If you can accelerate/decelerate at 1g with a 20 tonne vehicle (40 tonnes of force ) then you can accelerate at 4g's with a 10 tonne vehicle ( also 40 tonnes of force ). This means you can go ~4 times as fast which is a very significant difference when dealing with long transit distances. So a 20 day round trip by the 20 tonne could be accopmlished in 5 days by the ten tonne and would allow for 4 trips in the same time.
Not quite. If you do the maths you'll find that a 4g acceleration will allow you to do the trip in half the time, not a quarter of the time. So a 20 day round trip by the 20 tonne could be accomplished in 10 days by the 10 tonne. So you're better off with the 20 tonne since it's probably got a higher percentage of cargo weight.
However, when one uses "loose" in place of "lose", it is usually quite obvious that the person actually believes this to be the correct spelling. So the poster above you still had a valid point!
... it's one thing if I accidentally misspelled "lose" as "loose" in one instance, if I were to spell it correctly 95% of the time. It's quite another thing to be a moron who thinks that when he has lost something, he should try harder not to loose something else.
I've noticed that Linus Torvalds consistently misspells "scenario" as "schenario". In no way does that indicate to me that he is any sort of moron.
Here's the current list:
1.) FPS ports from the most popular Windows releases.
2.) Penguin Racing
3.) M.A.M.E.
4.) All new! Strategy game set in space provided you have Wine up and running.
No, there's no point. An assembler is a very simple beast compared to a compiler. An assembler is basically a macro expander (similar to a C pre-processor), and a translator. The translation is very close to one-to-one between assembly and machine code. A compiler generally won't have much use for macros, and there is nothing to be gained by generating the target code as assembly language statements and then translating them to machine code versus generating the target code as machine code. It's just a waste of time doing the extra translation.
No. Anything in C/C++ is compiled into assembly language. You may never see it because you are normally not interested in. But the assembly phase still do exist and you can tell the silly thing to actually output the assembly code.
GCC does, but that's a bit of a special case (due to portability). Most compilers (e.g. Intel's C compiler) don't produce assembly language unless you specifically ask for it - by default the compiler backends produce machine code directly. I don't think you even have the option with Visual C++.
Gee, way to show you don't know what you're talking about. Every compiled language turns the result into assembly language.
Way to show you don't know what assembly language is. Compiled languages such as C used to be compiled to assembly code which was then assembled to machine code (i.e. an executable). Now days virtually every C compiler produces executable machine code directly.
Java is not compiled into machine code, because there is no machine.
There is a machine - the JVM. The process is of compiling Java to JVM machine code (what's called Java Bytecode) is essentially the same as compiling C to x86 machine code. The fact that there are no machines that run Java Bytecode natively is irrelevant. Such a machine could be made and Sun did make a half-hearted attempt to do so (see here, or search Google for "Java processors").
I've HEARD some java compilers actually can compile into ASM, but I haven't seen them, because everyone whinges and bitches about how this defeats java's imaginary "write once run everywhere".
Do some research. GCJ is an example of a Java compiler that produces native machine code (I'll assume that's what you mean by "ASM").
I disagree. The thought processes necessary to solve the problem may be basically the same, but the thought processes to implement the solution in assembler versus Java are very different. It's not uncommon that great procedural programmers really struggle when they first start using OO languages (and vice versa).
That's funny, except what's funnier is that I consider Java a scripting language.
If it ain't compiled into assembly language, it ain't real programming.
I personally do more programming in Perl nowadays... I don't pretend that it's real programming though.
You have a very warped view of what "real programming" is. Compilation v interpretation has nothing to do with it. Besides virtually nothing is "compiled into assembly language" these days. As for Java - it is compiled into machine code, it's just that all the platforms it runs on emulate the target machine. And there are also plenty of Java verions that produce native executables.
Schneier could encrypt it with his own private key, which would allow anyone with access to his public key to decrypt it. This would also prove that the email is from him, provided you could trust the public key as being his.
Most of the time Google can't tell what results you've clicked on. They could (and I believe occasionally do) use redirection to gather the results people click on, but it has the potential to be used to gather a lot of personal information so it makes many people justifiably nervous.
I get a list of 7 pages, and then after getting to page 5, there are only 6 pages.
I believe that what's happening there is that as you move through the pages of results Google realises that some of the later results are similar to some of the earlier results and omits them. You can get them back but clicking on the link at the end of the last page.
shouldn't they rely on an inherently secure system
There are plenty of valid reasons why they might want to keep the box secret even regardless of the "inherent security" of the system. As others have said it could contain a private key that would allow the recovery of messages sent in the past. It could contain unencrypted data. It could even contain new techniques that the NSA or whoever don't want falling into the hands of the public.
You're reaching. There is no significant risk of death associated with working in a tomato field. Astronauts and soldiers on the front line during wartime are taking significant risks. Furthermore your assertion that working in a tomato field is "Working For My Fellow Man" is patently ridiculous.
If you're not asking Matt to leave the project and his technical ability is not an issue, then exactly what is the point of revoking his commit bit?
I don't see how stopping him from committing will change his behaviour toward other developers. Now if you banned him from the mail list that would be a different story.
Is he still on the (I believe closed) developers' list?
You're right, that sort of speech recognition is not hard, but it's not that impressive either. It's just fuzzy matching of recorded sounds. Stuff like realtime dictation with few mistakes is still pretty tough.
Personally I don't see the benefits of the setup you have. My wife would put up with it for about 5 minutes I reckon.
All day on TV they've been saying "Don't touch it, its toxic!". If that was really the only reason, I'd take my chances.
Comments to the effect that scavenging would hinder the investigation were few and far between.. and I didn't hear anyone say it was against the law.
Not that I'm disagreeing with you, I just found it strange, the way TV kept saying "TOXIC! TOXIC!" and little else.
Blame that on media sensationalism. It is almost certainly illegal to remove debris from the crash site. Most likely it's covered by FAA regulations. Note that NASA's emergency notice states that:
All debris is United States Government property and is critical to the investigation of the shuttle accident. Any and all debris from the accident is to be left alone and reported to Government authorities. Unauthorized persons found in possession of accident debris will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
In a situation as serious as this I would tend to believe that they aren't making idle threats.
Unlikely. The Enterprise was never meant to go into space and is only for training inside the atmosphere.
Not quite the full story. Enterprise was the ALT (Approach and Landing Test) vehicle. It was used to evaluate and confirm the Shuttles' design in terms of landing and the 747-piggyback transportation system.
It was intended to be retrofitted as a fully rated orbiter (and always carried the OV-101 designation), but the decision was made in 1978 to leave it in it's ALT configuration and instead upgrade Challenger. Challenger (STA-099, Structural Test Article) was the test vehicle used to verify the structual design of the Shuttles under load. It was upgraded to join Columbia (OV-102) as a fully rated orbiter (becomming OV-99).
Enterprise is now owned by the Smithsonian Institution.
What about simple sabotage? Everyone is noting how complex a Space Shuttle is. Cut a line here or there. Change the adhesive used to attach the tiles.
Too much scrutiny, everything is checked too many times. As someone said it'd be easier for a terrorist to target Air Force One than the Shuttle. Besides it doesn't make sense to target the re-entry. A terrorist would want to target the launch when the Shuttle has a full fuel load. The dream scenario for a terrorist would be a launch pad explosion - it would likely kill a lot more people and cause more damage to the program.
And of course if you don't get around to sending that form back in then you've just confirmed all your personal details for them. Expect a lot more calls.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they do - it's called dictionary.com. It automatically updates it's definitions, too.
5.) NetHack
And with a new release being front page news, too!
I figured that, I was just being pedantic. I really should just stick to the point sometimes.
See my other comments re GCC. As it happens I'm developing using Visual C++ and the stand alone assembler is not installed.
No, there's no point. An assembler is a very simple beast compared to a compiler. An assembler is basically a macro expander (similar to a C pre-processor), and a translator. The translation is very close to one-to-one between assembly and machine code. A compiler generally won't have much use for macros, and there is nothing to be gained by generating the target code as assembly language statements and then translating them to machine code versus generating the target code as machine code. It's just a waste of time doing the extra translation.
I disagree. The thought processes necessary to solve the problem may be basically the same, but the thought processes to implement the solution in assembler versus Java are very different. It's not uncommon that great procedural programmers really struggle when they first start using OO languages (and vice versa).
Schneier could encrypt it with his own private key, which would allow anyone with access to his public key to decrypt it. This would also prove that the email is from him, provided you could trust the public key as being his.
Most of the time Google can't tell what results you've clicked on. They could (and I believe occasionally do) use redirection to gather the results people click on, but it has the potential to be used to gather a lot of personal information so it makes many people justifiably nervous.
You're reaching. There is no significant risk of death associated with working in a tomato field. Astronauts and soldiers on the front line during wartime are taking significant risks. Furthermore your assertion that working in a tomato field is "Working For My Fellow Man" is patently ridiculous.
I don't see how stopping him from committing will change his behaviour toward other developers. Now if you banned him from the mail list that would be a different story.
Is he still on the (I believe closed) developers' list?
Personally I don't see the benefits of the setup you have. My wife would put up with it for about 5 minutes I reckon.
It was intended to be retrofitted as a fully rated orbiter (and always carried the OV-101 designation), but the decision was made in 1978 to leave it in it's ALT configuration and instead upgrade Challenger. Challenger (STA-099, Structural Test Article) was the test vehicle used to verify the structual design of the Shuttles under load. It was upgraded to join Columbia (OV-102) as a fully rated orbiter (becomming OV-99).
Enterprise is now owned by the Smithsonian Institution.
And of course if you don't get around to sending that form back in then you've just confirmed all your personal details for them. Expect a lot more calls.