If you're programming a 6502 processor, maybe. On x86 systems, the opcode mnemonic is SAL.
Furthermore, SAL (shift arithmetic left) is actually identical in function to SHL (shift left). SAR and SHR are not identical in function, since SAR preserves the sign bit.
Fair enough. Like RabidMonkey mentioned above, expect a bed and meals and send you on the first flight home. Not sure about the whole jail part, but the general idea sounds fair enough.
My objection was to the point that a civilian jet invading our airspace would be handled the same way as a fighter or bomber invading our airspace. Unless there is reason to believe that the latter is defecting, I'd be perfectly okay if the decision was to shoot him down. The former should be handled with a bit more diplomatic tact.
I'm reasonably certain that the possibility of airspace was a convenient excuse for the real reason: it is damn easy to get into the US from Canada and Mexico.
Uh, is posting shortened links to Rapidshare a big thing on Twitter?
I don't use Twitter, so maybe I have been living under a rock...
Yes, I know that when you link to something from Twitter, you use a URL shortener. But I truly don't understand what Rapidshare files being deleted has to do with Twitter. Unless a bunch of Twitter posts linked to Rapidshare files, using URL shorteners. Which would be pretty silly, since there are much better ways to link to Rapidshare than to use Twitter.
Everyone on Slashdot is a "content creator" in that we make submissions and write comments that draw readers to the site, and we do it for free. And Slashdot makes money off us. And by posting here, you seem to be okay with that.
It would have been nice if the summary had described the "adjustment" that Rapidshare is being required to make:
The copyright organisation had asked the court to order Rapidshare to scan files during the upload process, but the court took another approach, ruling that Rapidshare must actively monitor incoming links from external sites to the files it hosts and take down any illegal files thus identified.
I.e., if a warez site links to a Rapidshare file, then Rapidshare will deactivate the file.
Amusingly enough, Rapidshare already did this, which is why warez sites typically don't allow posting clickable links. Non-clickable link = you have to copy and paste = no HTTP referer = Rapidshare is none the wiser.
Well, you got 2000 and ME backward: Windows 2000 was released 7 months before Windows ME. And they're not really even the same OS; Windows 2000 was based on NT architecture and was a business-edition OS; Windows ME was based on the 9x architecture (and is the last OS to have been; Microsoft abandoned it and built XP on the NT core after the massive screwup that was Windows ME).
But if you're going on Microsoft's numbering scheme, you had versions 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 3.1, 3.11 (Windows for Workgroups), and 3.12 (which was basically the version of 3.11 that had international support baked in).
The Windows NT family was started at NT 3.1, and ran parallel to the 9x versions in a business-oriented edition (rather than a consumer-oriented edition).
Windows 95 was version 4.0 (the corresponding version of NT was just called NT 4.0), Windows 98 was version 4.1, and Windows ME was version 4.9.
Microsoft built Windows 2000, which was version 5.0, on the NT core (but it was a business-oriented edition of Windows); as I said, they then trashed the 9x architecture, and the first consumer-oriented version of Windows to be built on the NT core, Windows XP, is actually version 5.1.
So, it really depends on what you want to call a version.
You are no longer allowed to use sentences. You will be allowed to use sentences again once you've learned the difference between a complete sentence and a fragment.
If you're going to be a Grammar Nazi, at least do it well.
According to this article, in early 2011 AT&T had roughly 96 million customers. They can pay back a paltry $50 million dollar fine by increasing their customers monthly fee by 50 cents for one month.
That probably wouldn't even pay for the DDoS of the support it would cause when a few million customers noticed the 50 cent increase and all tried to call AT&T at once.
Never mind, looks like I was the one who's wrong. In my defense, if they meant "all single accounts at the same bank", they should have said "all single accounts at the same bank". This one is clearer:
All deposits that an accountholder has in the same ownership category at the same bank are added together and insured up to the standard insurance amount.
All single accounts established by, or for the benefit of, the same person are added together. The total is insured up to a maximum of $250,000, including principal and interest.
Spreading your assets will help you out if a bank fails. If you have less than $250k in each bank, your account with the bank that failed will be insured by the FDIC. Spreading your assets will not help you out if all of the banks fail. You will be insured for up to $250k, unless you diversify the types of accounts. This can help you, because (for example) if you have $250k in a single-owner account, you can put another $250k into a Roth and both accounts will be covered. Similarly, if you are married then your joint account with your spouse would be covered up to $250k per co-owner, i.e. $500k in total:
You may qualify for more than $250,000 in coverage at one insured bank or savings association if you own deposit accounts in different ownership categories. The most common account ownership categories for individual and family deposits are single accounts, joint accounts, revocable trust accounts, and certain retirement accounts.
IIRC, GP's claim comes from the fact that Stardock had to crack one of the Windows XP.dll files in order to get it to recognize third-party theme packs.
Windows XP only allowed installation and use of themes that were produced and digitally signed by Microsoft. If you replaced the.dll with the cracked version that didn't check the digital signature of themes, XP would recognize and install unsigned themes produced by Stardock or anyone else.
It would scale a hell of a lot better if it were taller than 22 entries tall, and/or if it were resizable.
Right-click the Start menu. Properties Customize "Start menu size: Number of recent programs to display" Make the number larger. The more recent programs are displayed, the taller the start menu is. The taller the Start Menu is, the more entries the All Programs section will display. You're welcome.
I'll nip this in the bud and post something similar here to what I posted in the thread which drooling-dog referred to.
"Rate" is ambiguous. You can have a fixed rate of acceleration, which means linear growth; you can also have a fixed interest rate, which means exponential growth. Neither is really any more correct than the other, and the meaning of the phrase "constant rate" is very hard to interpret without any context to indicate what is meant by it.
I think your main problem is that you said "constant rate". Rate is kind of ambiguous. To you, that meant increasing by a constant ratio, i.e. A(x+n)/A(x) = A(y+n)/A(y), i.e. exponential growth. To a few other people, it obviously meant increasing by a constant amount, i.e. A(x+n)-A(x) = A(y+n)-A(y), i.e. linear growth (as revealed by AC's introducing the derivative and thinking that proved his point).
And really, if someone said something was "accelerating at a constant rate", I'd typically assume they meant linear acceleration, not exponential; I wouldn't say that your use of the word "rate" is necessarily any more or less correct than that. There would be less confusion if you'd say "factor" or "percent", rather than "rate".
"[Exponentially] just means that something is increasing (or decreasing) by a constant factor (percentage) per unit time."
If you really want to get the point across, you can illustrate with an example: E.g. this will grow by 10% from this year to next, and will grow by another 10% next year to the one after, and 10% the year following, and so on: a constant growth rate of 10%. By the time you drop the word "rate" into the statement, it's already quite clear that you're talking about a product, not a sum. You also won't have to refer to formulae like a*e^(x*t). And heck... why not at least make it friendly and use the compound interest formula that they might recall seeing, A = P*(1+r/n)^(n*t)?
Anyway, yes, you're absolutely correct: it's completely nonsensical to use the word "exponentially" to describe growth of something from time A to time B. That sort of growth is a simple factor to the trivial power of 1. "Exponential" is only useful when it describes the shape of the curve between A and B, or the shape of the projected curve beyond B - neither of which is the case here. It would have been more appropriate to say that data processing power would be increased by "an order of magnitude" - i.e. by a simple factor. Amusingly enough, it's always assumed either the "order of magnitude" is 10, or the "order of magnitude" is significant in magnitude - neither of which is really implied by its actual mathematical meaning.
In the 1970s I won a programming contest for the shortest program to calculate the highest power of two that divides into a given number (e.g, given 12 the answer is 4 as 4 divides into 12 but 8 does not). My solution took 4 bytes and was the only one that did not have a loop in it. The person judging them told me that he originally threw it in the bin as it obviously couldn't work without a loop. Later he got curious and tried it out and found it always worked. He said that he could not believe that he could not understand how a 4 byte program worked. It was in IBM 360 assembler and consisted of LCR y,x then NR y,x.
Slashdot Mirror
The display is made up of PNG images. For "emulated hardware", that's a bit disappointing.
I was hoping for something a little more like this.
If you're programming a 6502 processor, maybe. On x86 systems, the opcode mnemonic is SAL.
Furthermore, SAL (shift arithmetic left) is actually identical in function to SHL (shift left). SAR and SHR are not identical in function, since SAR preserves the sign bit.
Details, details...
You both forgot this one:
http://www.google.com/jobs/lunar_job.html
they located the ever elusive "white Hispanic."
Here.
Something like 50% of the Hispanics in the US are "white".
Fair enough. Like RabidMonkey mentioned above, expect a bed and meals and send you on the first flight home. Not sure about the whole jail part, but the general idea sounds fair enough.
My objection was to the point that a civilian jet invading our airspace would be handled the same way as a fighter or bomber invading our airspace. Unless there is reason to believe that the latter is defecting, I'd be perfectly okay if the decision was to shoot him down. The former should be handled with a bit more diplomatic tact.
First of all, this is coming from someone who considers Fox News more credible than much of anything that Obama's teleprompter prompts him to say.
Let's not get carried away, though. A stopped clock is right twice a day, remember?
If you disagree with someone 100% of the time, sooner or later you'll be correct. That doesn't mean you're overall credible.
I'm reasonably certain that the possibility of airspace was a convenient excuse for the real reason: it is damn easy to get into the US from Canada and Mexico.
To push it to a point, would you expect a nation's response to a foreign fighter/bomber to be different to the response to a civilian jet?
Apples and oranges.
Uh, is posting shortened links to Rapidshare a big thing on Twitter?
I don't use Twitter, so maybe I have been living under a rock...
Yes, I know that when you link to something from Twitter, you use a URL shortener. But I truly don't understand what Rapidshare files being deleted has to do with Twitter. Unless a bunch of Twitter posts linked to Rapidshare files, using URL shorteners. Which would be pretty silly, since there are much better ways to link to Rapidshare than to use Twitter.
Everyone on Slashdot is a "content creator" in that we make submissions and write comments that draw readers to the site, and we do it for free. And Slashdot makes money off us. And by posting here, you seem to be okay with that.
Perhaps someone should have told these people that...
"No shipping browser currently supports this"...
Unclickable?
Triple-click, right click, F... opens the link in a new tab (and respects the no referrer). Does this not work on IE or something?
It would have been nice if the summary had described the "adjustment" that Rapidshare is being required to make:
The copyright organisation had asked the court to order Rapidshare to scan files during the upload process, but the court took another approach, ruling that Rapidshare must actively monitor incoming links from external sites to the files it hosts and take down any illegal files thus identified.
I.e., if a warez site links to a Rapidshare file, then Rapidshare will deactivate the file.
Amusingly enough, Rapidshare already did this, which is why warez sites typically don't allow posting clickable links. Non-clickable link = you have to copy and paste = no HTTP referer = Rapidshare is none the wiser.
Well, you got 2000 and ME backward: Windows 2000 was released 7 months before Windows ME. And they're not really even the same OS; Windows 2000 was based on NT architecture and was a business-edition OS; Windows ME was based on the 9x architecture (and is the last OS to have been; Microsoft abandoned it and built XP on the NT core after the massive screwup that was Windows ME).
But if you're going on Microsoft's numbering scheme, you had versions 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 3.1, 3.11 (Windows for Workgroups), and 3.12 (which was basically the version of 3.11 that had international support baked in).
The Windows NT family was started at NT 3.1, and ran parallel to the 9x versions in a business-oriented edition (rather than a consumer-oriented edition).
Windows 95 was version 4.0 (the corresponding version of NT was just called NT 4.0), Windows 98 was version 4.1, and Windows ME was version 4.9.
Microsoft built Windows 2000, which was version 5.0, on the NT core (but it was a business-oriented edition of Windows); as I said, they then trashed the 9x architecture, and the first consumer-oriented version of Windows to be built on the NT core, Windows XP, is actually version 5.1.
So, it really depends on what you want to call a version.
You are no longer allowed to use sentences. You will be allowed to use sentences again once you've learned the difference between a complete sentence and a fragment.
If you're going to be a Grammar Nazi, at least do it well.
According to this article, in early 2011 AT&T had roughly 96 million customers. They can pay back a paltry $50 million dollar fine by increasing their customers monthly fee by 50 cents for one month.
That probably wouldn't even pay for the DDoS of the support it would cause when a few million customers noticed the 50 cent increase and all tried to call AT&T at once.
Never mind, looks like I was the one who's wrong. In my defense, if they meant "all single accounts at the same bank", they should have said "all single accounts at the same bank". This one is clearer:
http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/dis/
All deposits that an accountholder has in the same ownership category at the same bank are added together and insured up to the standard insurance amount.
You're wrong. FDIC insurance is per person, not per account.
https://www.fdic.gov/edie/fdic_info.html#11a
All single accounts established by, or for the benefit of, the same person are added together. The total is insured up to a maximum of $250,000, including principal and interest.
Spreading your assets will help you out if a bank fails. If you have less than $250k in each bank, your account with the bank that failed will be insured by the FDIC. Spreading your assets will not help you out if all of the banks fail. You will be insured for up to $250k, unless you diversify the types of accounts. This can help you, because (for example) if you have $250k in a single-owner account, you can put another $250k into a Roth and both accounts will be covered. Similarly, if you are married then your joint account with your spouse would be covered up to $250k per co-owner, i.e. $500k in total:
You may qualify for more than $250,000 in coverage at one insured bank or savings association if you own deposit accounts in different ownership categories. The most common account ownership categories for individual and family deposits are single accounts, joint accounts, revocable trust accounts, and certain retirement accounts.
IIRC, GP's claim comes from the fact that Stardock had to crack one of the Windows XP .dll files in order to get it to recognize third-party theme packs.
Windows XP only allowed installation and use of themes that were produced and digitally signed by Microsoft. If you replaced the .dll with the cracked version that didn't check the digital signature of themes, XP would recognize and install unsigned themes produced by Stardock or anyone else.
It would scale a hell of a lot better if it were taller than 22 entries tall, and/or if it were resizable.
Right-click the Start menu.
Properties
Customize
"Start menu size: Number of recent programs to display"
Make the number larger. The more recent programs are displayed, the taller the start menu is. The taller the Start Menu is, the more entries the All Programs section will display. You're welcome.
Multiplication and division are actually pretty accurate - it's addition and subtraction that you really have to watch out for.
I'll nip this in the bud and post something similar here to what I posted in the thread which drooling-dog referred to.
"Rate" is ambiguous. You can have a fixed rate of acceleration, which means linear growth; you can also have a fixed interest rate, which means exponential growth. Neither is really any more correct than the other, and the meaning of the phrase "constant rate" is very hard to interpret without any context to indicate what is meant by it.
I think your main problem is that you said "constant rate". Rate is kind of ambiguous. To you, that meant increasing by a constant ratio, i.e. A(x+n)/A(x) = A(y+n)/A(y), i.e. exponential growth. To a few other people, it obviously meant increasing by a constant amount, i.e. A(x+n)-A(x) = A(y+n)-A(y), i.e. linear growth (as revealed by AC's introducing the derivative and thinking that proved his point).
And really, if someone said something was "accelerating at a constant rate", I'd typically assume they meant linear acceleration, not exponential; I wouldn't say that your use of the word "rate" is necessarily any more or less correct than that. There would be less confusion if you'd say "factor" or "percent", rather than "rate".
"[Exponentially] just means that something is increasing (or decreasing) by a constant factor (percentage) per unit time."
If you really want to get the point across, you can illustrate with an example: E.g. this will grow by 10% from this year to next, and will grow by another 10% next year to the one after, and 10% the year following, and so on: a constant growth rate of 10%. By the time you drop the word "rate" into the statement, it's already quite clear that you're talking about a product, not a sum. You also won't have to refer to formulae like a*e^(x*t). And heck... why not at least make it friendly and use the compound interest formula that they might recall seeing, A = P*(1+r/n)^(n*t)?
Anyway, yes, you're absolutely correct: it's completely nonsensical to use the word "exponentially" to describe growth of something from time A to time B. That sort of growth is a simple factor to the trivial power of 1. "Exponential" is only useful when it describes the shape of the curve between A and B, or the shape of the projected curve beyond B - neither of which is the case here. It would have been more appropriate to say that data processing power would be increased by "an order of magnitude" - i.e. by a simple factor. Amusingly enough, it's always assumed either the "order of magnitude" is 10, or the "order of magnitude" is significant in magnitude - neither of which is really implied by its actual mathematical meaning.
In the 1970s I won a programming contest for the shortest program to calculate the highest power of two that divides into a given number (e.g, given 12 the answer is 4 as 4 divides into 12 but 8 does not). My solution took 4 bytes and was the only one that did not have a loop in it. The person judging them told me that he originally threw it in the bin as it obviously couldn't work without a loop. Later he got curious and tried it out and found it always worked. He said that he could not believe that he could not understand how a 4 byte program worked. It was in IBM 360 assembler and consisted of LCR y,x then NR y,x.
Nope. That would just equal zero. Try:
LNR y,x
NR y,x