This goes a bit deeper than just have a single "installer application" that installs everything. For one, that wouldn't cover most entry vectors for malware (webpages, e-mail, etc.).
The root problem is that in the Windows event queue and interrupts systems, there is no accountability for individual events, i.e. it's impossible to determine where any event originated. Since the event queues can be hooked, any application can create and simulate just about any event, including user input, disk I/O, etc., so the event queue cannot be trusted.
Since the OS can't know if an event was user-generated, app-generated, or driver-generated, it will have to ask about things that may be dangerous.
There is a solution to this, which is to make the entire event path, which may start with an interrupt, right up to event-handling, secure, e.g. digitally sign everything every step of the way, building an accountability-trace into the events themselves. At the lowest level in the OS, the kernel and low-level device drivers kick off the first thing that leads to an event and signing can start there (using the TPM chip on the moterboard for security).
To implement such a thing requires a lot of effort: a total revamp of the anything in the OS to do with events, interrupts, etc.; strictly enforced signed-drivers-only just above the hardware level; system- and event queue hooking only allowed by already-installed and securely signed software; faster hardware as performance-impact of something like this will be high, etc.
Such a change would of course also break just about every driver and app out there, so forget about any backwards compatibility. The effort required would also be enormous. This won't happen anytime soon, I don't think...
Note that Linux and MaxOS X suffer from the exact same problem (plenty of event-manipulatings apps around for those as well, albeit not as many as for Windows), but they have the significant advantage that users run by default as non-admins so anything the OS thinks is iffy actually requires them to type in a password rather than just click "Yes", and yes, having a single installer app helps a bit too (but not much).
I agree with the authors that most if not all alternative medicine is junk but on the other hand, when was the last time you heard about a medication or treatment that actually *cured* someone from a disease?
I mean, during the last two decades or so, I've only heard about and seen first hand people getting illnesses that can be "treated" but almost never cured (IBD, cancers, degenerative ailments, etc. and I suffer from a few myself now)
Our biggest successes have been antibiotics and vaccines and most of the ones currently in use are the same as or similar to the once that were discovered/invented years if not decades ago.
I think you got it the wrong way round: people have no voice because they stopped caring long time ago.
It's the flip side of success: if a society is so successful that the vast majority of people can have comfortable, wealthy lives (how many families have two or more cars?), people no longer have any incentive to push the government around, so the government will do what is in its rather than in the people's best interest (which usually means chasing the money/power)
We have nobody to blame but ourselves: we are content, all the basics taken care of, now all we want is entertainment, we don't care about "integrity", "issues", etc. (apologies for the gross generalisation: I know there are plenty of people who still do care, but they are a minority)
The only bright side I see if that things will start to fall apart in the coming decades (always happens with too much concentration of wealth and power since those that have it tend to forget after a while that they have it because of the support of the common people who are the ones driving the economy at the most basic level) and this will directly affect the man in the street, so he will start to care again.
I'm afraid it will get a lot worse before it gets better, though, and I probably won't be around to see it...
No, its not. Look at Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs (SICP), which was taught decades ago (and now available on-line for free; google it).
It uses Scheme as its language but rather than present Scheme itself, the course starts with only a few primitives (numbers, symbols and closures/functions) and proceeds to build up to a relatively complete interpreter of the language itself, along the way covering imperative constructs, OOP, meta-languages (including a graphical one), streams (the original magical type; not the contemporary type) and much, much more.
So, to adopt your analogy, it starts students of at a very basic reading level and adds new words and grammar (defined from scratch using only previously covered constructs) along the way, pulling students along.
Note: of course, this is only one of the ways of doing gradually increasing complexity in courses, it's the lambda calculus way. The other way is the engineering way: start with hardware/assembler, work your way up to C and then to some OOP language. Problem with the latter method is that you'd have to find some awkward way of squeezing in functional, set/vector and other programming paradigms in there somehow if you want the course to be complete (and "science"), while the former can incorporate those readily.
If that was the case, the clouds would be subject to the same effect so there would be no difference between clouds and meteor.
Also, even if that was an effect that played here, seeing the thing pass *through* a layer of cloud makes that point if relevant: if it passes through clouds, the clouds and the meteor must be at a similar altitude.
I thought the consensus nowadays was that meteors stop burning/glowing ate dozens of kilometers of altitude (it's mentioned in some of the linked reports as well)
However, in some of the footage the thing can be see to go through a layer of clouds.
You didn't say if digits can be part of word that starts with a capital; I'm assuming they cannot be below, changing to accommodate that would be easy.
This is easy once you re-word your definition of a word: in your case, a word starts with a capital followed by a run of non-capital letters.
The regex:/[A-Z][a-z]*/
Will match the first of such words in a string. (it will also match single-character words; change * to + if you don't want that). Make sure you're matching is case-sensitive for this to work. Many regex engines will have an abbreviation for [A-Z] and [a-z] you can use instead.
To get the second of such words in string:/[A-Z][a-z]*[^A-Z]*([A-Z][a-z]*)/
The second word will be in the first sub-match (\1). The [^A-Z]* will gobble up everything between the last letter of the first word and the start of the second word. If there is no second word, this match will fail.
Repeat the first part of this (everything up to the open parenthesis) to get third word, fourth word, etc. Rather than repeating that part of the expression, you can use parenthesis and counts (usually {n,m}) for this in most engines.
From TFA: Companies and other enterprises where multiple computers have access to one network however, would instead be required to install firewalls to prevent workers from illegal downloading.
How on earth can the entire command staff of the Enterprise be that young? They don't require people to have serious experience (time in the field) before they can get to positions of that much responsibility?
An adolescent captain just looks wrong...
At least they got that right in (most) of the other Treks.
Other than that, nice pics; love the angry Spock one:-)
I mean, a moderately complex program can easily produce the non-sensical speech of a contemporary teenager. Perhaps Jabberwocky was talking for 11 hours to itself? How would it know the difference?
Piers Anthony is a bit controversial as many of his books deal with dominance, violence (including sexual), religion, etc., so once you're confident your children can make up their own minds about stuff like that, give them Tarot (a single novel, but you may find it published in three parts as it's rather long) or the Mode series. Highly controversial (you may want to read it yourself first as it's all rather extreme) but serious food for thought; wait until they're teens or late teens though.
The Thomas Covenant series by Stephen Donaldson; likewise controversial (deals with a man's struggle with lepracy) but not so violent and very good food for thought. The Gap series by the same author is much more brutal so maybe for the later years as well.
Repeated warning: read them yourself first, if you haven't already done so.
For market reach: Spanish (opens up most of LatAm) and you can extend that to include (Brazilian) Portuguese without too much trouble, Chinese (obvious), Arabic (opens up a huge swath of the Middle East), Swedish (opens up much of the Nordics)
For fun: Italian (absolutely beautiful to hear spoken well and makes non-Italian women swoon), Esperanto (is relatively easy and will make you understandable to just about all Roman and Germanic language speakers), Dutch (if you want to exercise muscles in your throat you never knew you had), Slovenian/Czech (lots of interesting pain in East European culture but you need the language to appreciate it), Japanese (to be amazed about and get rid of your own preconceptions)
For mind expansion: Koshian languages (mentioned elsewhere), Latin and ancient Greek, Romansh, Swahili, Gaelic, Japanese, Indonesian
Forget about French and German unless you have specific reasons to learn those.
So take your pick, but do it as soon as possible: learning a new language is going to be really, really hard once you're past 30, unless you have a knack for it.
The problem with that model is margin. As long as producers (of anything) have a shot at generating many, many times their initial investment, they'll do it the way they've always been doing it: producing and then putting it out there for money.
Asking potential customers first if they want to pay for it and then negotiating a price, will almost certainly lead to very limited profit margins (since you're limiting your maximum revenue up-front).
So, the model you propose may work in some industries (mostly industries that can't scale cost-efficiently) but not if the alternative potentially leads to profits that are an order of magnitude or two bigger. This difference in potential profit even justifies investing in preventing/fighting piracy, since that's a relatively minor additional cost. Hence DRM and court cases.
Actually, a two-party system is worse: it allows the equally bad powers to hide behind the old "We're a democracy; if you don't like us, vote for the other guys".
With a one-party system, the people's choice us much clearer as well as more effective: live with your crap one party or stage a revolution.
Actually, when referring to natural languages like English, when something becomes "common usage" it is linguistically correct by definition, as the langague is defined by its use (regardless of what the OED or some academic may tell you).
Well, let's use basic counting (and assume the drawings are all independent) and that the outcomes of each drawig is a "Heads" or "Tails"
If you play once, there are only two possible outcomes: it's either Heads or it's Tails. You picked one when playing (say you picked Heads). Of all possible outcomes (two), your choice (or ticket) is one of them, so you a one to two chance of winning (or 1/2 which is 50%).
Now take playing twice. The possible outcomes are:
Heads for the first draw, Heads for the second
Heads for the first draw, Tails for the second
Tails for the first draw, Heads for the second
Tails for the first draw, Tails for the second
So, there are four possible outcomes. Now let's say you chose Heads for the first and Heads for the second drawing. What are you chances of winning *something*?
To win something, one of the two or both drawings must score. You have Heads+Heads. Of all the outcomes, this gives you a win for possible outcomes 1, 2 and 3 as they have a Heads in there, so that's 3 out of 4 or 75%. So, playing twice, you have a 75% chance of winning something. This is obviously not twice as much as 50%, so the answer to your question is "No".
Notes:
As you play more often, the chance keeps getting closer to 100%, but it will never reach 100%
Even if you have a 99% of winning something, that doesn't mean you *will* win something
The chances of winning multiple times decrease rapidly: in the example above, the chances of winning both drawings is 25% (only one of the possibilities out of four), so as you play more often, the chances of getting back your accumulated investment decrrease rapidly as well (assuming it costs you something to play)
This method still works when drawings are not independent but counting possible outcomes becomes more complex
There are fairly easy methods of computing all of this quickly using factorials and combinatorics and such. Google for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, I didn't realise you wanted buttons for the same app to be splittable; thought you just wanted one button per item.
Right-click taskbar, select Properties, in the "Taskbar Buttons" drop-down, choose "Never Combine"
This goes a bit deeper than just have a single "installer application" that installs everything. For one, that wouldn't cover most entry vectors for malware (webpages, e-mail, etc.).
The root problem is that in the Windows event queue and interrupts systems, there is no accountability for individual events, i.e. it's impossible to determine where any event originated. Since the event queues can be hooked, any application can create and simulate just about any event, including user input, disk I/O, etc., so the event queue cannot be trusted.
Since the OS can't know if an event was user-generated, app-generated, or driver-generated, it will have to ask about things that may be dangerous.
There is a solution to this, which is to make the entire event path, which may start with an interrupt, right up to event-handling, secure, e.g. digitally sign everything every step of the way, building an accountability-trace into the events themselves. At the lowest level in the OS, the kernel and low-level device drivers kick off the first thing that leads to an event and signing can start there (using the TPM chip on the moterboard for security).
To implement such a thing requires a lot of effort: a total revamp of the anything in the OS to do with events, interrupts, etc.; strictly enforced signed-drivers-only just above the hardware level; system- and event queue hooking only allowed by already-installed and securely signed software; faster hardware as performance-impact of something like this will be high, etc.
Such a change would of course also break just about every driver and app out there, so forget about any backwards compatibility. The effort required would also be enormous. This won't happen anytime soon, I don't think...
Note that Linux and MaxOS X suffer from the exact same problem (plenty of event-manipulatings apps around for those as well, albeit not as many as for Windows), but they have the significant advantage that users run by default as non-admins so anything the OS thinks is iffy actually requires them to type in a password rather than just click "Yes", and yes, having a single installer app helps a bit too (but not much).
I agree with the authors that most if not all alternative medicine is junk but on the other hand, when was the last time you heard about a medication or treatment that actually *cured* someone from a disease?
I mean, during the last two decades or so, I've only heard about and seen first hand people getting illnesses that can be "treated" but almost never cured (IBD, cancers, degenerative ailments, etc. and I suffer from a few myself now)
Our biggest successes have been antibiotics and vaccines and most of the ones currently in use are the same as or similar to the once that were discovered/invented years if not decades ago.
Where are all the new *real* cures?
I think you got it the wrong way round: people have no voice because they stopped caring long time ago.
It's the flip side of success: if a society is so successful that the vast majority of people can have comfortable, wealthy lives (how many families have two or more cars?), people no longer have any incentive to push the government around, so the government will do what is in its rather than in the people's best interest (which usually means chasing the money/power)
We have nobody to blame but ourselves: we are content, all the basics taken care of, now all we want is entertainment, we don't care about "integrity", "issues", etc. (apologies for the gross generalisation: I know there are plenty of people who still do care, but they are a minority)
The only bright side I see if that things will start to fall apart in the coming decades (always happens with too much concentration of wealth and power since those that have it tend to forget after a while that they have it because of the support of the common people who are the ones driving the economy at the most basic level) and this will directly affect the man in the street, so he will start to care again.
I'm afraid it will get a lot worse before it gets better, though, and I probably won't be around to see it...
No, its not. Look at Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs (SICP), which was taught decades ago (and now available on-line for free; google it).
It uses Scheme as its language but rather than present Scheme itself, the course starts with only a few primitives (numbers, symbols and closures/functions) and proceeds to build up to a relatively complete interpreter of the language itself, along the way covering imperative constructs, OOP, meta-languages (including a graphical one), streams (the original magical type; not the contemporary type) and much, much more.
So, to adopt your analogy, it starts students of at a very basic reading level and adds new words and grammar (defined from scratch using only previously covered constructs) along the way, pulling students along.
Note: of course, this is only one of the ways of doing gradually increasing complexity in courses, it's the lambda calculus way. The other way is the engineering way: start with hardware/assembler, work your way up to C and then to some OOP language. Problem with the latter method is that you'd have to find some awkward way of squeezing in functional, set/vector and other programming paradigms in there somehow if you want the course to be complete (and "science"), while the former can incorporate those readily.
There, fixed that for you.
Hmm, looking at several videos again, you're right. My mistake...
* Note to self: brain before blab
Also, even if that was an effect that played here, seeing the thing pass *through* a layer of cloud makes that point if relevant: if it passes through clouds, the clouds and the meteor must be at a similar altitude.
However, in some of the footage the thing can be see to go through a layer of clouds.
Is it possible for clouds to be that high up?
This is easy once you re-word your definition of a word: in your case, a word starts with a capital followed by a run of non-capital letters.
The regex: /[A-Z][a-z]*/
Will match the first of such words in a string. (it will also match single-character words; change * to + if you don't want that). Make sure you're matching is case-sensitive for this to work. Many regex engines will have an abbreviation for [A-Z] and [a-z] you can use instead.
To get the second of such words in string: /[A-Z][a-z]*[^A-Z]*([A-Z][a-z]*)/
The second word will be in the first sub-match (\1). The [^A-Z]* will gobble up everything between the last letter of the first word and the start of the second word. If there is no second word, this match will fail.
Repeat the first part of this (everything up to the open parenthesis) to get third word, fourth word, etc. Rather than repeating that part of the expression, you can use parenthesis and counts (usually {n,m}) for this in most engines.
From TFA: Companies and other enterprises where multiple computers have access to one network however, would instead be required to install firewalls to prevent workers from illegal downloading.
OK, here ya go:
:-)
How on earth can the entire command staff of the Enterprise be that young? They don't require people to have serious experience (time in the field) before they can get to positions of that much responsibility?
An adolescent captain just looks wrong...
At least they got that right in (most) of the other Treks.
Other than that, nice pics; love the angry Spock one
So is it pronounced like "Kwantas" or like "Kantas"?
I mean, a moderately complex program can easily produce the non-sensical speech of a contemporary teenager. Perhaps Jabberwocky was talking for 11 hours to itself? How would it know the difference?
The Thomas Covenant series by Stephen Donaldson; likewise controversial (deals with a man's struggle with lepracy) but not so violent and very good food for thought. The Gap series by the same author is much more brutal so maybe for the later years as well.
Repeated warning: read them yourself first, if you haven't already done so.
For market reach: Spanish (opens up most of LatAm) and you can extend that to include (Brazilian) Portuguese without too much trouble, Chinese (obvious), Arabic (opens up a huge swath of the Middle East), Swedish (opens up much of the Nordics)
For fun: Italian (absolutely beautiful to hear spoken well and makes non-Italian women swoon), Esperanto (is relatively easy and will make you understandable to just about all Roman and Germanic language speakers), Dutch (if you want to exercise muscles in your throat you never knew you had), Slovenian/Czech (lots of interesting pain in East European culture but you need the language to appreciate it), Japanese (to be amazed about and get rid of your own preconceptions)
For mind expansion: Koshian languages (mentioned elsewhere), Latin and ancient Greek, Romansh, Swahili, Gaelic, Japanese, Indonesian
Forget about French and German unless you have specific reasons to learn those.
So take your pick, but do it as soon as possible: learning a new language is going to be really, really hard once you're past 30, unless you have a knack for it.
French is not going to do much for you in the Netherlands...
No, there isn't. There's an "h" in the word "where", not in the word "were".
Asking potential customers first if they want to pay for it and then negotiating a price, will almost certainly lead to very limited profit margins (since you're limiting your maximum revenue up-front).
So, the model you propose may work in some industries (mostly industries that can't scale cost-efficiently) but not if the alternative potentially leads to profits that are an order of magnitude or two bigger. This difference in potential profit even justifies investing in preventing/fighting piracy, since that's a relatively minor additional cost. Hence DRM and court cases.
With a one-party system, the people's choice us much clearer as well as more effective: live with your crap one party or stage a revolution.
Not a physicist myself, so looking for enlightment from one...
Actually, when referring to natural languages like English, when something becomes "common usage" it is linguistically correct by definition, as the langague is defined by its use (regardless of what the OED or some academic may tell you).
If you play once, there are only two possible outcomes: it's either Heads or it's Tails. You picked one when playing (say you picked Heads). Of all possible outcomes (two), your choice (or ticket) is one of them, so you a one to two chance of winning (or 1/2 which is 50%).
Now take playing twice. The possible outcomes are:
So, there are four possible outcomes. Now let's say you chose Heads for the first and Heads for the second drawing. What are you chances of winning *something*?
To win something, one of the two or both drawings must score. You have Heads+Heads. Of all the outcomes, this gives you a win for possible outcomes 1, 2 and 3 as they have a Heads in there, so that's 3 out of 4 or 75%. So, playing twice, you have a 75% chance of winning something. This is obviously not twice as much as 50%, so the answer to your question is "No".
Notes:
At that frequency, the signal wouldn't penetrate walls very well, would it?