provide the service. That would probably cost them more than the bandwidth. Also, being a dick doesn't do much good to your corporate image.
Also, I think they were already providing a URL. The problem was that they weren't informing their customers of their rights with regards to the GPL. If they offered a mail service, they would still have to provide this information.
I may be wrong but I believe that if you distribute the source code with the binary that you don't have to make it available to everyone else but that if you only distribute an offer than it has to be available to everyone.
Also, in this case, I believe that the code was available but the claimant wanted Skype to provide adequate notice (as demanded by the GPL) and that Skype wanted to provide only a URL and no mention of the GPL and the rights that came with it.
Most wind power stations will have to rely on gas-turbine backups, which is to say building a wind power station means building both a wind power station and a gas-turbine power station. Why would the pumped storage need to be anywhere near the wind turbines? Unless you want the town to be able to claim that it's both 100% wind powered and 100% independent as well, couldn't you have the wind powered flat towns provide the power and the more mountainous towns/areas provide the pumped storage?
Thanks. I re-read my comment. Don't know what I was smoking but it must have been some good stuff because at the time I wrote it, I actually thought I was making sense.
Till was itself derived from "til" so even without the apostrophe, it's correct.
That logic is not correct. "Debt" was at one stage spelt "det" and "dette", but neither of those spellings are correct today. You're right; the logic is incorrect. However, according to Merriam Webster it's still acceptable.
The comment you replied to and your answer raises a question. What if I have an application with a BSD like license and I want to use a GPLv2 only library and a GPLv3 library? Would that be legal?
My BSD like application links with Classpath which is fine. It also links with GPLv2 only code which is also fine and it links with GPLv3 code which is also fine if we take it all separately.
Assuming that only my code (or the Classpath code) calls the GPLv2 code and the GPLv3 code directly, can I claim that the GPLv2 only code doesn't link with the GPLv3 code?
I was correcting the spelling and grammar of someone whose language skills are even worst than mine and I was about to correct his usage of the word "till."
Fortunately, I looked it up first and came across the etymology of the word. Till was itself derived from "til" so even without the apostrophe, it's correct. However, I guess because so many people have been making the same mistake, "'til" is accepted by Merriam Webster. However, The Firefox English US speller seems to disagrees about "til" and "'til". Till it does, I'll use "till" to avoid the red underlining.
You said: Open source software can exist within a community of Apple SDK developers.
I told you why I thought this wasn't "open source" and provided insight.
Now you say that I mischaracterize what you said.
I guess that depends on your definition of open source and mischaracterize
According to these guys (www.opensource.org) to be called open source the license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
If you need to be part of group to get access to the code, then there's discrimination unless everybody can be part of that group. Similarly, if you need to be employed by a company, the code is not open source.
Also the definition of open source means different things to different people but most people don't use your definition that being available to the end user makes code open source. It also involves being able to redistribute the source with little or no constraints. I have used library on numerous occasions where I had access to the source code but I was not allowed to redistribute the code. This didn't make the library open source.
Your definition of open source would make all code open source. I work for company A. If you want access to my code just get a job with company A. You see, it's open source now - according to your definition.
You forgot to convert these values into their present value equivalent. 80K today is worth more than 80K in 22 years.
Depending on inflation, you might never break even.
Also, if during the 8 years at 33750$ after taxes, the person decided to live like a student (spend very little) and saved 10000K/year that's an 80K$ investment to start with while the educated person has to pay interest on 400K$.
I'm glad my education was mostly paid for by my country.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing wrong to you maybe, personally I think no matter what the game, the players should all be playing by the same rules.
The effect of which will be to ensure that an entrenched monopoly can never be taken down, even by a better competitor.
That depends on which set of rules are applied to everyone. Having two sets of rules may be acceptable but a single set that works for all is often better.
Depending on your value of "SOME" couldn't you rent a car when you need the extra range?
+1
Have you tried setting the JAVA_HOME environment variable to the root folder of the JDK before running the application?
print "Hello World!\n" x 3;
I got the same question. Wasted some time trying to figure it out then decided to write it down.
Five teenagers are of various heights.
Alex is taller than Dennis, who is shorter than Eunice.So A > D and E > D
Chris is shorter than Bob, but taller than Alex.So B > C > A
Who among them is the third tallest? Putting it all togetherB > C > A > D
and E > D
Therefore the following are all possible:
Bob > Chris > Alex > Eunice > Dennis
Bob > Chris > Eunice > Alex > Dennis
Bob > Eunice > Chris > Alex > Dennis
Eunice > Bob > Chris > Alex > Dennis
Obviously, there's no third tallest so there was a mistake in the question and it was supposed to say that Dennis was taller than Eunice. This makes Alex the 3rd tallest.
It was actually a question to tell if you could fix the question. :-)
I don't know about this particular instance but I find that a lot of useless code is often left in applications because nobody knows what the code does and, even though it's probably dead code, nobody is willing to take the time to refactor the code or remove the dead code.
The problem is that dead code very often leads to maintenance nightmares and sometimes to an avalanche of bugs. The code gets ugly fast because programmers code around it. I've even seen test scripts written to return "OK" results for buggy code because they thought the code was doing something useful. I'm not kidding.
Like I said, I don't know about this particular instance, and security and encryption tools are a different beast, but I've found that it's sometimes better to remove code when nobody knows what it does then to maintain the code. If it was useful, you'll find out soon enough, in most cases before it's released, and you can put the code back with proper documentation.
First, yes you interpreted my meaning of imperceivable correctly. That is, our current technology is not good enough to tell the difference.
What I don't understand is how hypothesizing that photons moving at a speed which is not equal to c' but sufficiently fast that their speed cannot currently be measured as different would invalidate the current theory of relativity. It would only invalidate the idea that photons move at the highest possible speed. They still move really, really, really fast.
Also, aren't there other particles that move close to the speed of light? Would not being able to demonstrate that these particles are not moving at the speed of light invalidate the theory? Note that the two previous questions are not rhetorical.
About the last point: "timelike" observers. Yes, your explanation does help. It demonstrates just how amazingly hard it is to wrap one's mind around this. Your comment about "when infinities appear in science it means something has gone wrong" is basically why I am questioning the speed of photons. My idea is that what we call c (or c') is our "observation" of something moving at an infinite speed.
Since you seem to respond to new people thinking about these issues and you seem to know what you're talking about I'll ask you this.
There seems to be a lot of times when you need to do something which should only take a couple of cycles but because you might get interrupted, you need to use a lock to do the work.
Do you know why CPUs don't offer a user space equivalent to the interrupt disabling instruction? This could be time based. So if I needed to update a queue's head pointer after testing the tail pointer, I could use this instruction which would guarantee that I would either get preempted immediately or ensure that I have a minimum of say 20 cycles available. I might still have to worry about multiple cores accessing the data but there are other solutions for that.
Such an instruction would make it possible to avoid locks with very little (no) penalty. If your time slice is nearly over trying to lock would have caused a preemption anyways and guaranteeing a few cycles wouldn't cause any problems.
A smart assembler editor could even highlight the instructions that would have time to get executed during the reserved time.
Thanks for the reply and for clarifying what I was trying to express better than I could.
Another stupid question if I may? If I understand correctly, the cosmic speed limit (let's call it c') is a speed you can never reach. From that, my understanding is that c' is not an actual speed but it's actually the perceivable speed limit.
If photons are traveling at a speed which is so large that we perceive it to be close to c', how would that affect observation since, by definition, the difference in speed would be imperceivable from our perspective?
Basically what I'm saying is that it seems more probable that photons are traveling at a speed which we perceive to be the limit than that photons are in an infinite number of locations at once. As Sherlock Holmes said:
when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?Also, it might seem counter intuitive that something would go so fast that we wouldn't be able to tell the difference between it and c' but let's assume a traveler is moving at what we perceive to be 0.9 times c'. What we would perceive to be between 0.99999 times c' and c' would have a larger range for that traveler. In a sense, if a traveler was moving fast enough, he might be able to distinguish c from c' while we couldn't.
Am I making any sense?
Fair enough.
How would you account for the millions of people through time who claim to have had visions, dreams, etc., from God? Some are shysters, but some claim it genuinely. Are they crazy?
Some are "crazy." Still, the brain is not a perfect machine. It can be fooled in many ways. Some examples: optical illusions, chemical imbalance, sensory overload, lack of oxygen. I'm pretty sure that many of the people who made these claims honestly believed them to be true. When such claims are made that are observable by others they are invariably shown to be wrong. That should tell you something.Maybe you can't prove that God doesn't exist but I'm willing to accept some proof that he/she/it does exist and so will most people. So yes, God can be proven to exist. That is, "gods don't exist" is falsifiable whereas "god exists" is not.
Also, although you can't prove that "gods" don't exist, an independent observer should be able to prove that a religion is wrong. All major religions have been demonstrated to be wrong on multiple occasions. Belief in "gods" doesn't preclude the belief in alien lifeforms but it does preclude belief in the current version of the catholic religion.
Do photons actually travel at the speed of light? That is, are they traveling with speed c or are they traveling at a speed so fast that we can't make the distinction? If they are actually traveling at speed c then, yes, the photon - as far as it's concerned - is instantaneously at every point between its source and its destination. If, on the other hand, it's going at a speed which, in our frame of reference, is indistinguishable (given current technology) from c then it's not instantaneous.
Can it be proven that photons are actually traveling at the speed of light and not simply so fast that we can't tell the difference?
... Contrast with the Windows/Mac world. Each 3rd party application, game, utility, etc. has to have it's own mechanism to find out if it has been updated, code to bug you to update, etc.Disclaimer: I've had to look these things up lately but I'm no expert on the subject.
I think that it might be OK (50$ may be hard to justify) but then they'd have to put a procedure in place to provide the service. That would probably cost them more than the bandwidth. Also, being a dick doesn't do much good to your corporate image.
Also, I think they were already providing a URL. The problem was that they weren't informing their customers of their rights with regards to the GPL. If they offered a mail service, they would still have to provide this information.
I may be wrong but I believe that if you distribute the source code with the binary that you don't have to make it available to everyone else but that if you only distribute an offer than it has to be available to everyone.
Also, in this case, I believe that the code was available but the claimant wanted Skype to provide adequate notice (as demanded by the GPL) and that Skype wanted to provide only a URL and no mention of the GPL and the rights that came with it.
Population growth = Births - Deaths
There are approx. 360000 Births per day so grown is approx. 210000 humans per day.
The impact of 1 million extra death would therefore date the clock back by less than 5 days.
Thanks. I re-read my comment. Don't know what I was smoking but it must have been some good stuff because at the time I wrote it, I actually thought I was making sense.
The comment you replied to and your answer raises a question. What if I have an application with a BSD like license and I want to use a GPLv2 only library and a GPLv3 library? Would that be legal?
My BSD like application links with Classpath which is fine. It also links with GPLv2 only code which is also fine and it links with GPLv3 code which is also fine if we take it all separately.
Assuming that only my code (or the Classpath code) calls the GPLv2 code and the GPLv3 code directly, can I claim that the GPLv2 only code doesn't link with the GPLv3 code?
I was correcting the spelling and grammar of someone whose language skills are even worst than mine and I was about to correct his usage of the word "till."
Fortunately, I looked it up first and came across the etymology of the word. Till was itself derived from "til" so even without the apostrophe, it's correct. However, I guess because so many people have been making the same mistake, "'til" is accepted by Merriam Webster. However, The Firefox English US speller seems to disagrees about "til" and "'til". Till it does, I'll use "till" to avoid the red underlining.
You said: Open source software can exist within a community of Apple SDK developers.
I told you why I thought this wasn't "open source" and provided insight.
Now you say that I mischaracterize what you said.
I guess that depends on your definition of open source and mischaracterize
According to these guys (www.opensource.org) to be called open source the license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
If you need to be part of group to get access to the code, then there's discrimination unless everybody can be part of that group. Similarly, if you need to be employed by a company, the code is not open source.
Also the definition of open source means different things to different people but most people don't use your definition that being available to the end user makes code open source. It also involves being able to redistribute the source with little or no constraints. I have used library on numerous occasions where I had access to the source code but I was not allowed to redistribute the code. This didn't make the library open source.
Your definition of open source would make all code open source. I work for company A. If you want access to my code just get a job with company A. You see, it's open source now - according to your definition.
You forgot to convert these values into their present value equivalent. 80K today is worth more than 80K in 22 years.
Depending on inflation, you might never break even.
Also, if during the 8 years at 33750$ after taxes, the person decided to live like a student (spend very little) and saved 10000K/year that's an 80K$ investment to start with while the educated person has to pay interest on 400K$.
I'm glad my education was mostly paid for by my country.