Right, and the airplane's transmitters are outside the cage. (They must be, or they wouldn't work, right?) Thus, the plane's transmitters should theoretically be shielded from the passengers' interference.
I would be willing to bet a beer that if you placed the sun in the same position, the plane would crash.
I'll take that bet. I think the plane wouldn't survive long enough to crash.
Sounds great, except you might lose it, or leave it in another room or something. Maybe you could have several of these scattered throughout the house. In fact, they could be specialized for the rooms they're in. That way, there's always just the right control wherever you need to use it. Actually, let's go one step further: have one for each device, tailor-made to control that particular device! And it could be attached to the device so you never lose it, and so it moves wherever the device moves!
I dunno, I think I'm reasonably smart, and it confused me. I thought at first maybe an "sq" was some sort of wireless bandwidth unit, and they were measuring it per kilometer somehow.
Anyway, why should thousands of readers have to guess what the story is about when the single author could have written it properly in the first place?
You missed the point, dude. Imagine if any and all prank answers on census forms were legal. Either a full-time prank-detection staff would be required, or the census would become meaningless.
Underclocking a newer CPU allows you to run it at a lower voltage, which does have a substantial impact on the heat generated. Heat is proportional to CPU usage (which, I think, is what you are thinking of), but also proportional to the square of the voltage.
I don't like the idea they present of computation as interaction, rather than computation as calculation. Computation-as-calculation views a program as having a specific, well-defined job to do, with a beginning and an end. This makes it much easier to reason about what the program does, and whether it does it properly: you can inspect the outputs for a given set of inputs and make sure the calculation produced the right result.
Clearly not everything can be done this way, but I think the idea to throw in the towel and model everything as interacting processes is a huge mistake. This is especially true of concurrency, which is thrown into programs in a haphazard way these days with no particular benefit.
The concern is the net vector, not the individual vectors of Earth and asteroid. For it to hit us, the net vector has to be toward us...
Ok, but we're not talking about flying or driving here; we're talking about orbital mechanics. For something to hit us, it must be on an intersecting orbit, and those do not follow direct line-of-sight until near the end, unless the object is moving very quickly. In either case, we have little hope to make any difference, as you say.
However, I do think my claim that it would "almost surely miss us" was far too strong, and probably should have been more like "might not necessarily hit us".:-)
Asteroids that will hit us are not travelling straight at us. You seem to be under the impression that the earth is motionless, or perhaps that we're sitting on some sort of record player that makes us revolve about the sun while the asteroid comes carreening straight for us. The truth is that asteroids (and everything else in the solar system) are in elliptical orbits around the sun. It's a matter of determining whether the asteroid's orbit will intersect ours. In fact, an asteroid coming straight along our line of sight would almost surely miss us.
Regardless, you don't find an asteroid that's going to hit us by looking for ones coming straight at us. You look at their orbit long in advance, calculate where it will be weeks/months in the future, and see if it's within a dangerous distance of Earth.
Can the skill-testing questions. Just because someone hasn't seen the cute "subtract them from 55" question before doesn't mean they won't be a good programmer.
Those questions are worse than useless. I don't have any particular suggestion for what to use instead, but I know what doesn't work.
Ah, I was with you until you said "you math is just a little backwards". It certainly is not--we were just measuring two different things. I was measuring the error of their claim, while you were measuring the "colour shortfall" that a user experiences.
Don't send this. It's pointless. It's apparently an attempt to shame them into being better people, but it just comes off as a self-riteous rant by an irrational nut.
This is the same as the number of different arrangements of 4,096 symbols in a sequence of 25,600 (160x160).
How did you get that?
I can't think of a single way to arrange 4096 symbols into a sequence of 25,600; there just aren't enough symbols. I'm not joking here--I really don't understand what you've done mathematically.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, wait...
Anyway...
You shouldn't have an article with "suds" in the title unless it's about beer.
I don't get it.
And you don't actually have any retinal "nerves". They're only cells that transmit signals from your eye to your brain.
If the question is meaningless, the solution is to remove it, not to allow pranks.
Anyway, why should thousands of readers have to guess what the story is about when the single author could have written it properly in the first place?
You missed the point, dude. Imagine if any and all prank answers on census forms were legal. Either a full-time prank-detection staff would be required, or the census would become meaningless.
Man, I was incapacitated for about three minutes when he said that.
Underclocking a newer CPU allows you to run it at a lower voltage, which does have a substantial impact on the heat generated. Heat is proportional to CPU usage (which, I think, is what you are thinking of), but also proportional to the square of the voltage.
LOL! Nice sig.
LOL Thanks. I needed that.
Clearly not everything can be done this way, but I think the idea to throw in the towel and model everything as interacting processes is a huge mistake. This is especially true of concurrency, which is thrown into programs in a haphazard way these days with no particular benefit.
However, I do think my claim that it would "almost surely miss us" was far too strong, and probably should have been more like "might not necessarily hit us". :-)
I have never seen so many unfunny posts modded "Funny" in one place. Please mods, set yourself some standards for humour!
Those questions are worse than useless. I don't have any particular suggestion for what to use instead, but I know what doesn't work.
Ah, I was with you until you said "you math is just a little backwards". It certainly is not--we were just measuring two different things. I was measuring the error of their claim, while you were measuring the "colour shortfall" that a user experiences.
The actual number of colours is 4096, and their estimate was 65536, making their estimate off by 1500%.
Don't send this. It's pointless. It's apparently an attempt to shame them into being better people, but it just comes off as a self-riteous rant by an irrational nut.
I can't think of a single way to arrange 4096 symbols into a sequence of 25,600; there just aren't enough symbols. I'm not joking here--I really don't understand what you've done mathematically.
I didn't know class action suites had layer fees.