That doesn't work with any of the BIOSes I've tried. How does the BIOS know which partition to boot from? No, to boot reliably from a USB device, it needs to either not have a partition table at all or have an MBR, in which case it boots as a hard drive rather than a floppy.
Yes, that's how you do it. Though this doesn't work in all circumstances. I think you have to have BIOS support for USB emulation (which I suppose most do), and whatever application you run from the "floppy" has to play nice. I was playing around with putting the Ghost client and hard drive image on a huge FAT12 partition on a USB drive so you could image a computer by just plugging in, rebooting, and waiting. It booted up great, but Ghost refused to read the "floppy"!
What I ended up doing was just partitioning the flash drive as a hard drive (MBR and all) and using syslinux as the boot loader. It was a pain in the ass to set up, and I don't even know if it's possible under Windows without some obscure piece of special-purpose software. But it worked. And it's a more flexible solution -- because it uses syslinux to boot, I can boot any floppy image I want by just copying it to the hard drive and adding it to syslinux.conf instead of having to dd it over (which is itself difficult in Windows).
Books are also very expensive. Even in mass production, a non-trivial book can cost around $20 each, and smaller run books are much more expensive due to (lack of) economy of scale.
Not to mention that large-scale distribution is not inexpensive, especially in the market areas for one of these laptops (poor infrastructure makes shipping more expensive). I imagine a government could actually save a good amount of money (if the laptops prove successful and long-lasting) by giving school children one of these laptops and then just having digital textbooks.
The atrocious concept is the one that posits we can solve problems by eliminating words. Words do not hurt people; intentions do. Simply refraining from calling women "sluts" will do nothing to retard the erosion of self-esteem experienced by teenage girls in our society as they become sexually active.
Sacrificing terminology on the altar of political correctness does nothing to actually address real problems. Worse, it wastes time and energy by distracting those who could otherwise contribute true progress.
So by all means, continue with your senseless tirade against words. But please consider that the words themselves really aren't harmful; it is the attitudes and emotions of those who use and hear the words. And unless we truly address the underlying problems, those will continue to exist long after the particular words you find distasteful have lost all meaning.
You do it that same way you write Java code "without pointers". You use higher-level abstractions to hide (and prevent errors in) the implementation details.
And that's exactly why so many things are "implementation defined" or "undefined". Many real-world users of C++ demand that, for instance, vector::iterator be a typedef for a raw pointer for efficiency reasons. Other equally-important users would prefer an iterator type that guarantees sensible behavior in the face of real errors. The ISO standard allows for both behaviors by conforming C++ implementations.
There's something attractive about the Java and C# languages having all constructs so well-defined. But both of those languages could afford not to support real hardware. Both target abstract machines and are happy with the results. C++ can afford no such conceit: it thrives in high-performance, customized, and otherwise exotic environments.
Use Koenig and Moo's Accelerated C++ to teach modern C++ rather than C. Modern C++ (meaning C++ written in a modern style) does not require much memory management or other "nitty-gritty" stuff, but it allows the students to learn in a framework in which such bookkeeping tasks can be introduced with minimal fuss when appropriate. Also, the book is succinct, thorough, and pedantically correct.
Because people are stupid. If there were a specially-accessible (say, via the F8 key at startup on Windows) "re-detect hardware" boot option, and the default just went with whatever the OS already knew about, then people would first bitch about how "I put in a new soundcard, and Windows can't even see it!" And then when they learned how to detect it, they'd bitch about "Why can't Windows just do that automatically?!"
Seriously, you want an OS that does exactly what you want at boot time? Use Unix. You want something that works reasonably without you having to mess with it? Use Windows. Don't blame Microsoft for your own poor choices.
In many Mathematic models the direction for which x approaches zero is extremely relevant.
It's only relevant for a one-sided limit. "One-sided limit" != "limit".
But, perhaps a good [example of where the direction of approach matters] would be gravity.
(I can't really tell because you used ambiguous notation, but I suppose you meant force F to be a function of distance r between the respective centers of mass.)
Actually that's an example of where it doesn't matter at all. Your description is of the physical manifestation of a discontinuity at zero, but that's irrelevant to the discussion. The LIMIT exists (even if the function is discontiguous) at r=0 because the function behaves the same regardless of whether r approaches 0 from the left or from the right.
(A simple exercise proves it -- the only occurrence of r in the function is as r^2, and r^2 == (-r)^2. So F(r) == F(-r), and it doesn't matter which side of 0 r approaches from.)
No, the limit simply does not exist. No "if"s, "and"s, "but"s, "maybe"s, or other qualifiers.
A one-sided limit is not the same thing as a limit. This is mathematics, and precision of language is paramount. Any theorem that requires a limit exists at a certain point is NOT VALID if only a one-sided limit (or pair of them) exists at that point. And no, f(x) = c/x is NOT differentiable at x=0 for exactly that reason.
The limit of a constant over x as x approaches zero would depend on which direction you're approaching x from.
If the direction of approach matters, then the limit, by definition, does not exist. The rest of your post is just a really round-about way of repeating "the limit does not exist".
In countries where people actually know how to drive, you are required to allow a vehicle to merge in front of you. A driver on the freeway is expected to realize that there is an upcoming merge point and vacate the rightmost lane if possible or slow down if necessary; vehicles ahead of him in the merge lane have the right-of-way. In these countries, the speed limit is usually higher than in the US and on-ramps are shorter; yet we seem to manage just fine.
By that logic, Marx's theories were responsible for halting Hitler and stopping the spread of Nazism; and Jesus Christ is responsible for the death tally in Iraq. Get a grip.
Maybe you should study a little economic theory before purporting to evaluate an economist. Marx's seminal work, his theories on the unemployment cycle, remain fundamentally unchalleneged and virtually unchanged to this day.
Slashdot Mirror
That doesn't work with any of the BIOSes I've tried. How does the BIOS know which partition to boot from? No, to boot reliably from a USB device, it needs to either not have a partition table at all or have an MBR, in which case it boots as a hard drive rather than a floppy.
Since when do we take computer advice from Windows users?
Yes, that's how you do it. Though this doesn't work in all circumstances. I think you have to have BIOS support for USB emulation (which I suppose most do), and whatever application you run from the "floppy" has to play nice. I was playing around with putting the Ghost client and hard drive image on a huge FAT12 partition on a USB drive so you could image a computer by just plugging in, rebooting, and waiting. It booted up great, but Ghost refused to read the "floppy"!
What I ended up doing was just partitioning the flash drive as a hard drive (MBR and all) and using syslinux as the boot loader. It was a pain in the ass to set up, and I don't even know if it's possible under Windows without some obscure piece of special-purpose software. But it worked. And it's a more flexible solution -- because it uses syslinux to boot, I can boot any floppy image I want by just copying it to the hard drive and adding it to syslinux.conf instead of having to dd it over (which is itself difficult in Windows).
Yes, the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. You got another question, or are you done making yourself look like an idiot?
Books are also very expensive. Even in mass production, a non-trivial book can cost around $20 each, and smaller run books are much more expensive due to (lack of) economy of scale.
Not to mention that large-scale distribution is not inexpensive, especially in the market areas for one of these laptops (poor infrastructure makes shipping more expensive). I imagine a government could actually save a good amount of money (if the laptops prove successful and long-lasting) by giving school children one of these laptops and then just having digital textbooks.
It's not a compatibility thing, it's a look&feel thing. You can use Konqueror with a Gnome desktop or Nautilus with KDE, but why would you want to?
It was a known manufacturing error. Dell issued a recall, and they repaired ours for free.
The atrocious concept is the one that posits we can solve problems by eliminating words. Words do not hurt people; intentions do. Simply refraining from calling women "sluts" will do nothing to retard the erosion of self-esteem experienced by teenage girls in our society as they become sexually active.
Sacrificing terminology on the altar of political correctness does nothing to actually address real problems. Worse, it wastes time and energy by distracting those who could otherwise contribute true progress.
So by all means, continue with your senseless tirade against words. But please consider that the words themselves really aren't harmful; it is the attitudes and emotions of those who use and hear the words. And unless we truly address the underlying problems, those will continue to exist long after the particular words you find distasteful have lost all meaning.
You do it that same way you write Java code "without pointers". You use higher-level abstractions to hide (and prevent errors in) the implementation details.
Programming in C++ requires restraint.
And that's exactly why so many things are "implementation defined" or "undefined". Many real-world users of C++ demand that, for instance, vector::iterator be a typedef for a raw pointer for efficiency reasons. Other equally-important users would prefer an iterator type that guarantees sensible behavior in the face of real errors. The ISO standard allows for both behaviors by conforming C++ implementations.
There's something attractive about the Java and C# languages having all constructs so well-defined. But both of those languages could afford not to support real hardware. Both target abstract machines and are happy with the results. C++ can afford no such conceit: it thrives in high-performance, customized, and otherwise exotic environments.
No, they are being bitched about for owning part of a company which is harming people.
Confirmed on with Opera 9.10 on Linux as well.
It's only a "stigma" because women care. If someone called me a "slut" (I'm male), I'd smile and nod. It's all in how people take it.
So really, you are the one stigmatizing women by encouraging them to react negatively to a normative description.
Use Koenig and Moo's Accelerated C++ to teach modern C++ rather than C. Modern C++ (meaning C++ written in a modern style) does not require much memory management or other "nitty-gritty" stuff, but it allows the students to learn in a framework in which such bookkeeping tasks can be introduced with minimal fuss when appropriate. Also, the book is succinct, thorough, and pedantically correct.
Dude, buy a smart card reader. They're like ten or fifteen bucks.
Funny. Folks in my branch of the US Federal government all log in with a smart card and 7-digit PIN.
Because people are stupid. If there were a specially-accessible (say, via the F8 key at startup on Windows) "re-detect hardware" boot option, and the default just went with whatever the OS already knew about, then people would first bitch about how "I put in a new soundcard, and Windows can't even see it!" And then when they learned how to detect it, they'd bitch about "Why can't Windows just do that automatically?!"
Seriously, you want an OS that does exactly what you want at boot time? Use Unix. You want something that works reasonably without you having to mess with it? Use Windows. Don't blame Microsoft for your own poor choices.
Funny... My Sempron 3000+-based machine uses about 40W peak.
In many Mathematic models the direction for which x approaches zero is extremely relevant.
It's only relevant for a one-sided limit. "One-sided limit" != "limit".
But, perhaps a good [example of where the direction of approach matters] would be gravity.
(I can't really tell because you used ambiguous notation, but I suppose you meant force F to be a function of distance r between the respective centers of mass.)
Actually that's an example of where it doesn't matter at all. Your description is of the physical manifestation of a discontinuity at zero, but that's irrelevant to the discussion. The LIMIT exists (even if the function is discontiguous) at r=0 because the function behaves the same regardless of whether r approaches 0 from the left or from the right.
(A simple exercise proves it -- the only occurrence of r in the function is as r^2, and r^2 == (-r)^2. So F(r) == F(-r), and it doesn't matter which side of 0 r approaches from.)
No, the limit simply does not exist. No "if"s, "and"s, "but"s, "maybe"s, or other qualifiers.
A one-sided limit is not the same thing as a limit. This is mathematics, and precision of language is paramount. Any theorem that requires a limit exists at a certain point is NOT VALID if only a one-sided limit (or pair of them) exists at that point. And no, f(x) = c/x is NOT differentiable at x=0 for exactly that reason.
The limit of a constant over x as x approaches zero would depend on which direction you're approaching x from.
If the direction of approach matters, then the limit, by definition, does not exist. The rest of your post is just a really round-about way of repeating "the limit does not exist".
In countries where people actually know how to drive, you are required to allow a vehicle to merge in front of you. A driver on the freeway is expected to realize that there is an upcoming merge point and vacate the rightmost lane if possible or slow down if necessary; vehicles ahead of him in the merge lane have the right-of-way. In these countries, the speed limit is usually higher than in the US and on-ramps are shorter; yet we seem to manage just fine.
By that logic, Marx's theories were responsible for halting Hitler and stopping the spread of Nazism; and Jesus Christ is responsible for the death tally in Iraq. Get a grip.
Maybe you should study a little economic theory before purporting to evaluate an economist. Marx's seminal work, his theories on the unemployment cycle, remain fundamentally unchalleneged and virtually unchanged to this day.
Dude... ever heard of PXE? Nearly every BIOS already supports this.