I also don't want to live in a world where lawnmowers need to contain warnings that basically say "don't touch the spinning blades, you could loose a hand"
It's nearing that point -- you'd be surprised by how many people, including those responsible for writing warning labels, cannot tell the difference between "lose", which is a verb similar in meaning "to misplace", and "loose", which is an adjective meaning "not tight".
I agree that it's difficult to understand how anyone prone to such simple mistakes could make it far beyond minimum wage. Perhaps the English requirements for writers of documentation and warning labels aren't quite what they should be.
Google is your friend. I found a good example quickly, about the fourth entry (one of the first three is the result of the submitter having asked this exact question on oreillynet.com):
There's an example of what looks like a good solution used at https://www.theperlreview.com/cgi-bin/subscribe.cg i/up
They make some fields required (name and country would make sense) and others (such as state) are marked "required for some countries", with a big freeform text area marked "Mailing label" with the text "International subscribers: You can tell us what your mailing label should be, following your country's address format".
This seems a fair way of doing so, and that which fails your parser's ability to determine (ie, countries for which you don't know the convention) can be checked manually, with an additional contact-the-customer-and-verify step if you are really unsure.
As you contact customers and learn more about their specific formatting needs, update your parser -- use it to check the freeform address format, and perhaps warn the user if it doesn't seem to be valid (but allow them to continue anyways).
Tim reveals where the idea for XML actually came from: Tim's work on the OED at Waterloo.
If you believe that "OED" will be misunderstood by enough people to justify enclosing it with a link to a definition, why not just spell out "Oxford English Dictionary"?
"Hmmm, OED might be unclear to tons of people reading this, I'll make them have to click on a link to know what I'm talking about."
Obligatory relation to discussion content:
Providing a link instead of writing a clear summary is choosing the wrong tool for the task at hand. Authors of some other comments in this thread have shown that XML also is the wrong tool for many of the tasks to which it is applied. Whether it's passing data internally within an application or summarizing an article for the homepage, choosing the right alternative can make a difference between efficient clarity and an inelegant kludge.
Applying the right algorithmic tool to the right problem is actually a focus of CS. This is why sorting routines are often studied -- for instance, a routine which is more efficient at sorting millions of unordered pieces of data may be very wasteful when dealing with nearly presorted data.
The distinction is not often understood and has more of an impact that the observer might think. For instance, when writing an application for a handheld in which data is kept sorted and is usually viewed between insertions it makes sense to sort after every data element added to the database. However, this means adding a single item to a mostly-ordered set. Understanding that quicksort is a poor choice for this application means a difference in battery life.
To me, the idea of copywritten works becoming public property after a limited period of time means that the authors and pushishers of useful work could benefit enough to compensate them for the time they spent creating the works.
The public would also benefit, as useful works would become public property, allowing others to build on them. This is the basis of scientific advancement, as a discovery often leads to more discoveries, but only if the initial work can be used as a foundation for later efforts. Instead of being forced to replicate previous work, science can focus their efforts more productively on bridging the gap between what has been produced and what hasn't.
In order to allow authors and inventors to receive benefit from their labors and also "[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" by allowing derivative efforts, Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution allows Congress to secure "for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".
Society benefits when originators of new work receive just compensation; this is incentive for others to similarly create useful works. It also benefits when those creating new works can draw from a wider body of knowledge, as would be created by allowing more works to enter the public domain.
Does the side siding against sharing works through P2P feel that the length of copyright terms is optimal? In other words, does the current copyright term, which extends 70 years beyond the author's own ability to benefit from their own works, represent the best balance between compensating creators for their efforts and the public's right to use works as the basis for future progress?
It was an attempted rib at my American lack of familiarity with the authoritative English. I used to play an online game with some nice fellows on the other side of the Atlantic, and I was often the butt of jokes about certain spellings (honor, color, and so on).
It's amazing how easy it is to get labelled a troll, though -- I had honestly checked before posting. Stupid bitch-ass mods.
Thanks for the info anyways. I've often seen "whinge" and assumed it was similar to "alot" or "goto", which are naughty for obvious reasons.
That's using "goto" instead of "go to", not programmatically. This is Slashdot, of course, but programmatically it's naughty for reasons other than grammar.
Though my cats are definitely better than yours.;)
Bah. Leave it to the UK to randoumly insergt letters wheure they doun't beloung.
Just be glad we named our language after you, and some darned tasty muffins too.
Forget it. I can't rightfully rib you about how Americans have bastardized everything we've ever touched -- the local news is on, and holy shit we sound retarded even to my ears.
It wasn't meant as a troll, I seriously checked define:whinge before posting and didn't find an entry. This shows why I should stick with www.m-w.com, which has been a long-term favorite.
I'm a little unclear as to how being able to target a given transmitter depends on whether that transmitter is willing to engage in data transfers with you.
The device must be sending a signal, otherwise your device wouldn't be aware of it, period.
Or am I missing something here? I don't see how devices discover each other without them both communicating their presence.
That works as long as your government is trustworthy. As it is, I'm quite glad I have the option not to be forced to be sent overseas to fuck up countries without the consent of their populace.
Although I do think that it would force our legislators to consider their actions a little more fully if it were their own sons and daughters being sent to die, and to kill the innocent.
I would disagree -- two hundred years later, the only thing that makes me think that the use for a firearm would ever arise is still my government.
My fellow citizens elected George Bush -- to paraphrase Catch-22, "everywhere I look is a nut, and it's all a sensible young gentleman like myself can do to maintain his perspective amid so much madness".
It's a nation with enough sheep to blindly trust whatever is told them by whomever thumps their chest the hardest. Would that my government held themselves to the same standards they impose upon everyone else, I wouldn't wonder about the need to defend America from anything.
Regarding the Department of Homeland Insecurity, FUDrakers, the lot of 'em, but when you've got the schools telling you from youth not to question the ones in charge, the local news tells you about how much better we all are now that you can't bring so much as a Bic lighter on an airplane, and the President of the Yoo-nited States himself telling you how much you're in danger, and that it's all Saddam's fault despite the lack of indicators that he did anything wrong at all other than be a general shit within the boundaries of his own country, it's understandable that those wanting to be good little citizens would gladly agree to show their papers when boarding flights, without question.
Does the right to bear arms act to keep the government from etching away at personal freedoms? No, because while we might have the right to own arms, the right to bear them has been long tossed aside. In fact, one of the quickest ways to get arrested would be to bear a firearm while expressing your dislike for the general invasion of privacy and standing in a public setting.
I guess the point is that the right to bear arms was intended by those who ran from a shitty government to protect us from a shitty government of our own, which is a noble cause. Heck, it's what they tell me America is supposed to be about -- allowing the citizens to enjoy personal freedoms unavailable elsewhere.
On the other hand, I'd wager that most MP3 swapping networks were intended to provide routes for copyright infringement, no matter how much people stand up and cry "there are legitimate uses!"
I don't think the two are that related, but people keep bringing up the gun-control thing in relation to P2P. It's interesting, though, that your reaction to my defense of the second amendment is so like the reaction of my government to those who defend of privacy -- by claiming that I don't need it (guns or privacy) unless I'm afraid of something, and that if I have nothing to fear I'd have no use for it.
Not quite -- ICBM's are a good way to ensure mutual destruction. If you want to take the land that is America, that means occupation, not throwing explosives from afar.
It's "funny" because the unwashed populace has historically been a huge pain in the ass of occupying forces.
I'm saying that the second amendment was intended to give the power of defense to the people -- be it defense from their own government, or defense from would-be invaders.
Can you provide an interpretation of the second amendment that runs counter to that statement?
This seems offtopic, but the gun analogy is used time and time again to relate to use of P2P, so apparently others don't quite think discussion of guns in a P2P argument is out of place.
Here's a serious question for you -- why has nobody ever attempted to invade America?
Have you read the Bill of Rights?
2. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Short, isn't it? But what's the point? What's it talking about?
What it says is this: the security of a free state depends on a well-regulated militia, which itself is provided by a well-armed populace.
Since it's unlikely that the founding fathers intended to force members of a free nation to participate in military action without their consent (see, for instance, Amendment #3, which addresses providing quarter to soldiers) it is reasonable to claim that they meant for the populace to both keep and bear arms on a strictly voluntary basis.
Why would the populace keep and bear arms on a voluntary basis? According to the quoted text, it's to further the "security of a free state".
You could restate the Second Amendment as the following:
2. The only sure way to defend this country from invasion is through a well-armed militia. If citizens are allowed to keep and bear arms, they'll have a hell of a time taking over, since as Americans we'd rather be dead than have our freedom restricted.
I've been thinking lately about a similar device for an in-car player/media station which would combine an in-dash slot-loading drive (Pioneer makes them, such as the DVD-106s or similar) with a small PC with a local hard drive and 802.11.
You could pop a new CD into the drive on the way home/to work/wherever, and the system would recognize it as a new device, automatically ripping it. With multi-session, it shouldn't be a problem to rip while playing. When you return home (or anywhere with an 802.11 connection) the system would automatically pull down CDDB data, and assuming your access point's range included your garage the ripped album could be sent automatically to a process running on a local machine.
I hadn't thought about using iPods, et. al to push the music to, but it's a neat application. Problems to be solved include needing a simple daemon to notify of media change (think famd for removable media). There's an ioctl for it, and I have a clip of reference code for those interested, but I haven't determined whether polling for change will force a drive close (or with a slot-loading drive, simply pulling the disc back in) any time the software polls for change.
Aside from that, a process to control ripping and encoding gracefully in the event of system shutdown or the user removing the disc would be needed. Also on the wish list would be a process which would wait for an available Internet connection to poll CDDB data when possible. Bonus points would be given if the process would realize when you're on a home LAN and push the music to your "main" PC.
But using Base-10 for those conversions is a major headache, especially for bakers, carpenters, and anybody who has to frequently divide by 2, 3, or 4.
Baking is always cited as a reason for using imperial units. I enjoy making bread on a regular basis, and occasionally other baked tasty things, and let me tell you the Imperial system is virtually worthless when dealing with flour and to a lesser extent sugar and salt.
Any good bread recipe targeting the average American baker will usually state something to the effect of "3 to 4 1/2 cups of flour". That's not because the person writing the recipe didn't feel like specifying greater accuracy -- it's because volume is a horrible way of measuring flour.
To properly measure a cup of flour involves fluffing up the flour, gently filling your measure, and sweeping the excess off of the top. This is a pain and a mess -- you try effectively fluffing flour without creating a dust cloud, keeping in mind that this will often be done in a kitchen and that a cloud of flour is quite easy to ignite. Even when consistent measuring techniques are used the amount of flour in a given volume can vary considerably due to other factors, including the mill of the flour itself.
Generally, the experienced bread maker will start with an amount of flour that they know to be less than what they need, and work in extra flour as needed. This works with breads meant to be chewy, but as working the dough makes it more elastic this is less than ideal for more delicate items such as biscuits.
Things are further complicated when using volume to measure salt or sugar -- flake size can vary significantly, and the amount of variation in a tablespoon of salt (especially kosher salt, which has a generally large flake size and is easier to work with in the kitchen) can make a notable difference in the final flavor. Equal weights of sugars provide equal sweetening, but a cup of white sugar, brown sugar, and confectioner's sugar might weight 200, 220, and 120 grams respectively. Again flake size within the individual types of sugar varies from manufacturer to manufacturer. In addition to changing the texture and flavor of the product sugar affects the rise time and quality when yeasts are involved. Too much, and the product will expand too much, ruining the texture. Dough for breads is often worked, left to rise for flavor development, and then shaped into its final form and allowed to rise again. Too little sugar, and the dough's first rise may be its last, leaving you with a surprisingly dense and hard dough brick after baking.
By purchasing a quality digital kitchen scale, the baker can place the container to be filled on the scale, "zero out" the scale (which tells the scale to treat the reading it is currently getting as its "zero mass" point), and fill the container to the desired amount. This leads to easier conversion between various types of sugars, salts, and flours, including unintentional conversions when your particular brand of kosher salt has a larger flake size than that used by the person who wrote the recipe.
I just don't follow the justification that bakers have to commonly divide by 2, 3, or anything for that matter. Few people find, say, 1/3 cup by starting with a cup and dividing it into three parts. Even something such as filling a one-cup measure exactly halfway with flour or moleasses is quite difficult!
I'd say that it's just as easy given the proper tools, and more accurate in terms of the actual amount of the ingredient involved, to measure 50 grams of sugar as it is to measure 1/4 cup. In either case, nobody is dividing anything, simply using the proper measuring device. In the case of the recipe calling for 40 grams of sugar, though, the SI system has a clear advantage. The SI baker would add to the scale until it read 40g. How about 40 grams of sugar (80% of 1/4 cup) in terms of standard Imperial measuring devices?
Google calculator gives "80% of ((1/4) US cup) = 4
In that case, you wouldn't have a perfect credit rating -- you'd have no credit history, which most institutions consider as bad as a poor credit history.
Sure, having no credit can be difficult, but you can build up a fair amount of credit during the seven years it takes derogatory credit history to expire from your credit report, or the five years you're paying your bills with postal money orders because you can't open a bank account because you're listed on ChexSystems.
For those who aren't familiar, ChexSystems is the agency to whom account-related naughtiness is reported by banks, generally when an account is closed in an "unsatisfactory" manner.
Banks generally consult the information maintained by Chex before opening accounts. If you're listed, you can generally kiss your chances of being able to open a bank account goodbye, no matter why you were listed. I've worked in banking, and I can tell you that no matter how hard the push for meeting sales goals the chances of getting someone to open an account when you're listed with Chex is basically nil.
I've seen many people with no credit, and many with bad credit. Can you support your assertion that "most institutions consider [no credit] as bad as a poor credit"?
The parent's explanation wouldn't have made a lick of sense to anyone who hadn't already heard of NP, and wouldn't parse much better for those who had.
Thanks for writing an informed explanation. It's still a tad above the heads of the masses (of which I'm a card-carrying member -- goooo flock!), but I'll take commentary written for a higher level of readership over a poorly related summary of CS buzzwords any day.
For those impaired, this isn't sarcastic -- this is one of the few posts in this discussion that deserves to be modded to +5. Instead we have high ratings on "well, let's overreact and pretend we're qualified to declare SHA-1 useless as a general-purpose hash function despite not having read the paper or understood the math involved!"
I'd like to see large organizations that realize a quantifiable savings due to the use of OSS contribute a small portion of the savings back to the projects that made it possible.
If using OOooo.oOo could save them 5.2 million, how about a one-time gift of 5% of the annual savings to the project leaders? Saving a net of $4.94 million would still be a huge boost to the budget, and I'm sure that OOooO could benefit quite a bit from a one-time $260k donation.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that it's difficult to understand how anyone prone to such simple mistakes could make it far beyond minimum wage. Perhaps the English requirements for writers of documentation and warning labels aren't quite what they should be.
For days I've wished for a post worth modding up, and now that my points have expired I come across this one. What a summary of the mess we're in!
Google is your friend. I found a good example quickly, about the fourth entry (one of the first three is the result of the submitter having asked this exact question on oreillynet.com):
g i/up
There's an example of what looks like a good solution used at https://www.theperlreview.com/cgi-bin/subscribe.c
They make some fields required (name and country would make sense) and others (such as state) are marked "required for some countries", with a big freeform text area marked "Mailing label" with the text "International subscribers: You can tell us what your mailing label should be, following your country's address format".
This seems a fair way of doing so, and that which fails your parser's ability to determine (ie, countries for which you don't know the convention) can be checked manually, with an additional contact-the-customer-and-verify step if you are really unsure.
As you contact customers and learn more about their specific formatting needs, update your parser -- use it to check the freeform address format, and perhaps warn the user if it doesn't seem to be valid (but allow them to continue anyways).
"Hmmm, OED might be unclear to tons of people reading this, I'll make them have to click on a link to know what I'm talking about."
Obligatory relation to discussion content:
Providing a link instead of writing a clear summary is choosing the wrong tool for the task at hand. Authors of some other comments in this thread have shown that XML also is the wrong tool for many of the tasks to which it is applied. Whether it's passing data internally within an application or summarizing an article for the homepage, choosing the right alternative can make a difference between efficient clarity and an inelegant kludge.
Applying the right algorithmic tool to the right problem is actually a focus of CS. This is why sorting routines are often studied -- for instance, a routine which is more efficient at sorting millions of unordered pieces of data may be very wasteful when dealing with nearly presorted data.
The distinction is not often understood and has more of an impact that the observer might think. For instance, when writing an application for a handheld in which data is kept sorted and is usually viewed between insertions it makes sense to sort after every data element added to the database. However, this means adding a single item to a mostly-ordered set. Understanding that quicksort is a poor choice for this application means a difference in battery life.
I think you may have misread. He said "blah blah blah instead using Data::Dumper", not "blah blah blah instead of using Data::Dumper".
If you haven't misread, your post was a little unclear, but I thought I'd respond by posting instead of with a nondescript "Overrated" mod.
To me, the idea of copywritten works becoming public property after a limited period of time means that the authors and pushishers of useful work could benefit enough to compensate them for the time they spent creating the works.
The public would also benefit, as useful works would become public property, allowing others to build on them. This is the basis of scientific advancement, as a discovery often leads to more discoveries, but only if the initial work can be used as a foundation for later efforts. Instead of being forced to replicate previous work, science can focus their efforts more productively on bridging the gap between what has been produced and what hasn't.
In order to allow authors and inventors to receive benefit from their labors and also "[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" by allowing derivative efforts, Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution allows Congress to secure "for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".
Society benefits when originators of new work receive just compensation; this is incentive for others to similarly create useful works. It also benefits when those creating new works can draw from a wider body of knowledge, as would be created by allowing more works to enter the public domain.
Does the side siding against sharing works through P2P feel that the length of copyright terms is optimal? In other words, does the current copyright term, which extends 70 years beyond the author's own ability to benefit from their own works, represent the best balance between compensating creators for their efforts and the public's right to use works as the basis for future progress?
That's fucking hilarious. I almost spat bagel chunks.
;)
In case you come back to check replies, thanks for the laugh.
It was an attempted rib at my American lack of familiarity with the authoritative English. I used to play an online game with some nice fellows on the other side of the Atlantic, and I was often the butt of jokes about certain spellings (honor, color, and so on).
;)
It's amazing how easy it is to get labelled a troll, though -- I had honestly checked before posting. Stupid bitch-ass mods.
Thanks for the info anyways. I've often seen "whinge" and assumed it was similar to "alot" or "goto", which are naughty for obvious reasons.
That's using "goto" instead of "go to", not programmatically. This is Slashdot, of course, but programmatically it's naughty for reasons other than grammar.
Though my cats are definitely better than yours.
Bah. Leave it to the UK to randoumly insergt letters wheure they doun't beloung.
Just be glad we named our language after you, and some darned tasty muffins too.
Forget it. I can't rightfully rib you about how Americans have bastardized everything we've ever touched -- the local news is on, and holy shit we sound retarded even to my ears.
It wasn't meant as a troll, I seriously checked define:whinge before posting and didn't find an entry. This shows why I should stick with www.m-w.com, which has been a long-term favorite.
Have a nice day.
It must not be that old -- apparently you haven't had time to try "define:whinge"...
(Hint: it's whine).
I'm a little unclear as to how being able to target a given transmitter depends on whether that transmitter is willing to engage in data transfers with you.
The device must be sending a signal, otherwise your device wouldn't be aware of it, period.
Or am I missing something here? I don't see how devices discover each other without them both communicating their presence.
Damned good question. Where are the mod points?
That works as long as your government is trustworthy. As it is, I'm quite glad I have the option not to be forced to be sent overseas to fuck up countries without the consent of their populace.
Although I do think that it would force our legislators to consider their actions a little more fully if it were their own sons and daughters being sent to die, and to kill the innocent.
I would disagree -- two hundred years later, the only thing that makes me think that the use for a firearm would ever arise is still my government.
My fellow citizens elected George Bush -- to paraphrase Catch-22, "everywhere I look is a nut, and it's all a sensible young gentleman like myself can do to maintain his perspective amid so much madness".
It's a nation with enough sheep to blindly trust whatever is told them by whomever thumps their chest the hardest. Would that my government held themselves to the same standards they impose upon everyone else, I wouldn't wonder about the need to defend America from anything.
Regarding the Department of Homeland Insecurity, FUDrakers, the lot of 'em, but when you've got the schools telling you from youth not to question the ones in charge, the local news tells you about how much better we all are now that you can't bring so much as a Bic lighter on an airplane, and the President of the Yoo-nited States himself telling you how much you're in danger, and that it's all Saddam's fault despite the lack of indicators that he did anything wrong at all other than be a general shit within the boundaries of his own country, it's understandable that those wanting to be good little citizens would gladly agree to show their papers when boarding flights, without question.
Does the right to bear arms act to keep the government from etching away at personal freedoms? No, because while we might have the right to own arms, the right to bear them has been long tossed aside. In fact, one of the quickest ways to get arrested would be to bear a firearm while expressing your dislike for the general invasion of privacy and standing in a public setting.
I guess the point is that the right to bear arms was intended by those who ran from a shitty government to protect us from a shitty government of our own, which is a noble cause. Heck, it's what they tell me America is supposed to be about -- allowing the citizens to enjoy personal freedoms unavailable elsewhere.
On the other hand, I'd wager that most MP3 swapping networks were intended to provide routes for copyright infringement, no matter how much people stand up and cry "there are legitimate uses!"
I don't think the two are that related, but people keep bringing up the gun-control thing in relation to P2P. It's interesting, though, that your reaction to my defense of the second amendment is so like the reaction of my government to those who defend of privacy -- by claiming that I don't need it (guns or privacy) unless I'm afraid of something, and that if I have nothing to fear I'd have no use for it.
Not quite -- ICBM's are a good way to ensure mutual destruction. If you want to take the land that is America, that means occupation, not throwing explosives from afar.
It's "funny" because the unwashed populace has historically been a huge pain in the ass of occupying forces.
I'm saying that the second amendment was intended to give the power of defense to the people -- be it defense from their own government, or defense from would-be invaders.
Can you provide an interpretation of the second amendment that runs counter to that statement?
Here's a serious question for you -- why has nobody ever attempted to invade America?
Have you read the Bill of Rights?
Short, isn't it? But what's the point? What's it talking about?
What it says is this: the security of a free state depends on a well-regulated militia, which itself is provided by a well-armed populace.
Since it's unlikely that the founding fathers intended to force members of a free nation to participate in military action without their consent (see, for instance, Amendment #3, which addresses providing quarter to soldiers) it is reasonable to claim that they meant for the populace to both keep and bear arms on a strictly voluntary basis.
Why would the populace keep and bear arms on a voluntary basis? According to the quoted text, it's to further the "security of a free state".
You could restate the Second Amendment as the following:
Thoughts?
I've been thinking lately about a similar device for an in-car player/media station which would combine an in-dash slot-loading drive (Pioneer makes them, such as the DVD-106s or similar) with a small PC with a local hard drive and 802.11.
You could pop a new CD into the drive on the way home/to work/wherever, and the system would recognize it as a new device, automatically ripping it. With multi-session, it shouldn't be a problem to rip while playing. When you return home (or anywhere with an 802.11 connection) the system would automatically pull down CDDB data, and assuming your access point's range included your garage the ripped album could be sent automatically to a process running on a local machine.
I hadn't thought about using iPods, et. al to push the music to, but it's a neat application. Problems to be solved include needing a simple daemon to notify of media change (think famd for removable media). There's an ioctl for it, and I have a clip of reference code for those interested, but I haven't determined whether polling for change will force a drive close (or with a slot-loading drive, simply pulling the disc back in) any time the software polls for change.
Aside from that, a process to control ripping and encoding gracefully in the event of system shutdown or the user removing the disc would be needed. Also on the wish list would be a process which would wait for an available Internet connection to poll CDDB data when possible. Bonus points would be given if the process would realize when you're on a home LAN and push the music to your "main" PC.
Suuuuure... Any other FUD, for us, MSFanBoi?
I mean, it's not like people can simply take pictures of screens that don't exist! It's posted on the Internet, it must be true!
Baking is always cited as a reason for using imperial units. I enjoy making bread on a regular basis, and occasionally other baked tasty things, and let me tell you the Imperial system is virtually worthless when dealing with flour and to a lesser extent sugar and salt.
Any good bread recipe targeting the average American baker will usually state something to the effect of "3 to 4 1/2 cups of flour". That's not because the person writing the recipe didn't feel like specifying greater accuracy -- it's because volume is a horrible way of measuring flour.
To properly measure a cup of flour involves fluffing up the flour, gently filling your measure, and sweeping the excess off of the top. This is a pain and a mess -- you try effectively fluffing flour without creating a dust cloud, keeping in mind that this will often be done in a kitchen and that a cloud of flour is quite easy to ignite. Even when consistent measuring techniques are used the amount of flour in a given volume can vary considerably due to other factors, including the mill of the flour itself.
Generally, the experienced bread maker will start with an amount of flour that they know to be less than what they need, and work in extra flour as needed. This works with breads meant to be chewy, but as working the dough makes it more elastic this is less than ideal for more delicate items such as biscuits.
Things are further complicated when using volume to measure salt or sugar -- flake size can vary significantly, and the amount of variation in a tablespoon of salt (especially kosher salt, which has a generally large flake size and is easier to work with in the kitchen) can make a notable difference in the final flavor. Equal weights of sugars provide equal sweetening, but a cup of white sugar, brown sugar, and confectioner's sugar might weight 200, 220, and 120 grams respectively. Again flake size within the individual types of sugar varies from manufacturer to manufacturer. In addition to changing the texture and flavor of the product sugar affects the rise time and quality when yeasts are involved. Too much, and the product will expand too much, ruining the texture. Dough for breads is often worked, left to rise for flavor development, and then shaped into its final form and allowed to rise again. Too little sugar, and the dough's first rise may be its last, leaving you with a surprisingly dense and hard dough brick after baking.
By purchasing a quality digital kitchen scale, the baker can place the container to be filled on the scale, "zero out" the scale (which tells the scale to treat the reading it is currently getting as its "zero mass" point), and fill the container to the desired amount. This leads to easier conversion between various types of sugars, salts, and flours, including unintentional conversions when your particular brand of kosher salt has a larger flake size than that used by the person who wrote the recipe.
I just don't follow the justification that bakers have to commonly divide by 2, 3, or anything for that matter. Few people find, say, 1/3 cup by starting with a cup and dividing it into three parts. Even something such as filling a one-cup measure exactly halfway with flour or moleasses is quite difficult!
I'd say that it's just as easy given the proper tools, and more accurate in terms of the actual amount of the ingredient involved, to measure 50 grams of sugar as it is to measure 1/4 cup. In either case, nobody is dividing anything, simply using the proper measuring device. In the case of the recipe calling for 40 grams of sugar, though, the SI system has a clear advantage. The SI baker would add to the scale until it read 40g. How about 40 grams of sugar (80% of 1/4 cup) in terms of standard Imperial measuring devices?
Google calculator gives "80% of ((1/4) US cup) = 4
Sure, having no credit can be difficult, but you can build up a fair amount of credit during the seven years it takes derogatory credit history to expire from your credit report, or the five years you're paying your bills with postal money orders because you can't open a bank account because you're listed on ChexSystems.
For those who aren't familiar, ChexSystems is the agency to whom account-related naughtiness is reported by banks, generally when an account is closed in an "unsatisfactory" manner.
Banks generally consult the information maintained by Chex before opening accounts. If you're listed, you can generally kiss your chances of being able to open a bank account goodbye, no matter why you were listed. I've worked in banking, and I can tell you that no matter how hard the push for meeting sales goals the chances of getting someone to open an account when you're listed with Chex is basically nil.
I've seen many people with no credit, and many with bad credit. Can you support your assertion that "most institutions consider [no credit] as bad as a poor credit"?
Wow, I don't think I've ever fit more than around two hundred songs on a CD.
How will skirting copy protection allow me to make CDs that hold hundreds of thousands?
Where, oh where, have my mod points gone...
The parent's explanation wouldn't have made a lick of sense to anyone who hadn't already heard of NP, and wouldn't parse much better for those who had.
Thanks for writing an informed explanation. It's still a tad above the heads of the masses (of which I'm a card-carrying member -- goooo flock!), but I'll take commentary written for a higher level of readership over a poorly related summary of CS buzzwords any day.
For those impaired, this isn't sarcastic -- this is one of the few posts in this discussion that deserves to be modded to +5. Instead we have high ratings on "well, let's overreact and pretend we're qualified to declare SHA-1 useless as a general-purpose hash function despite not having read the paper or understood the math involved!"
I'd like to see large organizations that realize a quantifiable savings due to the use of OSS contribute a small portion of the savings back to the projects that made it possible.
If using OOooo.oOo could save them 5.2 million, how about a one-time gift of 5% of the annual savings to the project leaders? Saving a net of $4.94 million would still be a huge boost to the budget, and I'm sure that OOooO could benefit quite a bit from a one-time $260k donation.
But slightly less in the dark than before I suggested trying cron and make, right? Then why attack my suggestion? Does it make you feel special?
Congratulations, you're special. Just like every other flamebaiting troll.