It should have been MGS. (meter-gram-second) The base units should not have prefixes like "kilo" and "centi".
Well, not quite. The kilogramm is the actual historic base unit, originally called "grave", with a gram being a milligrave. It was the name-clash with an aristocratic title which led to dropping the name grave and using kilogram instead.
So actually a kg is not 1000g, but rather 1000*1/1000 grave, yielding the original base unit...
I'd say your arguments are extremely biased (by probably growing up with Imperial):
However, if you look at recipes, it may call for 3/4 of a cup (not 6 oz), and if you double, it's easy, 1.5 cups.
And doubling 150ml to 300ml would be any more difficult? What if you wanted to cook for a large party and needed 20 times the ingredients? How many bags of flour to buy for 20 * 3/4 cups? How many cups are in a bag of flour anyway?
Most things that you eyeball are between 0 and 10 feet, which gives you 11 values without resulting to a decimal, which confuses people. Metric gives you values 0-3 for the same area.
People don't tend to have problems with halves of meters. I.e. something like 3.5m will usually be pronounced as "three and a half meters". And short-distance guesswork is usually also done with a granularity of 1/2 m. Which would give you 7 values between 0m and 3m. So I don't think the question of granularity is an objective advantage to Imperial units. (Especially not if you consider that most people will add x.20 and x.80 for "a bit more than" or "a bit short of" whole meter(s) to their distance-guessing-repertoire.)
the range of heights in normal conversations of adults is 5'0" - 6'4", 1.52m - 1.93m.
And I always thought it was 1.50m - 2.00m. Must have been wrong all the time...;o)
With the temperature scale though, I can't follow you at all.
That said, I do believe that Imperial units are more "ergonomic" for guessing distances or volumes. While I grew up with the metric system, I spent one year in the US, and I actually found it easier to correctly guess distances in inches or yards than in centimeters or meters. (Or at least it felt more comfortable.)
This is, of course, completely subjective; but I'd really be interested in an objective test, both with people having to guess in their "native" units and vice versa.
There is is enough truth to it, because probably most Rolexes (like Ferraris and huge Yachts) are bought for the sole purpose of showing off money.
But there's another aspect to a Rolex. It was the CEO of a high-end Swiss watchmaker (the type that one day introduced a "budget-model" for ~$20.000) from which I learned that in terms of reliability Rolex is simply unbeaten by other mechanical watches. Not as fancy and not really interesting for collectors, but the best mechanical quality for every-day use.
So I got one (no gold or diamonds or the big clunky diver's type). And it just works. I like that.
And while my stupidity might still be open for debate, one thing is sure: I'm definitely not rich.
Long-term, even. SCO is a company made up of people - people with stock. They've all won already. Once they're done dumping their shares, SCO Corp will just be a shell, but the people - that which actually makes up the company - have won.
Erm, no. You can't sell your shares without having somebody buy them. So if a company goes down, "the people" will lose everything. They may be different from the people who own the stock now, but somebody will have to own the stock.
Which means that pump-and-dump is not a good business model. It might/will make a lot of short term money for execs who are cashing in their options now, but it does not create shareholder value.
Anyone not in the know must know that HP made THE BEST calculators EVER for reliability, functionality, ACCURACY, and features. These things were designed to last a lifetime of a professional.
Absolutely. While I got a 48GX a while back for the more fancy stuff, I still prefer to use the 11C which I got in 1985 for anything it's still good for. (Which is about 90% of all tasks in my case)
Plus, as a bonus you get the feeling of elite pity for all non HP-users. And you get to mumbe disgusted remarks about child-toys whenever you have to use someone else's non-RPN calc.;)
I tried to read the paper
, but it's really too painfully dumb to actually read it all.
Just quickly scanning it, two things seemed suspicious (apart, obviously, from the content):
Insurance is SUPPOSED to exist to pay for catastrophic unknown and unexpected situations, not as a crutch to pay for every little thing that arises.
While this is very true, it seems a bit misplaced in response to the post you answered to. I am not so sure breast cancer belongs to the class of "every little thing that arises". In fact I'm quite sure that anyone affected directly or indirectly would rather classify it as a "catastrophic unknown and unexpected situation."
But maybe you were just trolling.
Wow, is that auto-generated or do you come up with this on your own? -- Or maybe a new encryption algorithm? Reminds me of Dilbert's Mission Statment Generator
yuk. I can only agree with what Linux says in "CodingStyle":
C is a Spartan language, and so should your naming be. Unlike Modula-2
and Pascal programmers, C programmers do not use cute names like
ThisVariableIsATemporaryCounter. A C programmer would call that
variable "tmp", which is much easier to write, and not the least more
difficult to understand.
[...]
Encoding the type of a function into the name (so-called Hungarian
notation) is brain damaged - the compiler knows the types anyway and can
check those, and it only confuses the programmer. No wonder MicroSoft
makes buggy programs.
Re:Actually thats the recommended approach
on
Inkblot Passwords
·
· Score: 1
Or Shakespeare.
"When shall we three meet again, in thunder, lightning, or rain?"
heh, for a quite a while, one of my 'memory-phrases' has been "When the hurly burly's done, when the battle's lost and won".
(btw -- isn't it "...or in rain"?)
It's is not, it isn't ain't, and it's it's, not its, if you mean it
is. If you don't, it's its. Then too, it's hers. It isn't her's. It
isn't our's either. It's ours, and likewise yours and theirs.
But Edison's greatest achievement came in 1879, when he
invented the electric company. Edison's design was a brilliant
adaptation of the simple electrical circuit: the electric company sends
electricity through a wire to a customer, then immediately gets the
electricity back through another wire, then (this is the brilliant
part) sends it right back to the customer again.
This means that an electric company can sell a customer the same batch
of electricity thousands of times a day and never get caught, since
very few customers take the time to examine their electricity closely.
In fact the last year any new electricity was generated in the United
States was 1937; the electric companies have been merely re-selling it
ever since, which is why they have so much free time to apply for rate
increases.
It's is not, it isn't ain't, and it's it's, not its, if you mean it
is. If you don't, it's its. Then too, it's hers. It isn't her's. It
isn't our's either. It's ours, and likewise yours and theirs.
-- Oxford University Press, Edpress News
Maybe you didn't read it. He said that there would be a *marginal* difference, which is true, due to CPU core designs. 1GHz doesn't magically add 50C degrees.
I would expect that overclocking a CPU by 1GHz would create more than a *marginal* difference in heat. Are you saying it wouldn't? (You are probably talking about a new CPU design for the 1GHz increase. I was not. I was talking about varying the clock speed on *one* CPU.) And yes, I read it.
Again, to be clear:
I assume that overclocking generates (significantly) more heat. I havent't tried it but it makes sense from what I know about physics, and there is a lot of anecdotal evidence (Overclockers crazy about cooling).
I would have expected that underclocking would vice versa result in a cooler CPU.
13Echo says 'no'.
I'm surprised and seek explanation.
For some reason that I don't understand you posted what you posted.
So, if what 13Echo said is true, does that mean that every CPU has a certain minimum operating temperature, regardless of clock speed? This would be new to me and I'd be interested in an explanation.
Underclocking a newer, faster CPU is not going to make a substantial difference in the heat that it produces. [...] even by lowering it by 1 GHz is probably just silly.
Are you saying that overclocking won't make the CPU hotter, either?
Or is it that when I increase the clock speed on a CPU, it will run hotter, but decreasing it won't make it cooler?
That would be quite fascinating. (What if I decrease the clock of the CPU that I just overclocked? Will it stay hot?)
Could you please explain or back up with some references? Thx.
[...]most of the files is already encrypted and only a cached portion is automatically decrypted when the user is in range. This means it takes around six seconds to encrypt and decrypt data.
and you were just about to post a comment about how long it takes to encrypt/decrypt and how it would be safer to store the data encrypted all the time. Weren't you?
Slashdot Mirror
It's secret (police hacking). Just like "real world" searches, computers may not be searched secretly. So far.
Check out the flake in pic #8.
Last winter, I saw one just like that. I swear!
It should have been MGS. (meter-gram-second) The base units should not have prefixes like "kilo" and "centi".
Well, not quite. The kilogramm is the actual historic base unit, originally called "grave", with a gram being a milligrave. It was the name-clash with an aristocratic title which led to dropping the name grave and using kilogram instead.
So actually a kg is not 1000g, but rather 1000*1/1000 grave, yielding the original base unit...
I'd say your arguments are extremely biased (by probably growing up with Imperial):
However, if you look at recipes, it may call for 3/4 of a cup (not 6 oz), and if you double, it's easy, 1.5 cups.
And doubling 150ml to 300ml would be any more difficult? What if you wanted to cook for a large party and needed 20 times the ingredients? How many bags of flour to buy for 20 * 3/4 cups? How many cups are in a bag of flour anyway?
Most things that you eyeball are between 0 and 10 feet, which gives you 11 values without resulting to a decimal, which confuses people. Metric gives you values 0-3 for the same area.
People don't tend to have problems with halves of meters. I.e. something like 3.5m will usually be pronounced as "three and a half meters". And short-distance guesswork is usually also done with a granularity of 1/2 m. Which would give you 7 values between 0m and 3m. So I don't think the question of granularity is an objective advantage to Imperial units. (Especially not if you consider that most people will add x.20 and x.80 for "a bit more than" or "a bit short of" whole meter(s) to their distance-guessing-repertoire.)
the range of heights in normal conversations of adults is 5'0" - 6'4", 1.52m - 1.93m.
And I always thought it was 1.50m - 2.00m. Must have been wrong all the time... ;o)
With the temperature scale though, I can't follow you at all.
That said, I do believe that Imperial units are more "ergonomic" for guessing distances or volumes. While I grew up with the metric system, I spent one year in the US, and I actually found it easier to correctly guess distances in inches or yards than in centimeters or meters. (Or at least it felt more comfortable.)
This is, of course, completely subjective; but I'd really be interested in an objective test, both with people having to guess in their "native" units and vice versa.
But there's another aspect to a Rolex. It was the CEO of a high-end Swiss watchmaker (the type that one day introduced a "budget-model" for ~$20.000) from which I learned that in terms of reliability Rolex is simply unbeaten by other mechanical watches. Not as fancy and not really interesting for collectors, but the best mechanical quality for every-day use.
So I got one (no gold or diamonds or the big clunky diver's type). And it just works. I like that.
And while my stupidity might still be open for debate, one thing is sure: I'm definitely not rich.
Cheers
Dude, didn't you read the relevant Dilbert?
Which means that pump-and-dump is not a good business model. It might/will make a lot of short term money for execs who are cashing in their options now, but it does not create shareholder value.
Plus, as a bonus you get the feeling of elite pity for all non HP-users. And you get to mumbe disgusted remarks about child-toys whenever you have to use someone else's non-RPN calc. ;)
Just quickly scanning it, two things seemed suspicious (apart, obviously, from the content):
But maybe you were just trolling.
Wow, is that auto-generated or do you come up with this on your own? -- Or maybe a new encryption algorithm?
Reminds me of Dilbert's Mission Statment Generator
That was of course Linus, not Linux.
(btw -- isn't it "...or in rain"?)
Funny how there always seems to be a relevant Dilbert.
But Edison's greatest achievement came in 1879, when he invented the electric company. Edison's design was a brilliant adaptation of the simple electrical circuit: the electric company sends electricity through a wire to a customer, then immediately gets the electricity back through another wire, then (this is the brilliant part) sends it right back to the customer again.
This means that an electric company can sell a customer the same batch of electricity thousands of times a day and never get caught, since very few customers take the time to examine their electricity closely. In fact the last year any new electricity was generated in the United States was 1937; the electric companies have been merely re-selling it ever since, which is why they have so much free time to apply for rate increases.
-- Dave Barry, "What is Electricity?"
It's is not, it isn't ain't, and it's it's, not its, if you mean it is. If you don't, it's its. Then too, it's hers. It isn't her's. It isn't our's either. It's ours, and likewise yours and theirs.
-- Oxford University Press, Edpress News
Again, to be clear:
- I assume that overclocking generates (significantly) more heat. I havent't tried it but it makes sense from what I know about physics, and there is a lot of anecdotal evidence (Overclockers crazy about cooling).
- I would have expected that underclocking would vice versa result in a cooler CPU.
- 13Echo says 'no'.
- I'm surprised and seek explanation.
- For some reason that I don't understand you posted what you posted.
So, if what 13Echo said is true, does that mean that every CPU has a certain minimum operating temperature, regardless of clock speed? This would be new to me and I'd be interested in an explanation.Or is it that when I increase the clock speed on a CPU, it will run hotter, but decreasing it won't make it cooler?
That would be quite fascinating. (What if I decrease the clock of the CPU that I just overclocked? Will it stay hot?)
Could you please explain or back up with some references? Thx.