- How fast can they turn off and back on? By timing it right you could bypass a parry but turning it off...
This technique has apparently appeared in one of the novels, although I forget which one. I seem to recall mention of a style of fighting with two lightsabers where one is used defensively, and the other is kept switched off until it is in position to deliver a fatal blow.
Additionally, the lightsaber is exceptional for stabbing and slashing whereas real life swords tend to have to pick one or the other as a compromise.
I'm not sure where this theory comes from, but swords I've handled seem like they would work fine for both, and it seems they were commonplace in history, e.g.:
The German long sword typically measured from 48" to 52" in length. Although the grip was long enough to allow two-handed use, the German long sword was light enough to wield one-handed when fighting on horseback. When fighting on foot against an unarmored opponent, the weapon was used with both hands to cut and thrust
Here is a clear example of a weapon that is designed for both purposes, and which was apparently highly influential on other sword designs that followed it.
Sounds to me like it's indicating the author of a written work or the discoverer of something.
Strange. The word "their" is a possessive pronoun. Which should clearly suggest possession, and I don't know how posession is possible without property.
You can't compare the popularity of NIN or Reznor with the Beatles or McCartney. They're on different scales.
Also, McCartney was recording for an independent label (Apple Records) at the height of his career. That makes a big difference. He also owned the copyright to some of the most popular songs in the world, which he sold for a substantial sum. There aren't many songs that a collector would pay to own the copyright to. It's not a great business proposition.
Well that explains a lot. And here I was thinking that all modern compilers were designed correctly with a front-end and back-end. So much for academics.
Actually, the post you're replying to is total bollocks. GCC has had a clear divide between front and back end (not to mention a source-language independent middle layer for performing optimizations) since I first looked at it in about 1996. Each layer is hideously complex, but they are all there.
You're being obtuse. The problem with syntactic whitespace is that it can introduce errors that you can't find without doing a hexdump of the source code, which is about the stupidest thing ever.
Not if you tell the language what size tabs you're using, it can't. Or just stick to the standard of 8 spaces. Or use an editor which has whitespace normalization, or whitespace character display. Sure, it's a problem if you're trying to use the tools wrong. But if you stop trying to fight it and go with the flow you'll be fine.
Actually, those aren't the real problems with Python. They're not the ones that keep it from, say, replacing Perl.
* Multicore support is a nonissue. CPython is too slow to need it.
Agreed, but CPython isn't the only implementation that has problems with multicore support. The psyco JIT compiler also has a global lock, and is fast enough for many compute intensive applications. But still doesn't benefit from multicores. The issue is that dictionaries and lists are expected to have atomic operations, which is rather slow in most cases without the global lock. This needs changing at a language definition level, perhaps by introducing a way to declare that this isn't necessary.
CO2 levels are not linked to climate change in the geological record. One would think they would be if CO2 is a significant factor.
I'd like to know where you're getting this information. My search for papers on this subject shows a strong correlation (see, especially, the graphs on p4 of the full text pdf).
Im sure voltaire or whomever said it didnt intend it to mean that ideas, philosophies or thoughts that seek the abolishment of reason, freedom, democracy should be covered by it.
The quote in question is from a biographer of Voltaire, as a summary of Voltaire's attitude. As many of Voltaire's debating opponents did seek such goals, I would find it surprising that such a summary could be made of his attitude if he hadn't believed that free speech was that important. He lived in a different world to us, where all of these things had to be fought for. And only by sticking absolutely to those principles could he hope to show what they could achieve. Yes, I'm sure he would have defended the free speech of opponents of democracy. And of free speech.
Intelligent design is basically a slightly-disguised version of a belief set that used to be called "old-Earth creationism". The only thing that's changed is that they've filed off the serial numbers, so it could be any god that oversaw the creation rather than specifically being God.
The way they handled this (with banning the rational guys) is going to mean they can't have both.
The problem was actually the so-called "rational response" response to the DMCA request: they posted an apparently libellous video in which they accused a named individual of criminal actions while making it clear that this was largely on the basis of supposition about what had happened: they didn't know who had made the requests, they were just guessing.
YouTube did the right thing in this case, and the summary of this article is very misleading.
It doesn't look like it. In fact, as far as I can tell, these guys responded to the DMCA notice by posting a video of one of them calling a prosecuting attorney and making accusations of criminal actions on behalf of an individual, clearly with no evidence beyond supposition to back up the information they were giving.
YouTube responded correctly to this: posting a libellous video without evidence to back it up *should* be a banning offence.
This is probably the only thing that you can do without hiring a lawyer.
OTOH, you may want to reconsider the whole not hiring a lawyer thing. As I understand it, copyright cases in the US are unusual in that the plaintiff in a successful case can usual expect to get his lawyer's fees paid by the defendant. This seems to me to be a pretty clear-cut case. And likely a class action too, depending on how many contributors there were to the wiki. You will quite possibly find a lawyer willing to take on your case for you on the basis that he'll get his fees back after he's won the case.
whether they can stop him presumably depends on the exact wording of their CC license
Why speculate about the possible wording? The relevant wording from the license described is:
You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation. The exchange of the Work for other copyrighted works by means of digital file-sharing or otherwise shall not be considered to be intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation, provided there is no payment of any monetary compensation in con-nection with the exchange of copyrighted works.
It seems to me that Wikia's use is almost certainly primarily intended for such a purpose.
Express Editions are crippled and I don't remember seeing them before 2005.
I don't think there are any truly important features missing from the express editions. They lack some of the features that make your life easier, but they're a better development environment than anything Sun provides for Java.
As to date of release, I'm not sure when free versions first became available. But free development tools for.NET (e.g. SharpDevelop) have been available since.NET 1.0 was in beta, and while they're perhaps not quite as good as a full version of Visual Studio, they are perfectly adequate for developing real software.
Pretty much all new memory technologies have been historically ridiculously overpriced for the first many months following their initial introduction.
Well, yes. But as the title of this article is "DDR3 Isn't Worth The Money - Yet", I don't see anyone disagreeing with this. The point is that it isn't worth it, for the vast majority of people, to buy this technology if they're upgrading their computers right now.
Let's send a machine back in time(running Linux on a PowerPC architecture so they don't get any bad ideas) to assassinate Bill's mother before he was born, thereby erasing his entire existence.
Alongside that, we give away free software to universities so that students use it. Then we charge hundreds of dollars for an individual to program the.NET framework. It's free to get the framework's runtime environment on your machine (like Java) but in order to develop anything useful for it, you have to pay us money (unlike Java).
Visual Studio Express editions, available for C++, C# and VB.NET, are free, and are perfectly adequate for writing.NET software (the C++ version lacks some essential features for writing Win32 software, however). WebMatrix (for ASP.NET development) is also free. Command line development tools are included in the framework runtime distribution, and are used by free third party IDEs (like SharpDevelop).
You don't have to pay microsoft a penny to develop on.NET.
Every time I see "the need isn't there" or "there's more than enough memory bandwidth" I check their figures, they're only measuring the CPU memory needs.
The reason they're only measuring the CPU memory needs is becase the CPU memory needs dwarf all others.
Max CPU memory access rate (Intel Core 2 @ 1333FSB) = 10.7 GB/s Max PCIe memory access rate (16 lanes @ 2500MH/z) = 4 GB/s
Total 14.7GB/s over 2 lanes of memory = 7.35GB/s ~= 1800MHz. So, if both your CPU and your I/O devices are running at 100% capacity on a current high end system, you might benefit from DDR3 memory (2GB for £406 from my usual supplier). If, however, you can put up with not using 100% of your CPU capacity when you need to use your I/O capacity (I think most people can, you know) you can get 10.7GB/s with DDR2/667, (2GB for £56 from my usual supplier).
I don't see why the faster memory is worth paying enough extra that I could buy an entire extra computer instead, when I will only use it in the rare case I'm maxing out both I/O bandwidth and CPU bandwidth.
Slashdot Mirror
some possibilities:
- How fast can they turn off and back on? By timing it right you could bypass a parry but turning it off...
This technique has apparently appeared in one of the novels, although I forget which one. I seem to recall mention of a style of fighting with two lightsabers where one is used defensively, and the other is kept switched off until it is in position to deliver a fatal blow.
I'm not sure where this theory comes from, but swords I've handled seem like they would work fine for both, and it seems they were commonplace in history, e.g.:
(source)
Here is a clear example of a weapon that is designed for both purposes, and which was apparently highly influential on other sword designs that followed it.
Sounds to me like it's indicating the author of a written work or the discoverer of something.
Strange. The word "their" is a possessive pronoun. Which should clearly suggest possession, and I don't know how posession is possible without property.
the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; (emphasis mine, obviously)
Sounds to me like it's suggesting the writings and discoveries belong to their writers/discovers. Sure sounds like property to me.
Paul McCartney is worth $1.5 billion.
You can't compare the popularity of NIN or Reznor with the Beatles or McCartney. They're on different scales.
Also, McCartney was recording for an independent label (Apple Records) at the height of his career. That makes a big difference. He also owned the copyright to some of the most popular songs in the world, which he sold for a substantial sum. There aren't many songs that a collector would pay to own the copyright to. It's not a great business proposition.
Well that explains a lot. And here I was thinking that all modern compilers were designed correctly with a front-end and back-end. So much for academics.
Actually, the post you're replying to is total bollocks. GCC has had a clear divide between front and back end (not to mention a source-language independent middle layer for performing optimizations) since I first looked at it in about 1996. Each layer is hideously complex, but they are all there.
Python = Python + 1 just doesn't have right ring to it, does it?
You're being obtuse. The problem with syntactic whitespace is that it can introduce errors that you can't find without doing a hexdump of the source code, which is about the stupidest thing ever.
Not if you tell the language what size tabs you're using, it can't. Or just stick to the standard of 8 spaces. Or use an editor which has whitespace normalization, or whitespace character display. Sure, it's a problem if you're trying to use the tools wrong. But if you stop trying to fight it and go with the flow you'll be fine.
must we give modpoints to idiots?
It's kind of hard to avoid when the earlier moderators were idiots.
Actually, those aren't the real problems with Python. They're not the ones that keep it from, say, replacing Perl.
* Multicore support is a nonissue. CPython is too slow to need it.
Agreed, but CPython isn't the only implementation that has problems with multicore support. The psyco JIT compiler also has a global lock, and is fast enough for many compute intensive applications. But still doesn't benefit from multicores. The issue is that dictionaries and lists are expected to have atomic operations, which is rather slow in most cases without the global lock. This needs changing at a language definition level, perhaps by introducing a way to declare that this isn't necessary.
CO2 levels are not linked to climate change in the geological record. One would think they would be if CO2 is a significant factor.
I'd like to know where you're getting this information. My search for papers on this subject shows a strong correlation (see, especially, the graphs on p4 of the full text pdf).
The article stating that he is in jail for tax evasion is a blatant red herring. It has no bearing on the group's DMCA claims whatsoever.
Actually it does. The DMCA claims were aimed at silencing criticism of him that stemmed from his imprisonment.
Im sure voltaire or whomever said it didnt intend it to mean that ideas, philosophies or thoughts that seek the abolishment of reason, freedom, democracy should be covered by it.
The quote in question is from a biographer of Voltaire, as a summary of Voltaire's attitude. As many of Voltaire's debating opponents did seek such goals, I would find it surprising that such a summary could be made of his attitude if he hadn't believed that free speech was that important. He lived in a different world to us, where all of these things had to be fought for. And only by sticking absolutely to those principles could he hope to show what they could achieve. Yes, I'm sure he would have defended the free speech of opponents of democracy. And of free speech.
The alleged infringement is of video tapes of his trial for tax evasion.
Intelligent design is basically a slightly-disguised version of a belief set that used to be called "old-Earth creationism". The only thing that's changed is that they've filed off the serial numbers, so it could be any god that oversaw the creation rather than specifically being God.
The way they handled this (with banning the rational guys) is going to mean they can't have both.
The problem was actually the so-called "rational response" response to the DMCA request: they posted an apparently libellous video in which they accused a named individual of criminal actions while making it clear that this was largely on the basis of supposition about what had happened: they didn't know who had made the requests, they were just guessing.
YouTube did the right thing in this case, and the summary of this article is very misleading.
It doesn't look like it. In fact, as far as I can tell, these guys responded to the DMCA notice by posting a video of one of them calling a prosecuting attorney and making accusations of criminal actions on behalf of an individual, clearly with no evidence beyond supposition to back up the information they were giving.
YouTube responded correctly to this: posting a libellous video without evidence to back it up *should* be a banning offence.
This is probably the only thing that you can do without hiring a lawyer.
OTOH, you may want to reconsider the whole not hiring a lawyer thing. As I understand it, copyright cases in the US are unusual in that the plaintiff in a successful case can usual expect to get his lawyer's fees paid by the defendant. This seems to me to be a pretty clear-cut case. And likely a class action too, depending on how many contributors there were to the wiki. You will quite possibly find a lawyer willing to take on your case for you on the basis that he'll get his fees back after he's won the case.
Why speculate about the possible wording? The relevant wording from the license described is:
It seems to me that Wikia's use is almost certainly primarily intended for such a purpose.
Express Editions are crippled and I don't remember seeing them before 2005.
.NET (e.g. SharpDevelop) have been available since .NET 1.0 was in beta, and while they're perhaps not quite as good as a full version of Visual Studio, they are perfectly adequate for developing real software.
I don't think there are any truly important features missing from the express editions. They lack some of the features that make your life easier, but they're a better development environment than anything Sun provides for Java.
As to date of release, I'm not sure when free versions first became available. But free development tools for
Pretty much all new memory technologies have been historically ridiculously overpriced for the first many months following their initial introduction.
Well, yes. But as the title of this article is "DDR3 Isn't Worth The Money - Yet", I don't see anyone disagreeing with this. The point is that it isn't worth it, for the vast majority of people, to buy this technology if they're upgrading their computers right now.
Let's send a machine back in time(running Linux on a PowerPC architecture so they don't get any bad ideas)
to assassinate Bill's mother before he was born, thereby erasing his entire existence.
That machine should clearly be running on a 6502-based architecture.
Alongside that, we give away free software to universities so that students use it. Then we charge hundreds of dollars for an individual to program the .NET framework. It's free to get the framework's runtime environment on your machine (like Java) but in order to develop anything useful for it, you have to pay us money (unlike Java).
.NET software (the C++ version lacks some essential features for writing Win32 software, however). WebMatrix (for ASP.NET development) is also free. Command line development tools are included in the framework runtime distribution, and are used by free third party IDEs (like SharpDevelop).
.NET.
Visual Studio Express editions, available for C++, C# and VB.NET, are free, and are perfectly adequate for writing
You don't have to pay microsoft a penny to develop on
Every time I see "the need isn't there" or "there's more than enough memory bandwidth" I check their figures, they're only measuring the CPU memory needs.
The reason they're only measuring the CPU memory needs is becase the CPU memory needs dwarf all others.
Max CPU memory access rate (Intel Core 2 @ 1333FSB) = 10.7 GB/s
Max PCIe memory access rate (16 lanes @ 2500MH/z) = 4 GB/s
Total 14.7GB/s over 2 lanes of memory = 7.35GB/s ~= 1800MHz. So, if both your CPU and your I/O devices are running at 100% capacity on a current high end system, you might benefit from DDR3 memory (2GB for £406 from my usual supplier). If, however, you can put up with not using 100% of your CPU capacity when you need to use your I/O capacity (I think most people can, you know) you can get 10.7GB/s with DDR2/667, (2GB for £56 from my usual supplier).
I don't see why the faster memory is worth paying enough extra that I could buy an entire extra computer instead, when I will only use it in the rare case I'm maxing out both I/O bandwidth and CPU bandwidth.
You can't even buy a launch for $30 million, never mind develop and manufacture a lander.
I beg to differ. You can buy a human-safe launch, stay on the ISS, and return to Earth for $30m. You can get a lift to LEO with an LM-2C for $20m.