But OS X for a server, is rather lame. OS X is a Desktop OS
Actually, it was a server OS first. The very first release of OS X, and the first OS Apple released following their acquisition of NeXT, was Mac OS X Server 1.0. OS X only later was adapted to being a desktop OS (I imagine the effort started at the same time, but it took longer to complete).
or rather, that's how consultants make their money. Get hired, come in and install a convoluted system that only they understand and can run/support, and then are your support-until-death-do-we-part.
Which, unfortunately, can turn out to be sooner than you think, when the only people who can support you go out of business...
... most businesses don't bother until they need the real deal (and no doubts about a real admin to manage them).
A real admin? If they're not prepared to hire at least two, they shouldn't have any at all. See "run over by a bus" scenario. If you're going to try to host and manage this stuff in-house, hire a team. If you aren't in a position to hire more than one guy, don't hire anyone, and don't bring it in-house, you're not ready yet.
It was already widely believed that the play in question was at least partially written by Shakespeare. In research, when an experiment produces evidence that accords with a theory, the correct term is to say that it "confirms" the theory. It does not prove it, but it does confirm it.
The title uses the word precisely and accurately. However, I suspect you're not clear on what the word "confirm" means in the context of an experiment.
From TFA there were parts of the text that were very strongly Shakespearian, and parts not. There is no word on whether they did a plagiarism test on this script vs Kyd's work.
Actually, there is, and they did. About 60% of the work does match Kyd's other known works, as well as four other unattributed plays that are believed to be by Kyd as well (and this result would lend further credence to that).
This software is for detecting plagiarism. In the situation it is designed for, one person uses another person's work but tries not to reveal the fact. The program catches this by noting that the pieces of writing are too similar. If it's well-designed, then it is good at this task, so it should be reasonably sensitive to similarity.
The "authentication" scenario described in TFA is very different. Assume the play is fake (written by someone pretending to be Shakespeare)....
Actually, you're turning the situation on its head with your assumption. The authentication scenario described in TFA is the exact opposite of your assumption here, and in fact it's much more similar to what you describe in the first paragraph. This isn't a question of trying to determine of a play attributed to Shakespeare was actually written by him or instead by someone pretending to be him. In fact, the play is attributed to Kyd. If there's any pretending going on, it's Shakespeare pretending to be Kyd, or Kyd pretending Shakespeare's work is his own.
The article mentions the fact that there was very high competitive pressure on writers to compose plays very quickly so I wonder if there actually was plagiarism going on here. How hard would it have been for one of these writers to get at least a fairly crude copy of Shakespeare's work and utilise various elements of Shakespeare's previous plays? Can anyone enlighten us as to the probability of this being the case...?
Zero, unless you're suggesting he plagiarized some otherwise completely unknown work of Shakespeare that we have no other record of. In which case, remotely possible, but pretty damn close to zero.
For example, these matching strings could just as well be common turns of phrase of the day. There doesn't seem to be any indication that the software was re-configured for common expressions of old English.
This is gibberish. The software isn't configured for common expressions of modern English, either. If you understand what it's doing, you should understand why no such configuration is necessary, as long as the two works being compared are contemporaneous. (Or heck, even if they aren't -- correlation should go down in that case, a high score is even more indicative when comparing non-contemporaneous authors.)
The study would be more plausible if works by two different authors IN ENGLAND IN THE YEAR 1600 contained 20 or so matching strings. But since that control group is missing -- so is the validity of the conclusion.
This is just misinformed. They've compared works by both the same author and different authors in England around 1600. It turns out it's just as true then as it is today that works by different authors contain significantly smaller sets of common wording. Indeed, this technique is used to identify which 60% of the play was written by Kyd (by comparing with his other work) and which 40% comes from The Bard. Comparing known works of either Kyd or The Bard with other works by the same author produce the same high correspondence, and comparing known works between the two different authors produces the same low correspondence.
Is VBR worse then fixed bitrate? I would have to assume so. A question though, is 192kbps VBR better than 128kbps fixed? I can't figure out the best settings to use when encoding my CDs. I want the smallest file that's good enough quality where I wouldn't notice playing on an iPod. Just asking, because you seem to be an expert.
At equivalent (max) bitrates, VBR is slightly worse than fixed bitrate. At equivalent file sizes, VBR is substantially better than fixed bitrate. 192kbps VBR is a heck of a lot better than 128kbps fixed. Just not as good as 192kbps fixed.
Just in case you're serious... No, that's not happening, and there's no need to "look into it", as we already know the distribution of the magnetic field of the Earth pretty well, and it's not doing what you describe. As to where things "get through and hit earth", it does happen and it's easily observable. Aurora are obvious, visible signs of such distortions of the magnetic field coming all the way down to intersect the Earth, which does happen... around the magnetic poles.
Also, we understand fairly well what's going on in the Bermuda Triangle. It's factually well established that there are no more mysterious incidents within this area than within any other similarly sized area of the sea with similar traffic. However, incidents happening there get more hype because they happen there. It's a sociological phenomenon that requires no appeal to strange physics, geoscience, or the like. Indeed, if there was something strange going on there, one would expect a greater than average incidence of missing ships, airplanes, etc. But in fact, there are not. The only thing unusual about the Bermuda Triangle is the amount of stories that come out of it.
This is a bit like positing that the first time you look into a box and see it contains apples, saying the reason you didn't know there were apples in it before this moment is not because you hadn't looked inside before, but that they just appeared the moment before you opened the box. Sure, it's possible, but the main reason you didn't know what was in the box before was because you hadn't looked, not that there were no apples.
The ribbon's orientation does not correspond to the ecliptic. There would have been no benefit to keeping either of the Voyagers in the ecliptic, and the disadvantage would be they'd both be given identical angles on the solar system, and one identical to the one we already have, rather than each having its own angle and one different from our own ecliptic-bound view. Also, the data we get regarding how gravity perturbs them as they move would be substantially less useful.
... The best evidence for now indicates that true magnetic monopoles don't exist, and we don't really know why.
What evidence to we have that they do not exist? Are you saying this merely because we haven't seen evidence of their existence (i.e. absence of evidence), or because if they did exist we should see them in a particular place, but when we look there, we don't see them (which would be actual evidence of absence rather than absence of evidence)? I thought that we had no evidence that they don't exist, just no evidence that they do, but IANAP.
It might be habits but IMHO www.example.com looks much natural than com/example on any media, from business cards to tv commercials. We use dot in normal writing and not slashes.
I'll bet you think reverse-polish-notation is unnatural looking, too.:p
I've always mentally read it as "triple dub". That doesn't take so long to say, and most people understand what I mean by it when I use it in conversation.
That's... interesting. Do you always "hear voices" while mentally reading? I find I frequently don't realize I don't know how to pronounce a word until the first time I try to use it in spoken conversation. When reading text, it simply doesn't come up how it "sounds"...
Then again, apparently I'm strange. People talk about whether someone can think in another language or not, as if it requires greater aptitude to think in another language rather than merely speak it, whereas I point out it's a necessary prerequisite to be able to think it in order to speak it. But I'm told they're talking about "just thinking" rather than thinking about what you're going to say -- in which case, I don't use any language at all, I just think thoughts. I only think words in a language when I'm thinking about speaking. If I'm thinking about water, I use neither the word "water" or "agua" in my head, which words to use only comes up when I'm thinking about how to articulate my thoughts. I can't imagine how slow it would be to actually think in a language, native or not.
Oh great, now we're going to have a long discussion with people arguing over how CRTs save energy when the screen is black but LCDs are exactly the opposite.
Maybe not, now that I addressed the issue.
That's a bit of a non-sequitur, actually, since the person you're replying to never even suggested that the make the screen black. When someone asks you for a blank piece of paper, do you complain that it would require too much black ink?
The problem I've always found is the the time it takes for the browser to disambiguate my ambiguous address is greater than the time it would have taken me to just type "http://" at the start.
Both answers are bad; both colons and forward slashes are things I frequently find I want to use in a filename (I tend to use fairly descriptive ones, like "Budget: Widgets" or "Various stuff/junk/things"). Ideally, the pathname separator ought to be some more obscure character I never want to use in a filename. Much as I hate to admit it, backslash makes a lot of sense.
So the day someone creates a protocol called "whatever", anyone who uses "whatever" as a hostname becomes screwed. Good idea, there...:p
A better idea is to come up with a URL scheme where determining what is a hostname and what is a protocol name is unambiguous. If you need that third step, the scheme is a bad one, regardless of how easy you think it is to determine what was meant. People making assumptions is bad enough, computers are even worse at it...
Technically, you're wrong. Part of Russia is part of Asia. The mostly unpopulated part. Part of Russia is part of Europe. The part where most of the Russians actually live.
With launch speed on 6km/s that is an average speed of 3km/s over a 1.1 km tube giving a time of 1.1/3s. With the change in speed being 6km/s or 6000m/s this gives acceleration of 44200 m/s^2. g is about 10m/s^2 so that makes it about 4420g. Given that most people pass out at about 10g I think this answers your question.
Naw. What we need to know is... sure, people pass out at 10g, but at what point to their bones break under the weight? At what point are they reduced to a pulp? What what point do they essentually liquify? Or compact to a solid? And how many G's before they finally collapse into a singularity?
Slashdot Mirror
But OS X for a server, is rather lame. OS X is a Desktop OS
Actually, it was a server OS first. The very first release of OS X, and the first OS Apple released following their acquisition of NeXT, was Mac OS X Server 1.0. OS X only later was adapted to being a desktop OS (I imagine the effort started at the same time, but it took longer to complete).
or rather, that's how consultants make their money. Get hired, come in and install a convoluted system that only they understand and can run/support, and then are your support-until-death-do-we-part.
Which, unfortunately, can turn out to be sooner than you think, when the only people who can support you go out of business...
... most businesses don't bother until they need the real deal (and no doubts about a real admin to manage them).
A real admin? If they're not prepared to hire at least two, they shouldn't have any at all. See "run over by a bus" scenario. If you're going to try to host and manage this stuff in-house, hire a team. If you aren't in a position to hire more than one guy, don't hire anyone, and don't bring it in-house, you're not ready yet.
It was already widely believed that the play in question was at least partially written by Shakespeare. In research, when an experiment produces evidence that accords with a theory, the correct term is to say that it "confirms" the theory. It does not prove it, but it does confirm it.
The title uses the word precisely and accurately. However, I suspect you're not clear on what the word "confirm" means in the context of an experiment.
From TFA there were parts of the text that were very strongly Shakespearian, and parts not. There is no word on whether they did a plagiarism test on this script vs Kyd's work.
Actually, there is, and they did. About 60% of the work does match Kyd's other known works, as well as four other unattributed plays that are believed to be by Kyd as well (and this result would lend further credence to that).
This software is for detecting plagiarism. In the situation it is designed for, one person uses another person's work but tries not to reveal the fact. The program catches this by noting that the pieces of writing are too similar. If it's well-designed, then it is good at this task, so it should be reasonably sensitive to similarity.
The "authentication" scenario described in TFA is very different. Assume the play is fake (written by someone pretending to be Shakespeare). ...
Actually, you're turning the situation on its head with your assumption. The authentication scenario described in TFA is the exact opposite of your assumption here, and in fact it's much more similar to what you describe in the first paragraph. This isn't a question of trying to determine of a play attributed to Shakespeare was actually written by him or instead by someone pretending to be him. In fact, the play is attributed to Kyd. If there's any pretending going on, it's Shakespeare pretending to be Kyd, or Kyd pretending Shakespeare's work is his own.
The article mentions the fact that there was very high competitive pressure on writers to compose plays very quickly so I wonder if there actually was plagiarism going on here. How hard would it have been for one of these writers to get at least a fairly crude copy of Shakespeare's work and utilise various elements of Shakespeare's previous plays? Can anyone enlighten us as to the probability of this being the case ...?
Zero, unless you're suggesting he plagiarized some otherwise completely unknown work of Shakespeare that we have no other record of. In which case, remotely possible, but pretty damn close to zero.
For example, these matching strings could just as well be common turns of phrase of the day. There doesn't seem to be any indication that the software was re-configured for common expressions of old English.
This is gibberish. The software isn't configured for common expressions of modern English, either. If you understand what it's doing, you should understand why no such configuration is necessary, as long as the two works being compared are contemporaneous. (Or heck, even if they aren't -- correlation should go down in that case, a high score is even more indicative when comparing non-contemporaneous authors.)
The study would be more plausible if works by two different authors IN ENGLAND IN THE YEAR 1600 contained 20 or so matching strings. But since that control group is missing -- so is the validity of the conclusion.
This is just misinformed. They've compared works by both the same author and different authors in England around 1600. It turns out it's just as true then as it is today that works by different authors contain significantly smaller sets of common wording. Indeed, this technique is used to identify which 60% of the play was written by Kyd (by comparing with his other work) and which 40% comes from The Bard. Comparing known works of either Kyd or The Bard with other works by the same author produce the same high correspondence, and comparing known works between the two different authors produces the same low correspondence.
Is VBR worse then fixed bitrate? I would have to assume so. A question though, is 192kbps VBR better than 128kbps fixed? I can't figure out the best settings to use when encoding my CDs. I want the smallest file that's good enough quality where I wouldn't notice playing on an iPod. Just asking, because you seem to be an expert.
At equivalent (max) bitrates, VBR is slightly worse than fixed bitrate. At equivalent file sizes, VBR is substantially better than fixed bitrate. 192kbps VBR is a heck of a lot better than 128kbps fixed. Just not as good as 192kbps fixed.
o.O You're kidding, right?
Just in case you're serious... No, that's not happening, and there's no need to "look into it", as we already know the distribution of the magnetic field of the Earth pretty well, and it's not doing what you describe. As to where things "get through and hit earth", it does happen and it's easily observable. Aurora are obvious, visible signs of such distortions of the magnetic field coming all the way down to intersect the Earth, which does happen... around the magnetic poles.
Also, we understand fairly well what's going on in the Bermuda Triangle. It's factually well established that there are no more mysterious incidents within this area than within any other similarly sized area of the sea with similar traffic. However, incidents happening there get more hype because they happen there. It's a sociological phenomenon that requires no appeal to strange physics, geoscience, or the like. Indeed, if there was something strange going on there, one would expect a greater than average incidence of missing ships, airplanes, etc. But in fact, there are not. The only thing unusual about the Bermuda Triangle is the amount of stories that come out of it.
This is a bit like positing that the first time you look into a box and see it contains apples, saying the reason you didn't know there were apples in it before this moment is not because you hadn't looked inside before, but that they just appeared the moment before you opened the box. Sure, it's possible, but the main reason you didn't know what was in the box before was because you hadn't looked, not that there were no apples.
The ribbon's orientation does not correspond to the ecliptic. There would have been no benefit to keeping either of the Voyagers in the ecliptic, and the disadvantage would be they'd both be given identical angles on the solar system, and one identical to the one we already have, rather than each having its own angle and one different from our own ecliptic-bound view. Also, the data we get regarding how gravity perturbs them as they move would be substantially less useful.
You're absolutely right, but no one cares. "Positron" has a nicer ring to it...
Has it really been that long since account numbers got into the seventh digit?
I feel very old now. I see six digit account numbers and think it's a newbie...
... The best evidence for now indicates that true magnetic monopoles don't exist, and we don't really know why.
What evidence to we have that they do not exist? Are you saying this merely because we haven't seen evidence of their existence (i.e. absence of evidence), or because if they did exist we should see them in a particular place, but when we look there, we don't see them (which would be actual evidence of absence rather than absence of evidence)? I thought that we had no evidence that they don't exist, just no evidence that they do, but IANAP.
It might be habits but IMHO www.example.com looks much natural than com/example on any media, from business cards to tv commercials. We use dot in normal writing and not slashes.
I'll bet you think reverse-polish-notation is unnatural looking, too. :p
(You FORTH love if honk then.)
I've always mentally read it as "triple dub". That doesn't take so long to say, and most people understand what I mean by it when I use it in conversation.
That's... interesting. Do you always "hear voices" while mentally reading? I find I frequently don't realize I don't know how to pronounce a word until the first time I try to use it in spoken conversation. When reading text, it simply doesn't come up how it "sounds"...
Then again, apparently I'm strange. People talk about whether someone can think in another language or not, as if it requires greater aptitude to think in another language rather than merely speak it, whereas I point out it's a necessary prerequisite to be able to think it in order to speak it. But I'm told they're talking about "just thinking" rather than thinking about what you're going to say -- in which case, I don't use any language at all, I just think thoughts. I only think words in a language when I'm thinking about speaking. If I'm thinking about water, I use neither the word "water" or "agua" in my head, which words to use only comes up when I'm thinking about how to articulate my thoughts. I can't imagine how slow it would be to actually think in a language, native or not.
Oh great, now we're going to have a long discussion with people arguing over how CRTs save energy when the screen is black but LCDs are exactly the opposite.
Maybe not, now that I addressed the issue.
That's a bit of a non-sequitur, actually, since the person you're replying to never even suggested that the make the screen black. When someone asks you for a blank piece of paper, do you complain that it would require too much black ink?
The problem I've always found is the the time it takes for the browser to disambiguate my ambiguous address is greater than the time it would have taken me to just type "http://" at the start.
Both answers are bad; both colons and forward slashes are things I frequently find I want to use in a filename (I tend to use fairly descriptive ones, like "Budget: Widgets" or "Various stuff/junk/things"). Ideally, the pathname separator ought to be some more obscure character I never want to use in a filename. Much as I hate to admit it, backslash makes a lot of sense.
So the day someone creates a protocol called "whatever", anyone who uses "whatever" as a hostname becomes screwed. Good idea, there... :p
A better idea is to come up with a URL scheme where determining what is a hostname and what is a protocol name is unambiguous. If you need that third step, the scheme is a bad one, regardless of how easy you think it is to determine what was meant. People making assumptions is bad enough, computers are even worse at it...
The term vegetarian couldn't apply to a non-sapient animal.
At least, not without confusing people who lack the intelligence to figure out when people are speaking figuratively.
Technically, you're wrong. Part of Russia is part of Asia. The mostly unpopulated part. Part of Russia is part of Europe. The part where most of the Russians actually live.
With launch speed on 6km/s that is an average speed of 3km/s over a 1.1 km tube giving a time of 1.1/3s. With the change in speed being 6km/s or 6000m/s this gives acceleration of 44200 m/s^2. g is about 10m/s^2 so that makes it about 4420g. Given that most people pass out at about 10g I think this answers your question.
Naw. What we need to know is... sure, people pass out at 10g, but at what point to their bones break under the weight? At what point are they reduced to a pulp? What what point do they essentually liquify? Or compact to a solid? And how many G's before they finally collapse into a singularity?
Only if you want them to arrive on orbit as people paste. The G-forces in a cannon launch would be very high.
No no, you encase them in a block of carbonite. They should be quite well preserved. If they survive the freezing process, that is.