but that doesn't mean i myself have to be ignorant of the true innovators in this world. nor should you
You *think* you know that the developers Firefox, Opera and Safari created all those innovations. However, any given technological advance usually turn out to actually have been first created by some obscure 19th century Italian inventor who ended up dying penniless.
I wonder if it'd be possible to reconstruct the signal. We know what the signal is supposed to look like, and should be able to find out what's different.
I suggest calling up Jeff Goldblum to see if he can take a crack at this by plugging the signal into his laptop.
Supersonic jets are more difficult than subsonic jets
Interestingly, the useful speed limit of supersonic jets seems to have been exceeded decades ago, and they've abandoned the fastest designs. The B-58, B-70, SR-71, B-1A and Concorde are all defunct and have not been replaced with anything nearly as fast. They've given up. There are a few fast manned fighter planes, but the emphasis today is on gas mileage, not pure speed, and manned fighters may be on the way out in general.
Sometimes certain gee-whiz technologies just really don't turn out to be practical in the real world.
Human brains have a low clock speed, and each processor (neuron) is quite small, but there are a lot of them working at once.
The brain's trillions of 3D interconnections blow away anything that has ever been produced on 2D silicon.
Current parallel processing efforts are hardly interconnected at all, with interprocessor communication being a huge bottleneck. In that sense, the brain is much less parallel than it seems. Individual operations take place in parallel, but they can all intercommunicate simultaneously to become a cohesive unit.
To match the way the brain takes advantage of lots of logic units, current computer architecture designs and software would all have to be tossed in the trash (including silly GPUs), and the effort would have to start from scratch.
What say Slashdot readers? Do you use containment in your data center? If so, do you contain the hot aisle or cold aisle?
I think that I speak for most readers here when I say that it's pretty much all cold aisle down here in my mom's dank basement. Not much containment either, other than some pegboard partitions.
That's why you error out when you encounter such a file.
Annoying developers who "error out" because they can't be bothered to handle an extremely common real-world filename character shouldn't be surprised if they find themselves near the top of the "dead wood" list at the next round of layoffs.
Forms of life we've never seen may well be atermal.
Since absolute zero is unattainable, nothing in this universe is "athermal".
The question is: at these temperatures where water ice is as hard as rocks are on earth, is there enough energy available to the molecules for any interesting chemistry to happen at all? Any life form is going to require interesting chemistry.
Which part of the computer? How about "semiconductors."
The Apollo Guidance Computer was the first computer based on semiconductors rather than vacuum tubes.
False. There were all sorts of solid state computers built with discreet transistors in the 1950s.
It was estimated that building the ACG consumed close to 100% of the world's semiconductor fabrication capacity while the Apollo Program was in operation.
That estimate would be wrong. The Minuteman missile program was mass-producing IC-based computers in the same timeframe, and that would be the application demanding far more of the world's fab capacity than the handful of prototypes required for Apollo.
How are other parties supposed to rise up and represent the people who share their values if the citizens won't vote for them "because they can't win?"
They're not. Apply a little basic game theory to the US election system, and you'll see that a two-party system will always emerge. It's the only stable result.
You'd need to change the rules under which the US government is selected and operated before 3rd parties could become viable. Instant runoff voting would be a good start, for example.
I looked at the article too, because I wanted to find out how pulsars are supposed to be so stable. Other discussions about pulsars often point out that as they get older, they lose rotational momentum due to magnetic fields and/or gravity waves, and they slow down. In fact, they slow down drastically from their initial rate over the first billion years or so. (I've also seen articles about "starquakes", where there's a sudden shift in frequency as the neutron star's crust snaps to a new configuration as the spin forces change.) That doesn't sound like a good clock to me.
The article didn't directly address the issue, other than the term "period drift" (which they didn't seem to define) which I assume could be such a slowdown, and they can somehow factor it out. However, I wouldn't assume that the loss of energy would be particularly linear or predictable. So I'm still as confused as ever on these "stable pulsar" claims.
iPad : Computer:: Disney's Epcot Center : Real Town
Re:Seven years for eight hours work
on
Novell Wins vs. SCO
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
This issue has been brought up in courts by SCO for many years. Novell is fully aware of what's going on. There is no way they could claim ignorance.
This is especially true since the extent of any alleged infringement has never been extended past some numeric constants in "errno.h". There is no question that parties on all sides of this dispute have pored over that file at length.
Re:Seven years for eight hours work
on
Novell Wins vs. SCO
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Irrelevant. Novell does own the copyrights on UNIX, so Novell has the right to license those copyrights as it chooses. Any alleged UNIX code in Linux (owned by Novell) was licensed to the world by Novell's own choice under the GPL when it shipped out SUSE disks. It doesn't matter who added the code; Novell is fully aware of what's on the disk.
Re:Seven years for eight hours work
on
Novell Wins vs. SCO
·
· Score: 3, Informative
What about when Novell starts abusing their position?
They can't, for the same reason that SCO couldn't even if they had owned any copyrights: Both companies have released Linux distributions under the GPL. They have thus conveyed to end users any licenses to any UNIX code in Linux (which, BTW, there isn't any, but that's another story).
SCO tried to do some handwaving about being unaware of releasing the code under the GPL. Novell couldn't possibly do that.
Well, one could consider finding a calculator in the system menu "digging around"...
Now that I think about it, I guess I pick up a physical calculator to do little computations like that more often than I use software calculator apps. I guess the dedicated device seems more ergonomic to me.
Because except for DRAM modules, the context for data quantities has *never* been unambiguous. So context doesn't resolve the issue. There are currently many apps that report file sizes in base 10, and many others that report them in pseudo base 2. This doesn't provide any useful context.
As a particularly stupid and long standing example, a "1.44 MB" floppy contains 1474560 bytes. That puts two conflicting "contexts" into a single number!
Because any calculation involving a mixture of different prefixes is pointlessly difficult when using pseudo base-2. For example, your file manager reports that a memory stick has 1.20GB free space, and it reports that you have two 613MB files. Will they fit on the disk? If the apps use stupid pseudo base-2 numbers, you have to dig around for a calculator. If instead the apps use base 10 like you've been trained to use since early childhood, the answer is obvious.
Moreover, contrary to the common misperception, the only large physical quantity in a computer that is usually fixed to a power of 2 is RAM (and virtual memory makes the exact size of RAM totally irrelevant to users). Disk drive sizes, substructures on disk drives, network bandwidth, optical media, filesystems, individual file sizes, bus bandwidth, clock speeds, network packets, etc have no physical relationship to the number 2. (Some filesystems use 512-byte block sizes. So what? That implementation detail is well hiddenfrom end users, and notice that 512 does not match any of the binary prefix sizes either.) Why would you invent an entire new confusing, hard to use pseudo number system (whose "base" idiotically varies depending on the order of magnitude) when the quantities you're measuring don't even have any relationship to it?
No, it excludes those because of economic realities.
So you admit that the economic reality is that unregulated private health insurance can't work. (That's why no other country in the world even tries to use such an idiotic system as ours.) So why would you defend it?
But really...moderate Dems, Reps, Tea Bag types, Independents, Libertarians...pretty much the majority of the US didn't want all this or worse as you described.
That's probably because of the self-selected gene pool that populates this country: It's full of little Ayn Rands that came from overseas.
Never mind that we end up with crappy results at twice the price of any other country. The most important thing is that you have "freedom" to enter into contracts with insurers (assuming that you and your entire family are in perfect health), who in turn have the "freedom" to drop you when you get sick.
Slashdot Mirror
but that doesn't mean i myself have to be ignorant of the true innovators in this world. nor should you
You *think* you know that the developers Firefox, Opera and Safari created all those innovations. However, any given technological advance usually turn out to actually have been first created by some obscure 19th century Italian inventor who ended up dying penniless.
I wonder if it'd be possible to reconstruct the signal. We know what the signal is supposed to look like, and should be able to find out what's different.
I suggest calling up Jeff Goldblum to see if he can take a crack at this by plugging the signal into his laptop.
Supersonic jets are more difficult than subsonic jets
Interestingly, the useful speed limit of supersonic jets seems to have been exceeded decades ago, and they've abandoned the fastest designs. The B-58, B-70, SR-71, B-1A and Concorde are all defunct and have not been replaced with anything nearly as fast. They've given up. There are a few fast manned fighter planes, but the emphasis today is on gas mileage, not pure speed, and manned fighters may be on the way out in general.
Sometimes certain gee-whiz technologies just really don't turn out to be practical in the real world.
Human brains have a low clock speed, and each processor (neuron) is quite small, but there are a lot of them working at once.
The brain's trillions of 3D interconnections blow away anything that has ever been produced on 2D silicon.
Current parallel processing efforts are hardly interconnected at all, with interprocessor communication being a huge bottleneck. In that sense, the brain is much less parallel than it seems. Individual operations take place in parallel, but they can all intercommunicate simultaneously to become a cohesive unit.
To match the way the brain takes advantage of lots of logic units, current computer architecture designs and software would all have to be tossed in the trash (including silly GPUs), and the effort would have to start from scratch.
What say Slashdot readers? Do you use containment in your data center? If so, do you contain the hot aisle or cold aisle?
I think that I speak for most readers here when I say that it's pretty much all cold aisle down here in my mom's dank basement. Not much containment either, other than some pegboard partitions.
That's why you error out when you encounter such a file.
Annoying developers who "error out" because they can't be bothered to handle an extremely common real-world filename character shouldn't be surprised if they find themselves near the top of the "dead wood" list at the next round of layoffs.
Do you really want private companies going to the Moon and commercializing it?
I wouldn't worry about that, because nothing on the moon has enough commercial value to justify the cost of going there. (Not even He3.)
Forms of life we've never seen may well be atermal.
Since absolute zero is unattainable, nothing in this universe is "athermal".
The question is: at these temperatures where water ice is as hard as rocks are on earth, is there enough energy available to the molecules for any interesting chemistry to happen at all? Any life form is going to require interesting chemistry.
Which part of the computer? How about "semiconductors."
The Apollo Guidance Computer was the first computer based on semiconductors rather than vacuum tubes.
False. There were all sorts of solid state computers built with discreet transistors in the 1950s.
It was estimated that building the ACG consumed close to 100% of the world's semiconductor fabrication capacity while the Apollo Program was in operation.
That estimate would be wrong. The Minuteman missile program was mass-producing IC-based computers in the same timeframe, and that would be the application demanding far more of the world's fab capacity than the handful of prototypes required for Apollo.
To paraphrase Yogi Berra: In theory, currently achievable theoretical speeds are achievable. In reality, they aren't.
The preferred term is size-challenged planets.
That projects too much negativity. The new recommended term which looks to a more positive future is: "Presently Accreting Planets".
How are other parties supposed to rise up and represent the people who share their values if the citizens won't vote for them "because they can't win?"
They're not. Apply a little basic game theory to the US election system, and you'll see that a two-party system will always emerge. It's the only stable result.
You'd need to change the rules under which the US government is selected and operated before 3rd parties could become viable. Instant runoff voting would be a good start, for example.
I looked at the article too, because I wanted to find out how pulsars are supposed to be so stable. Other discussions about pulsars often point out that as they get older, they lose rotational momentum due to magnetic fields and/or gravity waves, and they slow down. In fact, they slow down drastically from their initial rate over the first billion years or so. (I've also seen articles about "starquakes", where there's a sudden shift in frequency as the neutron star's crust snaps to a new configuration as the spin forces change.) That doesn't sound like a good clock to me.
The article didn't directly address the issue, other than the term "period drift" (which they didn't seem to define) which I assume could be such a slowdown, and they can somehow factor it out. However, I wouldn't assume that the loss of energy would be particularly linear or predictable. So I'm still as confused as ever on these "stable pulsar" claims.
So outdent a comment instead:
not consider the broader context that this video was ripped from
The "broader context" is an illegal war started on false pretenses.
iPad : Computer :: Disney's Epcot Center : Real Town
This issue has been brought up in courts by SCO for many years. Novell is fully aware of what's going on. There is no way they could claim ignorance.
This is especially true since the extent of any alleged infringement has never been extended past some numeric constants in "errno.h". There is no question that parties on all sides of this dispute have pored over that file at length.
Irrelevant. Novell does own the copyrights on UNIX, so Novell has the right to license those copyrights as it chooses. Any alleged UNIX code in Linux (owned by Novell) was licensed to the world by Novell's own choice under the GPL when it shipped out SUSE disks. It doesn't matter who added the code; Novell is fully aware of what's on the disk.
What about when Novell starts abusing their position?
They can't, for the same reason that SCO couldn't even if they had owned any copyrights: Both companies have released Linux distributions under the GPL. They have thus conveyed to end users any licenses to any UNIX code in Linux (which, BTW, there isn't any, but that's another story).
SCO tried to do some handwaving about being unaware of releasing the code under the GPL. Novell couldn't possibly do that.
Well, one could consider finding a calculator in the system menu "digging around"...
Now that I think about it, I guess I pick up a physical calculator to do little computations like that more often than I use software calculator apps. I guess the dedicated device seems more ergonomic to me.
Why should it be different for prefixes?
Because except for DRAM modules, the context for data quantities has *never* been unambiguous. So context doesn't resolve the issue. There are currently many apps that report file sizes in base 10, and many others that report them in pseudo base 2. This doesn't provide any useful context.
As a particularly stupid and long standing example, a "1.44 MB" floppy contains 1474560 bytes. That puts two conflicting "contexts" into a single number!
Why?
Because any calculation involving a mixture of different prefixes is pointlessly difficult when using pseudo base-2. For example, your file manager reports that a memory stick has 1.20GB free space, and it reports that you have two 613MB files. Will they fit on the disk? If the apps use stupid pseudo base-2 numbers, you have to dig around for a calculator. If instead the apps use base 10 like you've been trained to use since early childhood, the answer is obvious.
Moreover, contrary to the common misperception, the only large physical quantity in a computer that is usually fixed to a power of 2 is RAM (and virtual memory makes the exact size of RAM totally irrelevant to users). Disk drive sizes, substructures on disk drives, network bandwidth, optical media, filesystems, individual file sizes, bus bandwidth, clock speeds, network packets, etc have no physical relationship to the number 2. (Some filesystems use 512-byte block sizes. So what? That implementation detail is well hiddenfrom end users, and notice that 512 does not match any of the binary prefix sizes either.) Why would you invent an entire new confusing, hard to use pseudo number system (whose "base" idiotically varies depending on the order of magnitude) when the quantities you're measuring don't even have any relationship to it?
No, it excludes those because of economic realities.
So you admit that the economic reality is that unregulated private health insurance can't work. (That's why no other country in the world even tries to use such an idiotic system as ours.) So why would you defend it?
Net is a platform, not an ecosystem
Both terms are silly metaphors. I vote that any silly metaphors should always be related to automobiles, so that makes .Net a "drivetrain".
But really...moderate Dems, Reps, Tea Bag types, Independents, Libertarians...pretty much the majority of the US didn't want all this or worse as you described.
That's probably because of the self-selected gene pool that populates this country: It's full of little Ayn Rands that came from overseas.
Never mind that we end up with crappy results at twice the price of any other country. The most important thing is that you have "freedom" to enter into contracts with insurers (assuming that you and your entire family are in perfect health), who in turn have the "freedom" to drop you when you get sick.