A nuclear power plant rated at 1GW will deliver this and is capable of delivering it for months without a break.
While it's true there's a big difference in peak output and what you really get (this is called the capacity factor), nuclear reactors go down for maintenance too so on a yearly base you will not get 1 GW from your nuclear power plant. According to Wikipedia typical capacity factors are:
Photovoltaic solar in Massachusetts 12-15%. Photovoltaic solar in Arizona 19%. Nuclear energy 70% (1971-2009 average of USA's plants). Nuclear energy 91.2% (2010 average of USA's plants).
Huh? Have you ever tried this, or are you just arm-chair speculating? I don't have an algorithm working for me, so I have to spend time myself putting in offers. If it's not taken, it may expire and I'll have to put in another. So it certainly makes a difference for me. I have tried this, it did make a difference.
Of course, I can just pay whatever somebody is willing to sell for in this instant and hope that isn't snatched by someone else while I put it in. But that number is certainly higher if there's no marketmaker involved.
Similarly for the other direction, I haven't had to get to any of the funds I have invested yet, but I'm sure when I do, I'll be happy I can get them out quicker.
Do you think marketmaking is bad? It seems to me it makes it easier and quicker for a long-term private investor like me (pension funds mostly) to get into or out of a security.
As I see it, correct me if I'm wrong, algorithmic trading significantly lowers the cost of marketmaking, and while the subsecond part of it is obviously nuts, and actually raising costs so should be banned, the basic premise seems valid enough. Basically, in a fully algorithmic world, human daytraders have no place - and nothing of value was lost.
I am sorry, I think you got this wrong, your definition doesn't match what my book said ~ 10 years ago in an algorithms class in CS. That's probably why the Wikipedia article on O notation disagrees with you. The upper bound here doesn't mean "worst case", it means you don't need to look at bounds that scale worse.
Now what's a bit sloppy is the fact that you can also say that a hash implementation is O(n^3) or O(e^n), because it is bounded from above by those. That's why, strictly speaking, you ought to use theta. But people just don't do that, and theta is kind of stupid too for everyday use because it's not in the ASCII set. Unfortunate historical accident if you ask me.
Also if you seriously think homophobic rules have nothing to do with irrational fears, you're missing something. Of course, nobody's going to state irrational fear as a reason.
"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they allow disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children now are tyrants, not the servants of their households. [...] They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.”... attributed to Socrates.
Of course it depends on the institution. It also depends on the teachers unless there's a system in place to constantly reevaluate the teachers, something I have never heard of for any school other than the so-called democratic schools, like the Sudbury.
Reelights and Free Lights are examples of non-friction (in the mechanical sense) dynamos that are becoming quite popular. They don't generate an awful lot of power, but enough for LED safety lights, which is all you need if you live in a city with street lamps.
On the flip side, it's obviously less intuitive with unmaximised windows (what belongs together should be together).
Also, it's a trade-off. If you aren't using maximised windows, you have to move the mouse a longer distance, especially with a large screen. It doesn't help that today's screens are much wider. Of course, if you park the mouse next to the menu, you're all set.:)
Not that I care much, but there was a piece floating around a couple of years ago on Li-battery tech with some measurements. It's probably still on Google. The batteries degrade from heat. In other words, if you put cpuburn on the thing and let it sit for a year connected to AC, the battery may be pretty much dead.
When it comes to batteries, you shouldn't trust manufacturers.
I wonder if it would even work. Here in Denmark, there's a rule that if the company is still run from Denmark, it has to pay Danish tax, no matter where the on-paper HQ is registered.
Even worse, I've heard Americans call the kiwifruit a "kiwi", and a kiwi a "kiwi bird"!
Horrible, I say!
(Yes, I'm from Denmark. That makes me a Dane. No, we aren't edible, not even for breakfast. In Danish, a "Chinese" means a piece of firework that blows up with a bang. You should not be surprised the rest of the world does not speak newzealandian.)
Re:Catching up to ten-year-old XEmacs features
on
Emacs 24.1 Released
·
· Score: 2
I like the anthropomorphized phrasing - as if Emacs itself woke on one day and said, hey, I'm going to hack my Bazaar repository and implement those features that this other not-yet-self-aware fork has had for a decade.
Note that for Emacs, a decade is just the blink of an eye.
You'll want to remove the useless icon toolbar and perhaps customize the colors and size, but when you do that, it's just much, much better. For instance copy-pasting multiple lines with mouse from Emacs in a terminal window doesn't work properly.
I used to be like you when I started with Emacs back in the nineties, but things have changed.
And those countries usually limit who they allow to go to college rather than vocational school because of the costs associated with funding college.
It's free in Denmark. For some popular educations where society can't employ everyone there are limits based on your grades in high school, although there's usually a secondary quota allowed in. So if you really want to do it, you can do some other vaguely related stuff (like visiting a school abroad) and get some points to get in.
What's more the people who receive those degrees tend to make less than what their counterparts in the US do.
On the flip side, as I gather it's common for people in the US to stop at the bachelor level, which is definitly not the case for Denmark. You do know that if you want to live out the American dream, you'd better move to Denmark?
Agreed. You can always fix something for free if it turns out to be major blunder where the blame is clearly with you. But it's important to try to force the customer to do a proper acceptance test in a reasonable period of time.
Pretty moronic, given that KDE was there first, and GNOME only exists b'cos the FSF threw a stink about Qt's licensing. Once KDE went GPL, GNOME really lost its rationale for existing, particularly since it never fulfilled its raison d'etre - that of being a GNU Network Object Model Environment!
It's true that GNOME to some degree was started because of the licensing of Qt and got a lot of corporate backing out of that, but the rest of what you say is just stupid.
The people who started GNOME were architecture astronauting it with all the component stuff, that was back in the day when that was all the craze, then eventually figured out people don't care about components, they care about simple-to-use software. And components get in the way there because they make the software much more complex. That's why it was been pulled out again.
I think GNOME 3 happened to a large degree because GNOME 2 was perceived to be falling behind the new developments in Windows. And it was. Maybe not for you, but the GNOME team is trying to hit more mainstream users who like blingbling.
I'm happy we have two big desktop environments, it gives the whiners somewhere to go to.:)
And the best thing about this is that, by knowing design patterns, you are able to better express what you are doing and what you want others to do by referring to design patterns. For example, instead of talking about implementing a system of callbacks between a server and a set of clients by setting a common interface used to pass messages around and keep all clients coherent with the current state of the server... Just talk about implementing an observer pattern.
This is nice and all - but I find in practice that people who are all gung-ho on patterns spend most of the time up in a sky where what they say is correct, but not terribly relevant to getting things done. To use your example, if you talk about an observer pattern rather than describing the mechanism, you are providing much less information about what you're doing.
The principles themselves, as a sort of distilled experience, are important, no doubt about that.
Quite often you have an idiot reviewer who would sink the publication of a paper if not for an editor who recognizes the reviewer is an idiot.
One way to fix that is doing it in the open so people can learn who's usually a moron and who's not.
Or perhaps just let more people read the articles and vote on whether they found them useful or not. The whole small-committee-decides-the-fate idea makes less sense on the interwebs than it did in the old world.
Sure, most implementations will flush it out to disk in a reasonable amount of time, but that behaviour isn't guaranteed anywhere.
I think I know what you mean, but really, on what systems do writing data to a file not cause it to end up on the disk at same point? That's sort of the point of writing it to the file and having disks in the first place, isn't it?
As I understand it, the problem is that the POSIX API doesn't really contain a fine-grained way of indicating what should happen to the data, so essentially you only have the big hammer known as fsync.
According to this TED talk, if you want to live the American dream, statistically the best place to do it is Denmark with our relatively high taxation level and state-funded education (you get paid to study at university), health care, unemployment safety net etc.
If your internal libraries are proprietary, you'll need to be smart. Don't give away the source code - just the compiled libraries.
This raises a red flag to me. If you can't even trust them with some code of yours they need to complete the task, it's not going to work out. Step one in an efficient business relationship is establishing trust.
Slashdot Mirror
A nuclear power plant rated at 1GW will deliver this and is capable of delivering it for months without a break.
While it's true there's a big difference in peak output and what you really get (this is called the capacity factor), nuclear reactors go down for maintenance too so on a yearly base you will not get 1 GW from your nuclear power plant. According to Wikipedia typical capacity factors are:
Photovoltaic solar in Massachusetts 12-15%.
Photovoltaic solar in Arizona 19%.
Nuclear energy 70% (1971-2009 average of USA's plants).
Nuclear energy 91.2% (2010 average of USA's plants).
Huh? Have you ever tried this, or are you just arm-chair speculating? I don't have an algorithm working for me, so I have to spend time myself putting in offers. If it's not taken, it may expire and I'll have to put in another. So it certainly makes a difference for me. I have tried this, it did make a difference.
Of course, I can just pay whatever somebody is willing to sell for in this instant and hope that isn't snatched by someone else while I put it in. But that number is certainly higher if there's no marketmaker involved.
Similarly for the other direction, I haven't had to get to any of the funds I have invested yet, but I'm sure when I do, I'll be happy I can get them out quicker.
The sad fact is that it's probably easier to get Apple to behave than change the system.
...some real, possibly world-changing leaks stories instead of all the crap about Assange and his whereabouts.
There was a news report on Danish television about the Syrian regime and how it's treating dissidents. That was not pleasant to watch.
Do you think marketmaking is bad? It seems to me it makes it easier and quicker for a long-term private investor like me (pension funds mostly) to get into or out of a security.
As I see it, correct me if I'm wrong, algorithmic trading significantly lowers the cost of marketmaking, and while the subsecond part of it is obviously nuts, and actually raising costs so should be banned, the basic premise seems valid enough. Basically, in a fully algorithmic world, human daytraders have no place - and nothing of value was lost.
I am sorry, I think you got this wrong, your definition doesn't match what my book said ~ 10 years ago in an algorithms class in CS. That's probably why the Wikipedia article on O notation disagrees with you. The upper bound here doesn't mean "worst case", it means you don't need to look at bounds that scale worse.
Now what's a bit sloppy is the fact that you can also say that a hash implementation is O(n^3) or O(e^n), because it is bounded from above by those. That's why, strictly speaking, you ought to use theta. But people just don't do that, and theta is kind of stupid too for everyday use because it's not in the ASCII set. Unfortunate historical accident if you ask me.
Dude, you need to get out more often.
Besides, -phobic != has a psychological phobia. Take a look at this list (and don't miss this section which even lists homophobic).
Also if you seriously think homophobic rules have nothing to do with irrational fears, you're missing something. Of course, nobody's going to state irrational fear as a reason.
"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they allow disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children now are tyrants, not the servants of their households. [...] They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.” ... attributed to Socrates.
Do you have some source to back that up?
Of course it depends on the institution. It also depends on the teachers unless there's a system in place to constantly reevaluate the teachers, something I have never heard of for any school other than the so-called democratic schools, like the Sudbury.
... should mean that it'll run for many, many years without fault.
You're probably right, except for the battery. But if Apple will sell you a new one of those, you're fine.
Reelights and Free Lights are examples of non-friction (in the mechanical sense) dynamos that are becoming quite popular. They don't generate an awful lot of power, but enough for LED safety lights, which is all you need if you live in a city with street lamps.
On the flip side, it's obviously less intuitive with unmaximised windows (what belongs together should be together).
Also, it's a trade-off. If you aren't using maximised windows, you have to move the mouse a longer distance, especially with a large screen. It doesn't help that today's screens are much wider. Of course, if you park the mouse next to the menu, you're all set. :)
Not that I care much, but there was a piece floating around a couple of years ago on Li-battery tech with some measurements. It's probably still on Google. The batteries degrade from heat. In other words, if you put cpuburn on the thing and let it sit for a year connected to AC, the battery may be pretty much dead.
When it comes to batteries, you shouldn't trust manufacturers.
I wonder if it would even work. Here in Denmark, there's a rule that if the company is still run from Denmark, it has to pay Danish tax, no matter where the on-paper HQ is registered.
Even worse, I've heard Americans call the kiwifruit a "kiwi", and a kiwi a "kiwi bird"!
Horrible, I say!
(Yes, I'm from Denmark. That makes me a Dane. No, we aren't edible, not even for breakfast. In Danish, a "Chinese" means a piece of firework that blows up with a bang. You should not be surprised the rest of the world does not speak newzealandian.)
I like the anthropomorphized phrasing - as if Emacs itself woke on one day and said, hey, I'm going to hack my Bazaar repository and implement those features that this other not-yet-self-aware fork has had for a decade.
Note that for Emacs, a decade is just the blink of an eye.
You'll want to remove the useless icon toolbar and perhaps customize the colors and size, but when you do that, it's just much, much better. For instance copy-pasting multiple lines with mouse from Emacs in a terminal window doesn't work properly.
I used to be like you when I started with Emacs back in the nineties, but things have changed.
And those countries usually limit who they allow to go to college rather than vocational school because of the costs associated with funding college.
It's free in Denmark. For some popular educations where society can't employ everyone there are limits based on your grades in high school, although there's usually a secondary quota allowed in. So if you really want to do it, you can do some other vaguely related stuff (like visiting a school abroad) and get some points to get in.
What's more the people who receive those degrees tend to make less than what their counterparts in the US do.
On the flip side, as I gather it's common for people in the US to stop at the bachelor level, which is definitly not the case for Denmark. You do know that if you want to live out the American dream, you'd better move to Denmark?
Agreed. You can always fix something for free if it turns out to be major blunder where the blame is clearly with you. But it's important to try to force the customer to do a proper acceptance test in a reasonable period of time.
Pretty moronic, given that KDE was there first, and GNOME only exists b'cos the FSF threw a stink about Qt's licensing. Once KDE went GPL, GNOME really lost its rationale for existing, particularly since it never fulfilled its raison d'etre - that of being a GNU Network Object Model Environment!
It's true that GNOME to some degree was started because of the licensing of Qt and got a lot of corporate backing out of that, but the rest of what you say is just stupid.
The people who started GNOME were architecture astronauting it with all the component stuff, that was back in the day when that was all the craze, then eventually figured out people don't care about components, they care about simple-to-use software. And components get in the way there because they make the software much more complex. That's why it was been pulled out again.
I think GNOME 3 happened to a large degree because GNOME 2 was perceived to be falling behind the new developments in Windows. And it was. Maybe not for you, but the GNOME team is trying to hit more mainstream users who like blingbling.
I'm happy we have two big desktop environments, it gives the whiners somewhere to go to. :)
And the best thing about this is that, by knowing design patterns, you are able to better express what you are doing and what you want others to do by referring to design patterns. For example, instead of talking about implementing a system of callbacks between a server and a set of clients by setting a common interface used to pass messages around and keep all clients coherent with the current state of the server... Just talk about implementing an observer pattern.
This is nice and all - but I find in practice that people who are all gung-ho on patterns spend most of the time up in a sky where what they say is correct, but not terribly relevant to getting things done. To use your example, if you talk about an observer pattern rather than describing the mechanism, you are providing much less information about what you're doing.
The principles themselves, as a sort of distilled experience, are important, no doubt about that.
Quite often you have an idiot reviewer who would sink the publication of a paper if not for an editor who recognizes the reviewer is an idiot.
One way to fix that is doing it in the open so people can learn who's usually a moron and who's not.
Or perhaps just let more people read the articles and vote on whether they found them useful or not. The whole small-committee-decides-the-fate idea makes less sense on the interwebs than it did in the old world.
Sure, most implementations will flush it out to disk in a reasonable amount of time, but that behaviour isn't guaranteed anywhere.
I think I know what you mean, but really, on what systems do writing data to a file not cause it to end up on the disk at same point? That's sort of the point of writing it to the file and having disks in the first place, isn't it?
As I understand it, the problem is that the POSIX API doesn't really contain a fine-grained way of indicating what should happen to the data, so essentially you only have the big hammer known as fsync.
According to this TED talk, if you want to live the American dream, statistically the best place to do it is Denmark with our relatively high taxation level and state-funded education (you get paid to study at university), health care, unemployment safety net etc.
If your internal libraries are proprietary, you'll need to be smart. Don't give away the source code - just the compiled libraries.
This raises a red flag to me. If you can't even trust them with some code of yours they need to complete the task, it's not going to work out. Step one in an efficient business relationship is establishing trust.