I can't believe it, the Kiesler book on Infinitesimal Calculus is the text I learned from way back when I was a freshman in 1976. And it's the reason I can't do calculus AT ALL. I was in the Honors Math program, and the program director, in a moment of insanity, decided to use Kiesler's new book with the Infinitesimals approach. But there was only one problem, the book wasn't actually IN PRINT yet. Every monday, we received a new chapter of the book's galley proofs, followed by a long session of corrections. The teacher would write the errata on the blackboard and we wrote them in our texts. This took almost the entire session. We met 3 times a week, so the errata effectively nuked 1/3 of our classroom time. Of course, this isn't likely to be a problem in the revised 2nd edition. However, the problem with this text is that it uses a completely nonstandard approach to calculus. The Infinitesimals approach is weak on the standard methods you really study calculus FOR, like differential equations. My roommate took the regular calc course and I studied with him, learning a few standard differentiation methods. I used a few of those techniques in the midterm test, they were marked wrong (even though they were the correct answers) and got called into the teacher's office. He said, "you didn't learn that in MY COURSE, did you?" We had to do everything the hard way, with infinitesimals, which was supposed to make you a better mathematician. It didn't. As an amusing side note, I had a scheduling conflict with another final and had to take a makeup test, I was assigned a room to take the test all by myself, the teacher said he'd come back at the end to collect the test and if I left the room, he'd assumed I cheated and he'd give me an F. During the test, the building caught on fire on an upper floor and smoke started to drift in through the ducts. A campus security cop came in the room and told me to leave. I said I wouldn't, I only had 10 more minutes left on the test and I could finish before the fire spread. The cop grabbed me and shoved me out the door. The teacher gave me an F on the final for leaving the room. I got a D+ for the course, a passing grade, and that was good enough for me. Anyway, I suppose the main problem was that the teachers hadn't figured out how to teach Infinitesimal Calculus yet, and I suspect they still haven't. Grappling with the abstraction of hyperreal numbers is extremely impractical in a world where everyone else uses an entirely different methodology. Avoid this text if you don't want your math skills permanently damaged. I think I'll pick up one of these other freebie calc texts and learn it over from scratch.
I looked all over the web for the Xerox XK40c, AFAIK it has long been discontinued. None of the current Xerox multifunction color printers use inkjet, they're all color lasers now. No wonder the ink carts are so expensive, they're legacy supplies. Toner is cheaper.
Huh? What's this crap about Japan not issuing work visas? Do I sense some bitter frustration by some otaku who couldn't get a job? I was offered a job and a work visa in '96 and turned it down, a friend of mine has been over there since '98 on a work visa.
Fluidic adaptive lenses have been around for several years. I recall many years ago I read about a tech Academy Award for someone developing a fluidic lens for 70mm movie cameras, it was rather primitive, just a blob of transparent gel sandwiched between two plates of optical glass that could be moved by motors, but he got there first. I can't find a citation since the AMPAS database doesn't search on tech awards.
IANAL, but this seems like the only way for HardOCP to counter these legal threats. Note that the letters were written by an Infinium person, not a lawyer. A real lawyer wouldn't make threats like "remove THIS content or I'll sue." No lawyer would ever do it, they'd first write a cease and desist letter, then if no action was taken, they'd sue without further notice. You can't say things like "if you don't do X, I'll sue you." That is barratry, using a threat of lawsuit for extortion. You get disbarred for making threats like that.
Yeah, it's an interesting little bit of info, isn't it? As far as I can remember, I read it on Apple Recon, the long-defunct Apple stock analysis site by Robert Morgan (no, not the Bare Feats Rob Morgan). There's a vestige of his old site at pelagius.com but links to his old MacWeek columns are long gone. I sure wish Mr. Morgan would start writing about Apple again, he always had the most interesting scoops. But yeah, you're right about what you wrote on MS's "investment" in Apple, as far as you went.
You're right and wrong. MS bought the $150m in preferred stock, but it is not widely known that at the same time, MS quietly bought short options on about $250m in regular Apple stock on the open market. They covered their bet, the preferred stock went up, they made money but lost even more money selling short shares. If Apple stock had gone down, they'd have made even more money than if it went up.
I read the article (yes I read Japanese) and it's mostly a bunch of marketingspeak about their new method of capturing and transmitting images in realtime, which are displayed on LCDs screens in the imaging chamber. It isn't clear to me after just a quick read whether this is something they can do NOW, it sounds more like they think they CAN do this in the future. It also describes the process as stereographic, they make several comparisons to holograms but they don't say it IS a hologram.
Look closely, the image is not "freestanding," you always see the image in front of an imaging plate in the background. It appears to be freestanding because it appears in the center of the chamber, but there's always a screen behind it.
You're only seeing TWO of the 24 views at any one time. So it's stereoscopic. A viewer on the other side of the viewing chamber would see an entirely different set of views, reconstructing a different stereo pair. That's exactly the same way the multiplex hologram cylinders worked. They took film of an object rotating on a turntable, using two cameras arranged to take stereoscopic movies. Then they multiplexed the stereo pairs into vertical strips around a cylinder, using clever holography techniques to present the stereo pairs at the proper separation and angle. Of course that's a gross simplification, you can google up dozens of math papers on the keywords "multiplex hologram" if you like the hardcore theory.
This isn't true 3D, it's stereoscopic. It uses a clever method to project stereo pairs, sort of like those rotating cylinder animated holograms they used to make (watch the end sequence of the film Logans Run if you've never seen one).
Yes, tapping will work to free up stuck drives with stiction problems. A long time ago, I had a Quantum drive in an old Apple IIcx that was covered under extended warranty because of stiction problems in that drive model. Apple actually replaced it 18 months beyond the 1 year warranty, what a deal. But the officially recommended workaround, direct from Apple, was to tap the top of the drive casing, just above the drive heads. They said just a couple of firm taps with a fingertip as the drive powered up was sufficient to break the stiction between the heads and the platter. And it worked. I kept the drive in action until the last possible moment, and got it replaced on the day the extended warranty ran out.
Go back under your rock, little troll. You keep cranking out your buggy code, and I'll keep trying to educate the next generation of programmers how to avoid errors. The first step is admitting your fallibility. I have no use for idiots like you who think they're infallible. HAND.
They didn't listen back in 1977 when I was converting some of NASA's antiquated FORTRAN II programs to FORTRAN IV. They didn't listen at JPL either. What makes you think they'll listen now?
Spacecraft computer engineers today have the attitude that all hardware problems have been solved or dealt with through redundancy or hardening. I have often heard them say, "all problems are software problems." This wasn't a malfunction of hardware, it was a human error. And you still haven't learned anything.
You still haven't learned the lesson. Those are not errors or mistakes, they are malfunctions. A properly designed computer system can easily detect malfunctions (i.e. ECC RAM) but that same system will happily execute any human-designed code containing massive errors.
You're just the kind of computer geek I abhor, always looking for excuses instead of solutions to your own mistakes.
It appears that we still haven't learned the biggest lesson of all. I still remember back around 1970, there was a big sign on the wall next to the IBM 370s at my university, written on a primitive pen plotter, it said:
Computers never make mistakes, they do exactly what humans tell them to do. All "computer errors" are human errors.
Yes, as I said, AND is the default operator on Google, I was referring to Altavista's old methods. I like parens so you can override the usual precedence of operators, but at the moment I can't think of a good example for a text search.
Yesss! I constantly use the NOT operator, the minus sign before keywords or domains etc. You can refine searches to almost anything with AND (the default operator) and NOT.
I used to like AltaVista's old logical operators, which included parentheses for nested operations. I could do things like ((foo AND bar) OR (foo AND baz)) but I don't think Google supports anything like this.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't believe it, the Kiesler book on Infinitesimal Calculus is the text I learned from way back when I was a freshman in 1976. And it's the reason I can't do calculus AT ALL.
I was in the Honors Math program, and the program director, in a moment of insanity, decided to use Kiesler's new book with the Infinitesimals approach. But there was only one problem, the book wasn't actually IN PRINT yet. Every monday, we received a new chapter of the book's galley proofs, followed by a long session of corrections. The teacher would write the errata on the blackboard and we wrote them in our texts. This took almost the entire session. We met 3 times a week, so the errata effectively nuked 1/3 of our classroom time.
Of course, this isn't likely to be a problem in the revised 2nd edition. However, the problem with this text is that it uses a completely nonstandard approach to calculus. The Infinitesimals approach is weak on the standard methods you really study calculus FOR, like differential equations. My roommate took the regular calc course and I studied with him, learning a few standard differentiation methods. I used a few of those techniques in the midterm test, they were marked wrong (even though they were the correct answers) and got called into the teacher's office. He said, "you didn't learn that in MY COURSE, did you?" We had to do everything the hard way, with infinitesimals, which was supposed to make you a better mathematician. It didn't.
As an amusing side note, I had a scheduling conflict with another final and had to take a makeup test, I was assigned a room to take the test all by myself, the teacher said he'd come back at the end to collect the test and if I left the room, he'd assumed I cheated and he'd give me an F. During the test, the building caught on fire on an upper floor and smoke started to drift in through the ducts. A campus security cop came in the room and told me to leave. I said I wouldn't, I only had 10 more minutes left on the test and I could finish before the fire spread. The cop grabbed me and shoved me out the door. The teacher gave me an F on the final for leaving the room. I got a D+ for the course, a passing grade, and that was good enough for me.
Anyway, I suppose the main problem was that the teachers hadn't figured out how to teach Infinitesimal Calculus yet, and I suspect they still haven't. Grappling with the abstraction of hyperreal numbers is extremely impractical in a world where everyone else uses an entirely different methodology. Avoid this text if you don't want your math skills permanently damaged. I think I'll pick up one of these other freebie calc texts and learn it over from scratch.
to become an overnight success.
I looked all over the web for the Xerox XK40c, AFAIK it has long been discontinued. None of the current Xerox multifunction color printers use inkjet, they're all color lasers now. No wonder the ink carts are so expensive, they're legacy supplies. Toner is cheaper.
Shit, you could wire a whole house with sensors and cameras for that kind of money. Hell, you could wire TWO whole houses, or MORE.
Huh? What's this crap about Japan not issuing work visas? Do I sense some bitter frustration by some otaku who couldn't get a job?
I was offered a job and a work visa in '96 and turned it down, a friend of mine has been over there since '98 on a work visa.
Fluidic adaptive lenses have been around for several years. I recall many years ago I read about a tech Academy Award for someone developing a fluidic lens for 70mm movie cameras, it was rather primitive, just a blob of transparent gel sandwiched between two plates of optical glass that could be moved by motors, but he got there first. I can't find a citation since the AMPAS database doesn't search on tech awards.
IANAL, but this seems like the only way for HardOCP to counter these legal threats. Note that the letters were written by an Infinium person, not a lawyer. A real lawyer wouldn't make threats like "remove THIS content or I'll sue." No lawyer would ever do it, they'd first write a cease and desist letter, then if no action was taken, they'd sue without further notice. You can't say things like "if you don't do X, I'll sue you." That is barratry, using a threat of lawsuit for extortion. You get disbarred for making threats like that.
No, it's not just you.
DIRECTIVE 1 Serve the public trust
DIRECTIVE 2 Protect the innocent
DIRECTIVE 3 Uphold the law
DIRECTIVE 4 Never oppose an OCP officer.
Last I heard, he had some health problems, and he hasn't written anything since, at least nothing I've seen publicly.
Yeah, it's an interesting little bit of info, isn't it? As far as I can remember, I read it on Apple Recon, the long-defunct Apple stock analysis site by Robert Morgan (no, not the Bare Feats Rob Morgan). There's a vestige of his old site at pelagius.com but links to his old MacWeek columns are long gone. I sure wish Mr. Morgan would start writing about Apple again, he always had the most interesting scoops.
But yeah, you're right about what you wrote on MS's "investment" in Apple, as far as you went.
You're right and wrong. MS bought the $150m in preferred stock, but it is not widely known that at the same time, MS quietly bought short options on about $250m in regular Apple stock on the open market. They covered their bet, the preferred stock went up, they made money but lost even more money selling short shares. If Apple stock had gone down, they'd have made even more money than if it went up.
That's the clever bit, they have multiple stereo pairs, whatever angle you're viewing from, you get a stereo pair just for that viewing position.
I read the article (yes I read Japanese) and it's mostly a bunch of marketingspeak about their new method of capturing and transmitting images in realtime, which are displayed on LCDs screens in the imaging chamber. It isn't clear to me after just a quick read whether this is something they can do NOW, it sounds more like they think they CAN do this in the future. It also describes the process as stereographic, they make several comparisons to holograms but they don't say it IS a hologram.
Look closely, the image is not "freestanding," you always see the image in front of an imaging plate in the background. It appears to be freestanding because it appears in the center of the chamber, but there's always a screen behind it.
seriously, the reviewers say that hi-def porn is awful. You see every wrinkle and blemish, it's not very attractive.
You're only seeing TWO of the 24 views at any one time. So it's stereoscopic. A viewer on the other side of the viewing chamber would see an entirely different set of views, reconstructing a different stereo pair. That's exactly the same way the multiplex hologram cylinders worked. They took film of an object rotating on a turntable, using two cameras arranged to take stereoscopic movies. Then they multiplexed the stereo pairs into vertical strips around a cylinder, using clever holography techniques to present the stereo pairs at the proper separation and angle. Of course that's a gross simplification, you can google up dozens of math papers on the keywords "multiplex hologram" if you like the hardcore theory.
This isn't true 3D, it's stereoscopic. It uses a clever method to project stereo pairs, sort of like those rotating cylinder animated holograms they used to make (watch the end sequence of the film Logans Run if you've never seen one).
Yes, tapping will work to free up stuck drives with stiction problems. A long time ago, I had a Quantum drive in an old Apple IIcx that was covered under extended warranty because of stiction problems in that drive model. Apple actually replaced it 18 months beyond the 1 year warranty, what a deal. But the officially recommended workaround, direct from Apple, was to tap the top of the drive casing, just above the drive heads. They said just a couple of firm taps with a fingertip as the drive powered up was sufficient to break the stiction between the heads and the platter. And it worked. I kept the drive in action until the last possible moment, and got it replaced on the day the extended warranty ran out.
Go back under your rock, little troll. You keep cranking out your buggy code, and I'll keep trying to educate the next generation of programmers how to avoid errors. The first step is admitting your fallibility. I have no use for idiots like you who think they're infallible. HAND.
They didn't listen back in 1977 when I was converting some of NASA's antiquated FORTRAN II programs to FORTRAN IV. They didn't listen at JPL either. What makes you think they'll listen now?
Spacecraft computer engineers today have the attitude that all hardware problems have been solved or dealt with through redundancy or hardening. I have often heard them say, "all problems are software problems." This wasn't a malfunction of hardware, it was a human error. And you still haven't learned anything.
You still haven't learned the lesson. Those are not errors or mistakes, they are malfunctions. A properly designed computer system can easily detect malfunctions (i.e. ECC RAM) but that same system will happily execute any human-designed code containing massive errors.
You're just the kind of computer geek I abhor, always looking for excuses instead of solutions to your own mistakes.
That's not an error, it's a malfunction.
Yes, as I said, AND is the default operator on Google, I was referring to Altavista's old methods. I like parens so you can override the usual precedence of operators, but at the moment I can't think of a good example for a text search.
Yesss! I constantly use the NOT operator, the minus sign before keywords or domains etc. You can refine searches to almost anything with AND (the default operator) and NOT.
I used to like AltaVista's old logical operators, which included parentheses for nested operations. I could do things like
((foo AND bar) OR (foo AND baz))
but I don't think Google supports anything like this.