Which is heavier? a pound of feathers, or a pound of lead?
. . .
The pound of feathers is heavier! Lead, being a metal, is measured in avurdupois weight; feathers, not being metal, is measured in imperial weight. Differences between an avurdupois pound and an imperial pound, mean that one pound of feathers is heavier!
I hope people using this collection will make sure they test it against a decent sample of non-spam as well. Otherwise I imagine there could be a pretty good chance of false positives, i.e. marking non-spam as spam.
If implemented properly, it shouldn't be necessary to go below your abstraction. The examples he gives, to me, seem to come down to one of three things:
- The software that implements this level of abstraction is broken. e.g. things going wrong with Visual Studio
- The software that implements the abstraction doesn't do it well. Ideally an optimising compiler should notice the 'grain of the wood' type problems and correct them to give the better performance. (Ditto for SQL and a=b, b=c)
- There is misunderstanding about what the abstraction promises. TCP doesn't promise consistent performance, and doesn't promise to work when the connections broken.
As long as you understand what it promises, and the system that enables it is well crafted, you shouldn't need to climb under the layer provided by your abstraction of choice.
Of course, it's not a perfect world, and sometimes people don't understand the systems they use, or the systems don't work properly. I don't think this means that we should have to understand lower levels, though it can be fun and possibly necessary. Instead, the pressure should be to understand what we're promised, and for the enabling systems to deliver on those promises, and be smart about it.
They billed it to his charge account beforehand. What was presented to Mrs. Buttle afterwards was the refund check, because Information Retrieval were supposed to be working on Tuttle, not Buttle.
I seem to recall a lecturer at my university talking about an idea like this, I think they were intending to use LCDs. Apparently they had to give it up, because somebody had the idea patented.
The first one may be clearer to you, but it doesn't mean a heck of a lot to your computer. Unless you do some fancy custom checks, your computer can't tell this from your shopping list. That's the point of XML, storing information in a way that your computer can easily understand what's going on. Chuck an tag at the top, and it can check against the schema to see that it actually makes sense. You can run it through an XSLT script, and get HTML, or the plain text form above, or maybe combine it with some other documents, and get a different type of XML document. All of this stuff would be a whole lot harder in plain text, because your computer wouldn't know what the document meant, let alone how to do anything interesting with it.
I heard that, with the right weather conditions, police transmissions from east coast Australia can make it all the way across the Tasman Sea, to west coast New Zealand, and get picked up by police radios (same frequency) here.
I only read the first of those Foundation prequels, and I disliked them as much as 'House Atreides'. Though at least they were consistent in House Atreides.
There were a couple of things that bugged me in the Foundation prequel. First was the wormholes. Yes they explained them in an epilogue, but I'd have preferred consistency with the Foundation universe rather than with real ideas in science. Second, they seemed to forget Seldon was a Twister.
You just have to look at the dot com boom (when it was happening) to see that, where people put their money can very often be dependent on perceptions rather than realities.
Regardless of whether the oil supply actually is under threat, people may be willing to pay more if they believe that it is.
I don't recall seeing any winged globe symbols when I was in Egypt. Of course I was nine at the time, and not looking for winged globes; however a winged globe is so different from most Egyptian hieroglyphs, that if it truly was common I think it would get a bit more attention from most sources.
I wasn't so much casting aspersion on the idea of an object with an extreme orbit like that, or that the Sumerians might have been that good at astronomy (I don't really know enough about astronomy or Sumeria to comment on that). However I'll believe it exists when somebody reputable and not from ancient Sumeria has reported seeing it.
What I was commenting on was the obviously baseless nonsense that appears on most of the sites mentioning it. Other dimensions, aliens, etc.
Here's a page from someone who has obviously done more homework than me. (or most of the Niburu sites) http://www.planet-x.150m.com/
Slashdot Mirror
Not that it's relevant, but...
Which is heavier? a pound of feathers, or a pound of lead?
.
.
.
The pound of feathers is heavier!
Lead, being a metal, is measured in avurdupois weight; feathers, not being metal, is measured in imperial weight. Differences between an avurdupois pound and an imperial pound, mean that one pound of feathers is heavier!
> Or that many of those settlers were not so much seeking new opportunities as fleeing the oppression of Europe?
Okay. What we need to do is find a group of people with the capability to go into space, and start oppressing them.
I hope people using this collection will make sure they test it against a decent sample of non-spam as well. Otherwise I imagine there could be a pretty good chance of false positives, i.e. marking non-spam as spam.
If implemented properly, it shouldn't be necessary to go below your abstraction.
The examples he gives, to me, seem to come down to one of three things:
- The software that implements this level of abstraction is broken. e.g. things going wrong with Visual Studio
- The software that implements the abstraction doesn't do it well. Ideally an optimising compiler should notice the 'grain of the wood' type problems and correct them to give the better performance. (Ditto for SQL and a=b, b=c)
- There is misunderstanding about what the abstraction promises. TCP doesn't promise consistent performance, and doesn't promise to work when the connections broken.
As long as you understand what it promises, and the system that enables it is well crafted, you shouldn't need to climb under the layer provided by your abstraction of choice.
Of course, it's not a perfect world, and sometimes people don't understand the systems they use, or the systems don't work properly. I don't think this means that we should have to understand lower levels, though it can be fun and possibly necessary. Instead, the pressure should be to understand what we're promised, and for the enabling systems to deliver on those promises, and be smart about it.
They billed it to his charge account beforehand.
What was presented to Mrs. Buttle afterwards was the refund check, because Information Retrieval were supposed to be working on Tuttle, not Buttle.
I seem to recall a lecturer at my university talking about an idea like this, I think they were intending to use LCDs. Apparently they had to give it up, because somebody had the idea patented.
It's much easier to make sure you go to bed that late.
Gosh, these Slashdot people really should check that the links they post go to working websites!
:-)=
Don't hate me coz I'm funny.
D'oh.
... ... ?> tag at the top...
Should have said
Chuck an <?xml
So yeah, it's a bugger to read/edit yourself. But it's a whole lot nicer from your computers point of view.
The first one may be clearer to you, but it doesn't mean a heck of a lot to your computer.
Unless you do some fancy custom checks, your computer can't tell this from your shopping list.
That's the point of XML, storing information in a way that your computer can easily understand what's going on.
Chuck an tag at the top, and it can check against the schema to see that it actually makes sense.
You can run it through an XSLT script, and get HTML, or the plain text form above, or maybe combine it with some other documents, and get a different type of XML document.
All of this stuff would be a whole lot harder in plain text, because your computer wouldn't know what the document meant, let alone how to do anything interesting with it.
And for super high tech security you should ROT13 your files (forget RSA/PGP).
:-)=
Sorry
I presume it's something similar causing it:
I heard that, with the right weather conditions, police transmissions from east coast Australia can make it all the way across the Tasman Sea, to west coast New Zealand, and get picked up by police radios (same frequency) here.
I only read the first of those Foundation prequels, and I disliked them as much as 'House Atreides'. Though at least they were consistent in House Atreides.
There were a couple of things that bugged me in the Foundation prequel. First was the wormholes. Yes they explained them in an epilogue, but I'd have preferred consistency with the Foundation universe rather than with real ideas in science. Second, they seemed to forget Seldon was a Twister.
I thought it was going to be 'Collosal Cave'.
Having bombs exploding all around you tends to reduce the odds that you'll get to have grand children... mortally.
I wouldn't say it is ludicrous.
You just have to look at the dot com boom (when it was happening) to see that, where people put their money can very often be dependent on perceptions rather than realities.
Regardless of whether the oil supply actually is under threat, people may be willing to pay more if they believe that it is.
I don't recall seeing any winged globe symbols when I was in Egypt. Of course I was nine at the time, and not looking for winged globes; however a winged globe is so different from most Egyptian hieroglyphs, that if it truly was common I think it would get a bit more attention from most sources.
My apologies.
It wasn't intended as a dig at you, I intended for the spiny barbs on that post to be aimed at the people who modded it up.
I agree that copies like this are handy when the site has been slashdotted.
I wasn't so much casting aspersion on the idea of an object with an extreme orbit like that, or that the Sumerians might have been that good at astronomy (I don't really know enough about astronomy or Sumeria to comment on that). However I'll believe it exists when somebody reputable and not from ancient Sumeria has reported seeing it.
What I was commenting on was the obviously baseless nonsense that appears on most of the sites mentioning it. Other dimensions, aliens, etc.
Here's a page from someone who has obviously done more homework than me. (or most of the Niburu sites)
http://www.planet-x.150m.com/
For every story post a comment with the full text of the linked articles.
Apparently this qualifies as informative!
I just looked it up.
The human propensity for talking cr*p never ceases to amaze me.
> To say that anyone other than the Wright Brothers are the father(s) of aviation is plane wrong :-)
Unless you say that Richard Pearse was.
Ok wierdness with pasting the URL.
There should be no space between 'htm' and 'l'.
Oops that should be http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/pearse1.htm l
As it turns out there would have been prior art against them:r se1.htm l
http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/pea