I've found a problem with Safari's use of the symbol font under MacRoman encoding. It's a bit too much to explain here, but I've put up a page about the problem
here
I enjoyed several bits, but some of his main points seemed to be obscured by too much "eloquence":
So when you write a program you are using lots of ideas, some of which might patented, but they are working together in ways that might be patented, so where there could be thousands of ideas that might conflict with existing patents.
This is why patents obstruct development of products.
I suppose the problem could have been in the transcription.
I'm with tomblackwell. This is more fundamental than a transparent spelling or grammar hiccup. Because the original author used a phrase with a very particular meaning without, it seems, knowing what it means, his comment is just confusing: whatever he intended to say (the "underlying meaning") is lost. Think of it this way: do I assume that he uses the phrase to mean what it actually means, and try to figure out what he could possibly be thinking? Or do I try to guess just in what way he is confused as to the meaning of the phrase, and work out his intention that way? There's not much chance in getting your "underlying meaning" across, you see, if you make up your own definitions for words and idioms.
The article doesn't make itself very clear, but it doesn't say that the neutrons collide with each other head-on.
It seems pretty clear to me that that was the author's intent, so I agree with the poster who lamented the journalist's paucity of background knowledge. But I had a different problem with the article (which read as if it were written for children, like everything generated by ABC, but that's ok): since I work on Inertially Confined (laser) Fusion, and liquid metal walls for ICF chambers have been pretty much assumed for years, I was a little confused by the article until it dawned on me that (1) it's only about magnetically confined fusion (2) the author and his editors are unaware that there are several schemes for fusion energy being funded on a large scale by the US, so (3) for this (yes, alas, scientifically illiterate) author, "fusion" means "magnetically confined fusion". In summary, the article was useless, muddled, and confusing, and the author is not qualified.
can be found in one of the researchers' papers, where it can be seen that the poster, editor, and many of the commentators here make incorrect assumptions. The user of the system must simply recognize which subset of images from a presented set belong to a previously chosen portfolio. The number of images in the portfolio is larger than the number of portfolio images in the presented set; this makes shoulder surfing ineffective unless it is done repeatedly. Also, identification of the portfolio images can be done by pressing keys, and can be hidden just as are conventional passwords. Each image is equivalent to an eight-byte number, but from this large set they have hand-selected 10,000 images for the current implementation, still leading to a very large number of possible passwords.
The weakest part of the system is what I would have thought was the obvious one: quoting from the paper,
In general, a weakness of this system is that the server needs to store the
seeds of the portfolio images of each user in cleartext. Tricks similar to the
hashed passwords in the/etc/passwd file do not work in this case, because the
server needs to present the portfolio to the user, hidden within the decoy
images. For this reason, we assume the server to be secure and trusted
I smiled here because I went through this exact same thing after installing Yellow Dog on my Macintosh Powerbook. And trying to start up MacOnLinux just gave me useless error messages. So I reformatted the drive and installed MacOS X, and never looked back. If you want to use an open-source unix on your desktop and you can stomach the fact that the GUI part of it is proprietary (but can be programmed with Apple's free development tools), just buy a Mac and OS X - the interface and user experience are far better than the comparatively clumsy and archaic KDE, Gnome, and the like (and you can use open-source tools alongside your critical commercial tools, such as Photoshop). If I want to set up a server, I'll use one of the BSDs. Linux just has no use for me.
This keeps happening to me. I'm driving and a report on a new, horrible "computer virus" starts coming over the radio....or I see a scary article in the newspaper on how evil "hackers" can take over my computer just by sending me an email. Naturally, I am all ears (or eyes). Then, at the end of the piece, I am scratching my head. What was that about? Then it hits me - this is only about Windows machines, nothing to do with me. They didn't say so, because for these computer "journalists," "computer" means "computer running Windows." And further, although I know little about that particular operating system, I know that the so-called security hole just doesn't exist for users who have simply turned off the automatic execution of scripts, and who do not respond to invitations to run programs that they have not installed themselves by clicking "Sure!". I use Internet Explorer, at times, on my Macs, and I know there is a supposed similar "vulnerability," but I'm not worried, because I've set it, as well as any other browser I might use, to not post-process files. All of these hand-wringing articles give the impression that there is little the poor user can do, at least until some commercial virus protection software is updated. They never mention that he can either stop using Windows, or learn how to use it intelligently. My point? I thought the articles about computer-related subjects on Slashdot were supposed to be a bit more sophisticated than what you might find in a newspaper.
APL is the first (computer) language I learned. It is wonderfully expressive; think of it as perl specialized for n-dimensional numerical arrays, rather than for text manipulation. And it's even more unreadable! APL began as a notation for describing algorithms, and only later were actual interpreters written for it.
(Any journal with 'Letters' in the title typically is [sic] little or no peer review since the articles there are for fast-track publication -- this is typically where you'll see junk).
This is, of course, nonsense. The most prestigious journal for publication in physics is felt by many to be Physical Review Letters. In this, and other "Letters" journal, the rapid handling of submissions must be justified by the timeliness and importance of the work. As a frequent reviewer for PRL, I reject most submissions as either not important enough or too narrowly focused; many of these wind up getting published, in expanded form, in one of the non-"Letters" journals, which is where they should have been submitted in the first place, had the authors not gone fishing for the gold star of appearing in PRL. The standards of review are somewhat different from, and generally higher than those for, submissions to regular journals.
The responses of a talented writer make for a very entertaining interview, whether I agree with the man or not. I thought of one exception to his rule that
Throughout cartoon history, there aren't any--repeat, ANY--primary animal cartoon characters that are females
Namely, Betty Boop, who started out as a dog. But perhaps this example turns back in his favor, as she didn't stay canine for long.
The "inventors" have not bothered to learn much about coffee and how to make it. They propose to regulate the strength of the coffee by adjusting the amount of water passed through the grounds, but this method is guaranteed to produce an unpalatable drink. If, for some misguided reason, it is necessary to create weak coffee, one first makes normal coffee (espresso) and adds hot water. Exposing the grounds to water for too long extracts undesirable flavor components.
The ESPRESSO is the answer! poster had some good points, but he should
know that "bitterness" is one of the main flavor components of coffee and
is not considered undesirable, in the proper measure.
Let's not forget that magnetic fields are also what give kids who leave near power lines leukemia.
This is an attempt at some sort of irony, I hope. Even the studies that showed a weak correlation between childhood leukemia and proximity to power lines, upon further analysis, evaporated. There is no effect whatsoever, as simple physics would suggest.
Q. I am a hotel proprietor. I may be interested in installing Wave-Shield in each of the rooms in my hotel as I would like to get my guests to use the normal phone service we provide. How many Wave-Shields do I need to use per room?
A. One Wave-Shield per room is usually more than adequate. However, depending on the building work you may need two if there is an en-suite bathroom. We are supplying an increasing number of Wave-Shields to hotels all over the world because they are a clever way for the hotel to boost extra telephone usage revenue. Also, because our hotel orders are usually in bulk we can offer very good discounts.
I am in favor of blocking cellphones in theaters, but this use in hotels would be disgusting.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the rule in DC, too. You just have to sit tight and demand to be taken to your destination. There is a hefty fine to refusing to carry.
I've been enjoying plotting in Gnuplot with Python programs using gnuplot-py. I have some resources about Gnuplot on OSX here.
Stenogra[p]hy works too.
It's especially effective when your secretary has really bad handwriting.
I'm hardly an expert on the subject
You don't say.
I've found a problem with Safari's use of the symbol font under MacRoman encoding. It's a bit too much to explain here, but I've put up a page about the problem here
I suppose the problem could have been in the transcription.
I'm with tomblackwell. This is more fundamental than a transparent spelling or grammar hiccup. Because the original author used a phrase with a very particular meaning without, it seems, knowing what it means, his comment is just confusing: whatever he intended to say (the "underlying meaning") is lost. Think of it this way: do I assume that he uses the phrase to mean what it actually means, and try to figure out what he could possibly be thinking? Or do I try to guess just in what way he is confused as to the meaning of the phrase, and work out his intention that way? There's not much chance in getting your "underlying meaning" across, you see, if you make up your own definitions for words and idioms.
You're kidding, right? Never heard of metaphysics? That said, I don't know what they're trying to say with the name.
can be found in one of the researchers' papers, where it can be seen that the poster, editor, and many of the commentators here make incorrect assumptions. The user of the system must simply recognize which subset of images from a presented set belong to a previously chosen portfolio. The number of images in the portfolio is larger than the number of portfolio images in the presented set; this makes shoulder surfing ineffective unless it is done repeatedly. Also, identification of the portfolio images can be done by pressing keys, and can be hidden just as are conventional passwords. Each image is equivalent to an eight-byte number, but from this large set they have hand-selected 10,000 images for the current implementation, still leading to a very large number of possible passwords.
The weakest part of the system is what I would have thought was the obvious one: quoting from the paper,
I smiled here because I went through this exact same thing after installing Yellow Dog on my Macintosh Powerbook. And trying to start up MacOnLinux just gave me useless error messages. So I reformatted the drive and installed MacOS X, and never looked back. If you want to use an open-source unix on your desktop and you can stomach the fact that the GUI part of it is proprietary (but can be programmed with Apple's free development tools), just buy a Mac and OS X - the interface and user experience are far better than the comparatively clumsy and archaic KDE, Gnome, and the like (and you can use open-source tools alongside your critical commercial tools, such as Photoshop). If I want to set up a server, I'll use one of the BSDs. Linux just has no use for me.
This keeps happening to me. I'm driving and a report on a new, horrible "computer virus" starts coming over the radio....or I see a scary article in the newspaper on how evil "hackers" can take over my computer just by sending me an email. Naturally, I am all ears (or eyes). Then, at the end of the piece, I am scratching my head. What was that about? Then it hits me - this is only about Windows machines, nothing to do with me. They didn't say so, because for these computer "journalists," "computer" means "computer running Windows." And further, although I know little about that particular operating system, I know that the so-called security hole just doesn't exist for users who have simply turned off the automatic execution of scripts, and who do not respond to invitations to run programs that they have not installed themselves by clicking "Sure!". I use Internet Explorer, at times, on my Macs, and I know there is a supposed similar "vulnerability," but I'm not worried, because I've set it, as well as any other browser I might use, to not post-process files. All of these hand-wringing articles give the impression that there is little the poor user can do, at least until some commercial virus protection software is updated. They never mention that he can either stop using Windows, or learn how to use it intelligently. My point? I thought the articles about computer-related subjects on Slashdot were supposed to be a bit more sophisticated than what you might find in a newspaper.
APL is the first (computer) language I learned. It is wonderfully expressive; think of it as perl specialized for n-dimensional numerical arrays, rather than for text manipulation. And it's even more unreadable! APL began as a notation for describing algorithms, and only later were actual interpreters written for it.
This is, of course, nonsense. The most prestigious journal for publication in physics is felt by many to be Physical Review Letters. In this, and other "Letters" journal, the rapid handling of submissions must be justified by the timeliness and importance of the work. As a frequent reviewer for PRL, I reject most submissions as either not important enough or too narrowly focused; many of these wind up getting published, in expanded form, in one of the non-"Letters" journals, which is where they should have been submitted in the first place, had the authors not gone fishing for the gold star of appearing in PRL. The standards of review are somewhat different from, and generally higher than those for, submissions to regular journals.
The "inventors" have not bothered to learn much about coffee and how to make it. They propose to regulate the strength of the coffee by adjusting the amount of water passed through the grounds, but this method is guaranteed to produce an unpalatable drink. If, for some misguided reason, it is necessary to create weak coffee, one first makes normal coffee (espresso) and adds hot water. Exposing the grounds to water for too long extracts undesirable flavor components.
The ESPRESSO is the answer! poster had some good points, but he should know that "bitterness" is one of the main flavor components of coffee and is not considered undesirable, in the proper measure.
Let's not forget that magnetic fields are also what give kids who leave near power lines leukemia.
This is an attempt at some sort of irony, I hope. Even the studies that showed a weak correlation between childhood leukemia and proximity to power lines, upon further analysis, evaporated. There is no effect whatsoever, as simple physics would suggest.
From the "FAQ" at the first website:
I am in favor of blocking cellphones in theaters, but this use in hotels would be disgusting.
and that's if you ignore Plato and Aristotle
As you probably should. But Archimedes was a great physicist, often considered the first.