Title says implies that the judge made the statement about the code being trivial. The judge makes no such claim -- instead, he says that a previous Google witness made that claim.
This is a world of difference!
Westeros is transparently (if not particularly faithfully) based on a fantastic reinterpretation of Britain, right down to the the Wall and the . And all the knights and chivalery (and non-chivalery) and so on are clearly Arthurian legend, which is unquestionably British even if it owes a big debt to France — which, speaking of, is of course right across the "narrow sea".
Middle Earth is less literal with the geography, but Tolkien has said (were it not already obvious!) that the Shire is rural Britain in spirit, so of course the hobbits speak with the appropriate accent.
This is some guy with a website, with a dull and poorly produced video telling you to buy stuff. I stopped when I got to the part where it says that most people buy smaller TVs than they "need". N-E-E-D.
Now, if he said "people buy smaller TVs than would be AWESOME", okay, fine. But this is basically crass consumerism pumped up by guy who isn't an "industry expert" but rather someone who worked for a crappy rah-rah-buy-stuff computer magazine for 20 years and is trying to trade on that to get some money. That's not wrong in itself, but it sure does translate to being a slashvertisement here.
I mean, I'll try anything to improve AT&T signal reception, but I'm skeptical. I tried sitting, standing, and even lying down, and it doesn't really seem to change anything.
The idea of gamification is to give little awards for postitive behavior — or at least active engagement with the site/product/tool/whatever. A few of these fit that (the badge for working on a Saturday or Friday night), but most of them are labels of shame for doing things like writing a single line of code that is several screens too wide.
+1! Sheesh, slashdot, why do I have mod points all the time when I don't need them and then they're gone when there's something actually worth voting up?!
You're not very good at math. 1175 is about 8.3x more than 141, while 3525 is just three times 1175. More approximately (and more immediately, which is the point), the first answer is in the hundreds and the rest are in the thousands. It's easy to narrow down which of those the answer will be without resorting to calculation (much less a calculator).
But more importantly, you're not very good at tests. These answers weren't selected at random. They were selected by a human. Why were these particular numbers chosen? Reverse engineer that and you can get good odds on any multiple choice test, even if you know very little about the nominal subject.
Finally time for the correction to my not knowing my 47 times table. I knocked off 3*3 to give me the easy 150, so just need to take the 9 off to give the 141.
On multiple choice tests, always read the answers first, and identify the key differences. Here, the options are:
141 1,175 3,525 4,700
And it should immediately jump out that one of these is an order of magnitude lower than the others. So, you know right away that either you can throw this one out or it's the right answer. As soon as you reduce he problem to 47 times 3, you know it has to be that one. Mark A and move on to a harder question. (You can check your work later if you have time.)
If the answer had a higher order of magnitude, the next thing to consider would be whether the answer is likely to be the nice, round 47 times 100 -- another easy-to-identify possibility.
Yes, on a Power7 system, you can get them on a system that costs a lot less than $200,000.
Or for much less than that on AMD/Intel x86_64 too. I'm just sayin' if you're looking at that kind of money, the network technology options actually seem right in line.
"18.8" doesn't sound like a big number, until you consider what it stands for. Each bit of information halves your uniqueness. That means that you can be picked out of a crowd of 2^18.8 people -- 456,419. With an estimated two billion people on the internet today, that means you're down to being one in 4500. That's about the same as saying "My name is Matthew Miller and I live in the United States." Not particularly private!
Another way to think of it is this: those two billion people represent 31 bits of uniqueness. Every bit of information revealed knocks off some of that. When you're down to one, you're positively identified. Your web browser is giving up at least 18.8 of those thirty for nothing, leaving you with just about 12.
The summary here seems to focus on a minor (page 3) point in the article, but, man, what a bad point it is:
And the Times appears to be making a big mistake by letting people get unlimited access to its content if they come from Twitter and other feeds, apparently to not turn of the young-adult population. All that will do is perpetuate the free-loader culture and simply shift users to those conduits, turning them from grazers to firehose-feeders -- and undermining the whole notion of paying for frequent content usage.
Silly. This isn't a "big mistake". It's quite canny — they're paying people (with access to content) for providing word-of-mouth advertising. The cost (an article read for free) is very low and the benefit (lots of visitors come by without being annoyed) is high. It's a good move.
Bill Gates's book "The Road Ahead", is, in its first 1995 edition, focused on how the CD-ROM was going to change everything about computers. Remember Encarta? They were really focused on that -- multimedia on discs, that was going to be the future.
But then, for the 1996 printing, the whole thing was re-written and suddenly CD-ROMs weren't the hot thing. It was all about the Internet.
Troll? C'mon, seriously. Slashdot was here when this story happened. It's interesting to look at the historical comments. Sorry I didn't spell that out.
Slashdot Mirror
Title says implies that the judge made the statement about the code being trivial. The judge makes no such claim -- instead, he says that a previous Google witness made that claim. This is a world of difference!
And there's even King's Lynn on the real-world map roughly where King's Landing would be.
Oh, sheesh; yeah. The Lannisters come from Lancaster. (I mean, on the map; not just in similar names.)
Westeros is transparently (if not particularly faithfully) based on a fantastic reinterpretation of Britain, right down to the the Wall and the . And all the knights and chivalery (and non-chivalery) and so on are clearly Arthurian legend, which is unquestionably British even if it owes a big debt to France — which, speaking of, is of course right across the "narrow sea". Middle Earth is less literal with the geography, but Tolkien has said (were it not already obvious!) that the Shire is rural Britain in spirit, so of course the hobbits speak with the appropriate accent.
Spoiler alert! Sheesh!
This is some guy with a website, with a dull and poorly produced video telling you to buy stuff. I stopped when I got to the part where it says that most people buy smaller TVs than they "need". N-E-E-D.
Now, if he said "people buy smaller TVs than would be AWESOME", okay, fine. But this is basically crass consumerism pumped up by guy who isn't an "industry expert" but rather someone who worked for a crappy rah-rah-buy-stuff computer magazine for 20 years and is trying to trade on that to get some money. That's not wrong in itself, but it sure does translate to being a slashvertisement here.
Two thumbs down.
I mean, I'll try anything to improve AT&T signal reception, but I'm skeptical. I tried sitting, standing, and even lying down, and it doesn't really seem to change anything.
How do you envision this magical remote kill switch working?
Oh, absolutely. I just meant that it shows engagement, so it could be construed as positive in that way. But overall it fits the negative theme.
There's a great blog entry on 40-hour work weeks for programmers from, amazingly enough all considered, someone at Microsoft: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/jmeier/archive/2010/10/21/40-hour-work-week-at-microsoft.aspx
So it's not like they dont' get this.
The idea of gamification is to give little awards for postitive behavior — or at least active engagement with the site/product/tool/whatever. A few of these fit that (the badge for working on a Saturday or Friday night), but most of them are labels of shame for doing things like writing a single line of code that is several screens too wide.
+1! Sheesh, slashdot, why do I have mod points all the time when I don't need them and then they're gone when there's something actually worth voting up?!
You're not very good at math. 1175 is about 8.3x more than 141, while 3525 is just three times 1175. More approximately (and more immediately, which is the point), the first answer is in the hundreds and the rest are in the thousands. It's easy to narrow down which of those the answer will be without resorting to calculation (much less a calculator).
But more importantly, you're not very good at tests. These answers weren't selected at random. They were selected by a human. Why were these particular numbers chosen? Reverse engineer that and you can get good odds on any multiple choice test, even if you know very little about the nominal subject.
Large mirror. Optionally, parabolic.
Finally time for the correction to my not knowing my 47 times table. I knocked off 3*3 to give me the easy 150, so just need to take the 9 off to give the 141.
On multiple choice tests, always read the answers first, and identify the key differences. Here, the options are:
141
1,175
3,525
4,700
And it should immediately jump out that one of these is an order of magnitude lower than the others. So, you know right away that either you can throw this one out or it's the right answer. As soon as you reduce he problem to 47 times 3, you know it has to be that one. Mark A and move on to a harder question. (You can check your work later if you have time.)
If the answer had a higher order of magnitude, the next thing to consider would be whether the answer is likely to be the nice, round 47 times 100 -- another easy-to-identify possibility.
Yes, on a Power7 system, you can get them on a system that costs a lot less than $200,000.
Or for much less than that on AMD/Intel x86_64 too. I'm just sayin' if you're looking at that kind of money, the network technology options actually seem right in line.
The VAX-11/780 was priced at something like $200,000.
If you buy a comparable computer today, getting 10Gbps interconnects would certainly be a reasonable option.
How about requiring them to write in Objective C?
Surely they will be stopped by the login banner which clearly says "If you are a federal agent, log out now!"
I wonder if UID is correlated with an understanding of humor.
I don't get it. That seems statistically unlikely.
"18.8" doesn't sound like a big number, until you consider what it stands for. Each bit of information halves your uniqueness. That means that you can be picked out of a crowd of 2^18.8 people -- 456,419. With an estimated two billion people on the internet today, that means you're down to being one in 4500. That's about the same as saying "My name is Matthew Miller and I live in the United States." Not particularly private!
Another way to think of it is this: those two billion people represent 31 bits of uniqueness. Every bit of information revealed knocks off some of that. When you're down to one, you're positively identified. Your web browser is giving up at least 18.8 of those thirty for nothing, leaving you with just about 12.
The summary here seems to focus on a minor (page 3) point in the article, but, man, what a bad point it is:
And the Times appears to be making a big mistake by letting people get unlimited access to its content if they come from Twitter and other feeds, apparently to not turn of the young-adult population. All that will do is perpetuate the free-loader culture and simply shift users to those conduits, turning them from grazers to firehose-feeders -- and undermining the whole notion of paying for frequent content usage.
Silly. This isn't a "big mistake". It's quite canny — they're paying people (with access to content) for providing word-of-mouth advertising. The cost (an article read for free) is very low and the benefit (lots of visitors come by without being annoyed) is high. It's a good move.
Bill Gates's book "The Road Ahead", is, in its first 1995 edition, focused on how the CD-ROM was going to change everything about computers. Remember Encarta? They were really focused on that -- multimedia on discs, that was going to be the future.
But then, for the 1996 printing, the whole thing was re-written and suddenly CD-ROMs weren't the hot thing. It was all about the Internet.
Troll? C'mon, seriously. Slashdot was here when this story happened. It's interesting to look at the historical comments. Sorry I didn't spell that out.
Old news, slashdot. Very old news!
"Blades on a ceiling fan" do not open. So, if the satellite is trying to open "like" that, no wonder there's problems.
HTH. HAND.