which one do you mean, is it often used with mods or without? The one company where I saw it in use, there was an awful lot of in house development and a lot of complaints.
The funny thing is other people have told me the same contradictory stories about SAP, so I half suspect the in-house developments.
would have the title "hazardous carpet can self-ignite from static discharge." Static discharges easily leave tiny burn marks. But these shouldn't spread. That a guy causes particularly heavy static discharges is cute, but if you don't compare it to what happens commonly, the article stinks. And this article stinks more than a heavily statically charged man letting one fly.
"Static electricity is a similar mechanism to lightning, where you have clouds rubbing together and then a spark generated by very dry air above them" . It's supposed to be from "a senior lecturer in electrical engineering at Sydney University".
I'm trying to understand it in such a way that it makes sense. I thought charge separation was caused by vertical currents separating ice crystals from water droplets in clouds.
maybe they're just good carriers, and they meanwhile reproduced to make more carriers. Try not to get infected while wading through a white sea of mice that carry the plague.
you give a nice example of the duality. If you see government as a service industry(the liberal point of view) then centralizing databases is handy. Stretch it a bit and most people wouldn't even have to care about privacy.
But from a conservative angle the government becomes a possible tool for control. Conservatism both entails the intent to control as the resistance to it.
This could become one of the interesting applications of digital rights management. The ability to control access to information, and to change this at any moment.
I hardly know anything about Wolfram, but I stand by my remark about applying caution, which is saying a lot less than you make of it. I don't recall saying he's really onto something big.
Anyway, since then I checked wikipedia on the guy. Freeman Dyson had a nice quote. Always liked Dyson.
a lot of people confuse hubris and confidence. Boasting about real achievements is often not tolerated. I don't see good reasons for that. Stretch this a bit by allowing different judgements of how "real" the achievement is, I still see no good reasons.
You're jumping between the observation of egos that are out of proportion with the person behind them, and the pragmatics of taking in account silly sensibilities of the audience.
a really smart hand would figure out that when it hands you a finger, you'll end up grabbing the whole arm . Therefore, when you ask it to give you a hand, it gives you the finger.
I don't see any claims in the article that they discovered a new general phenomenon. They didn't even claim to discover a new specific case. The article is about the mechanisms involved in this specific case.
Sure, maybe it's news to ScuttleMonkey. Your examples are still welcome tho.
First rule of news forums: pick on any attribute of an article to declare the article old news. Well, maybe not first rule. Second? Hm, 5th? Whatever.
Quote: Asked about the Kryptonian symbols, he'd say only, "I'm Superman." But today he wasn't saving the world, just trying to protect it as part of an Army task force buying equipment for troops in Iraq.
Hm, why is it that the Washington Post can keep a straight face without anyone raising an eyebrow, and when i do it, I'm sarcastic.
Anyway, given the situation I should try to rationalize it. Another word for 'world' is 'terra'. 'Terrorists' is derived from that, and means those who attack the world. Or is it 'those who fight for a territorium' , the jusy is still out on that.
because the attacks are coming from China and because we have a complete lack of imagination, it must be the Chinese Government spying on the US!
I'll try to shake it up, for what it's worth...
- The attacks come from China because their networks are the most vulnerable. - The Chinese government would do something about it if the complainers were prepared to put their money where their mouth is - People from the chinese government are involved because they like to make a bit of money on the side. - The Chinese government thinks the bad networks are infiltrated by western hackers trying to access western targets. - The Chinese government thinks that as long as they don't suffer much, the networks are not a priority. - The Chinese government thinks if the western governments aren't acting against their hackers, why should the Chinese government - The Chinese government may need a very good reason to act against these networks because many people are making money from it. And they don't have that reason yet. - The Chinese government thinks the many bad networks provide good cover for an occasional hacking attempt that they might consider. - The Chinese government supports strongly the bad networks because it is an interesting way to make money. - the Chinese government would like to intercept and suppress the bad networks but they want to use their own hardware and software, and it's not good enough yet. - the American government prefers the weak chinese networks, because it gives them the possibility and the cover to operate inside China. - the Chinese government is trying hard to suppress the networks, and haven't succeeded yet. - The American government works to strengthen the bad networks
A collegue at work told me he used a trick once that he picked up from the movie "the big blue". He thought he had dropped his keys at a place in the water about 10 feet deep.
He just kept standing there for 20 minutes till he got a quick glimpse of the keys, through the top of a wave. In one short dive he got his keys back.
Actually just a tiny bit of the keys was sticking out of the sand but the view was quite detailed.
As long as you don't look too closely you can make yourself believe the program runs fairly well. But once you beef up the testing and monitoring, suddenly you find the place is full of problems and you wonder how it ever could fly.
Things were pretty bad before the Challenger. Then they improved drastically. After Columbia they improved drastically again. Right now nobody feels safe with this machine anymore. With reason, but I think it's very much safer than it used to be.
Slashdot Mirror
The funny thing is other people have told me the same contradictory stories about SAP, so I half suspect the in-house developments.
No contradictions about the cost tho.
They failed. Hopefully next time they'll think about
adding a rechargeable battery to the design so the thing doesn't only work in bright sunlight.
would have the title "hazardous carpet can self-ignite from static discharge." Static discharges easily leave tiny burn marks. But these shouldn't spread. That a guy causes particularly heavy static discharges is cute, but if you don't compare it to what happens commonly, the article stinks. And this article stinks more than a heavily statically charged man letting one fly.
anyone read the line at the bottom?
"Static electricity is a similar mechanism to lightning, where you have clouds rubbing together and then a spark generated by very dry air above them" .
It's supposed to be from "a senior lecturer in electrical engineering at Sydney University".
I'm trying to understand it in such a way that it makes sense.
I thought charge separation was caused by vertical currents separating ice crystals from water droplets in clouds.
Who can deny that this also sounds like a firecracker.
the point where you have to admit you have a problem lies beyond the point of no return. Either way, no worries.
the joint venture product called the Halliburger.
maybe they're just good carriers, and they meanwhile reproduced to make more carriers. Try not to get infected while wading through a white sea of mice that carry the plague.
Ok, so I might be exaggerating a tiny bit.
you were dutch.
you give a nice example of the duality. If you see government as a service industry(the liberal point of view) then centralizing databases is handy. Stretch it a bit and most people wouldn't even have to care about privacy.
But from a conservative angle the government becomes a possible tool for control. Conservatism both entails the intent to control as the resistance to it.
This could become one of the interesting applications of digital rights management. The ability to control access to information, and to change this at any moment.
which had 30m span. About.
The comparison with a spitfire is as dumb as it gets. Why not an F-15 while they're at it?
One comparison that looks just acceptable would be with a glider. With a small helper engine to get it off the ground.
I hardly know anything about Wolfram, but I stand by my remark about applying caution, which is saying a lot less than you make of it. I don't recall saying he's really onto something big.
Anyway, since then I checked wikipedia on the guy. Freeman Dyson had a nice quote. Always liked Dyson.
a lot of people confuse hubris and confidence. Boasting about real achievements is often not tolerated. I don't see good reasons for that. Stretch this a bit by allowing different judgements of how "real" the achievement is, I still see no good reasons.
You're jumping between the observation of egos that are out of proportion with the person behind them, and the pragmatics of taking in account silly sensibilities of the audience.
I suppose Wolfram has two problems here?
a really smart hand would figure out that when it hands you a finger, you'll end up grabbing the whole arm . Therefore, when you ask it to give you a hand, it gives you the finger.
hm, I feel a theme building here...
I don't see any claims in the article that they discovered a new general phenomenon.
They didn't even claim to discover a new specific case.
The article is about the mechanisms involved in this specific case.
Sure, maybe it's news to ScuttleMonkey.
Your examples are still welcome tho.
First rule of news forums: pick on any attribute of an article to declare the article old news.
Well, maybe not first rule. Second? Hm, 5th? Whatever.
though pissing contests could yield some intelligent and informative articles about applied hydrodynamics and it's time someone really got on it.
Quote: Asked about the Kryptonian symbols, he'd say only, "I'm Superman." But today he wasn't saving the world, just trying to protect it as part of an Army task force buying equipment for troops in Iraq.
Hm, why is it that the Washington Post can keep a straight face without anyone raising an eyebrow, and when i do it, I'm sarcastic.
Anyway, given the situation I should try to rationalize it. Another word for 'world' is 'terra'. 'Terrorists' is derived from that, and means those who attack the world. Or is it 'those who fight for a territorium' , the jusy is still out on that.
because the attacks are coming from China and because we have a complete lack of imagination, it must be the Chinese Government spying on the US!
I'll try to shake it up, for what it's worth...
- The attacks come from China because their networks are the most vulnerable.
- The Chinese government would do something about it if the complainers were prepared to put their money where their mouth is
- People from the chinese government are involved because they like to make a bit of money on the side.
- The Chinese government thinks the bad networks are infiltrated by western hackers trying to access western targets.
- The Chinese government thinks that as long as they don't suffer much, the networks are not a priority.
- The Chinese government thinks if the western governments aren't acting against their hackers, why should the Chinese government
- The Chinese government may need a very good reason to act against these networks because many people are making money from it. And they don't have that reason yet.
- The Chinese government thinks the many bad networks provide good cover for an occasional hacking attempt that they might consider.
- The Chinese government supports strongly the bad networks because it is an interesting way to make money.
- the Chinese government would like to intercept and suppress the bad networks but they want to use their own hardware and software, and it's not good enough yet.
- the American government prefers the weak chinese networks, because it gives them the possibility and the cover to operate inside China.
- the Chinese government is trying hard to suppress the networks, and haven't succeeded yet.
- The American government works to strengthen the bad networks
next try, sometime.
Actually I read that the CIA used the Xerox trick in more places, and that it was their most successful spying technique ever.
A collegue at work told me he used a trick once that he picked up from the movie "the big blue". He thought he had dropped his keys at a place in the water about 10 feet deep.
He just kept standing there for 20 minutes till he got a quick glimpse of the keys, through the top of a wave. In one short dive he got his keys back.
Actually just a tiny bit of the keys was sticking out of the sand but the view was quite detailed.
but better link straight to the argument:
The case against glass being liquid at room temperature.
You're right, I can't pull that joke on a forum with over 100 nationalities. If at all.
As long as you don't look too closely you can make yourself believe the program runs fairly well. But once you beef up the testing and monitoring, suddenly you find the place is full of problems and you wonder how it ever could fly.
Things were pretty bad before the Challenger. Then they improved drastically. After Columbia they improved drastically again. Right now nobody feels safe with this machine anymore. With reason, but I think it's very much safer than it used to be.
An assumption means, I think, that she's not certain and is just winging it.