You know, If someone told me they had two children and one of them was a boy and it turned out both of them were boys, I'd consider that lying to. But this is a puzzle. We are trying to figure out the likely hood of the other child is a boy. Therefore common English/courtesy/straightforwardness does not apply. And so I wouldn't assume that the other child couldn't be born on a Tuesday.
If I already have a boy, and I'm having another child which I don't yet know the gender, the chances of it being a boy are 50/50. This is essentially the situation described: guess the gender of one person.
I'm saying that IF you want to consider the order that the children are born in, and that order is unknown, we get the following pattern:
If your going to count the known male twice in one scenario (a know male and a female) why wouldn't you count it twice in the other (a known male and a male).
You really have to be careful to be consistent. Either order matters or it doesn't.
If no order matters, it male-male vs male- female. Other wise it's known-male-female and female-known-male vs known-male-male and male-known-male. You can't half ass it. It's one or the other.
Counting properly is important. We already *know* that one gender is male, and your over counting it when you tally your total. You are considering order when one child is female in 'WHERE gender1 = male OR gender2 = male', but not when both are males.
If you want to make the claim that it's not the birth order that makes it interesting, then don't make it interesting.
We know one child is male. We don't know the others gender. This gives us:
The article first went off the rails when considering the order the children were born in. You can do that, but you have to do it right. They came up with the answer 1/3. I get 2/4. Here's how to do it properly: Label the child we know to be a boy as A. The child without a known gender is B.
Boy-A Boy-B Boy-A Girl-B Boy-B Boy-A Girl-B Boy-A
2/4 = 1/2 as initial intuition expects. Math works as long as you break down the problem correctly, if you don't, you get funny answers like 1/3.
Now let's do the day of the week thing with the boy being born first on Tuesday:
Chances are 7/14. Filp around who was born first and add it in: 14/28. Even if we're not allowed to use Tuesdays for child B, we get 12/24 which is 1/2 as expected.
Even expert mathematicians slip up some times. You need to count each and every pair, and not exclude any that 'look' like they've already been counted.
The application that I'm working on does not lock the records. The business object remembers that initial values it was loaded with. If those have changed, when the user saves, it presents them with a message that someone else has already edited the record. Sure, that may be annoying to the user, but it really doesn't come up all that often.
It's simple SQL: update client set unique_id = ?, first_name = ?, last_name = ? where unique_id = ? and first_name = ? and last_name = ?; (assuming no nulls allowed)
In the set clause you use the new values, in the where clause you use the old values. If zero records are updated, you have a conflict.
As a an administrator I am not happy about this. Now all my users are going to be prompted to upgrade, even though they can't.
We need to upgrade Firefox when our network is ready for it (which will be soon). How do they expect organizations to deal with this? Do they not realize that upgrades have dependencies?!
It's only been out for a couple of months. Do they expect site administrators to be at their beck and call?
Obviously they haven't thought this through.
It's still the best browser. I just wish they'd have consideration for anyone other desktop users.
Converting energy into a mobile for is important. Further, there are places that have cheap reliable electricity. There are lots of places that could be developed to have cheap reliable electricity. In other places, there is already a transmission grid in place.
>Folks on slashdot are always talking about how it's possible to make money on free/open source software, and that F/OSS is >the wave of the future. Well, if you *really* believe this, why are you shocked that large companies agree with you? Or >that people who start open source projects agree with you?
You are apparently assuming that the set of "those who agree that companies buying up FOSS companies is worrisome" overlaps largely with the set of "those who think that FOSS can be profitibile." I think that this assumption is incorrect.
Even where they do overlap, there is a big difference between an open source company profiting and a non-open source company buying an open source projects whose intentions may not be the same as an open source company.
Check out gdesklets for gnome. There are all sorts of widgets for the desktop, including starterBar, which is much like the animated icons at the bottom of the screen on OS X.
Sys Admins have a new way to keep their users' windows machines up to date. Simply enocde your updates into a WMF file and place it on the intranet home page.
In order for any web site to "read" my identity (assuming the chip is installed), data from the chip would need to be sent over HTTP. So, if you are not using a browser capable of sending it, or your OS does not have a driver to access the device, the device is useless. Not to mention, there is nothing to prevent you from using a browser that supplies false information.
If this were done purely in hardware, the data would be encoded in the network layer, which means that the data would not leave the subnet (assuming current network technologies used on the internet).
What it comes down to in the end, is that Apache on Linux performs to my liking. Let's not nit pick about which one is faster. From a security and administratability stand point, Apache on Linux blows IIS on Windows out of the water.
This seems like Microsoft is advertising to the inexperienced or fly by night sys admins.
This FAQ entry referenced by TFA makes it pretty clear that MSFT is not claiming ownership of anything with this.
That is correct. However, there is nothing to stop MSFT from getting people to sign an agreement that states that the liscensee agrees to pay royalties in the future, regardless of what OS they are using.
They may also lead people to believe that they own the protocols and scare them into continued use of MSFT software.
Why would they be trying to apply any sort of license to public domain protocols?
Distro Elitism does not server any beneficail purpose. It only serves to generalize and then demean people.
If you have contributed to open source, then you should be proud of what the movement has accomplished. There are many different programs, tools and distrobutions that people can choose from. People will use what works for them.
If use open source, then you should be greatful that you have this massive resource at your disposal.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, If someone told me they had two children and one of them was a boy and it turned out both of them were boys, I'd consider that lying to. But this is a puzzle. We are trying to figure out the likely hood of the other child is a boy. Therefore common English/courtesy/straightforwardness does not apply. And so I wouldn't assume that the other child couldn't be born on a Tuesday.
If I already have a boy, and I'm having another child which I don't yet know the gender, the chances of it being a boy are 50/50. This is essentially the situation described: guess the gender of one person.
I'm saying that IF you want to consider the order that the children are born in, and that order is unknown, we get the following pattern:
known-gender-male unknown-gender
unknown-gender known-gender-male
Plug your possible values into the above template and you get:
known-gender-male male?
male? known-gender-male
known-gender-male female?
female? known-gender-male
If your going to count the known male twice in one scenario (a know male and a female) why wouldn't you count it twice in the other (a known male and a male).
You really have to be careful to be consistent. Either order matters or it doesn't.
If no order matters, it male-male vs male- female. Other wise it's known-male-female and female-known-male vs known-male-male and male-known-male. You can't half ass it. It's one or the other.
Counting properly is important. We already *know* that one gender is male, and your over counting it when you tally your total. You are considering order when one child is female in 'WHERE gender1 = male OR gender2 = male', but not when both are males.
If you want to make the claim that it's not the birth order that makes it interesting, then don't make it interesting.
We know one child is male. We don't know the others gender. This gives us:
10
11
Query that and you'll get 1/2.
Your query isn't wrong, your data is.
The article first went off the rails when considering the order the children were born in. You can do that, but you have to do it right. They came up with the answer 1/3. I get 2/4. Here's how to do it properly: Label the child we know to be a boy as A. The child without a known gender is B.
Boy-A Boy-B
Boy-A Girl-B
Boy-B Boy-A
Girl-B Boy-A
2/4 = 1/2 as initial intuition expects. Math works as long as you break down the problem correctly, if you don't, you get funny answers like 1/3.
Now let's do the day of the week thing with the boy being born first on Tuesday:
Boy-A Girl-B-S
Boy-A Girl-B-M
Boy-A Girl-B-Tu
Boy-A Girl-B-W
Boy-A Girl-B-Th
Boy-A Girl-B-Fr
Boy-A Girl-B-Sat
Boy-A Boy-B-S
Boy-A Boy-B-M
Boy-A Boy-B-Tu
Boy-A Boy-B-W
Boy-A Boy-B-Th
Boy-A Boy-B-Fr
Boy-A Boy-B-Sat
Chances are 7/14. Filp around who was born first and add it in: 14/28. Even if we're not allowed to use Tuesdays for child B, we get 12/24 which is 1/2 as expected.
Even expert mathematicians slip up some times. You need to count each and every pair, and not exclude any that 'look' like they've already been counted.
Lights Out guerilla radio
turn that shit up
I can't find anything on google news about this besides blogs. Is this a hoax?
Wait? No Condoms?
Protesters will start carrying ear plugs to events.
The application that I'm working on does not lock the records. The business object remembers that initial values it was loaded with. If those have changed, when the user saves, it presents them with a message that someone else has already edited the record. Sure, that may be annoying to the user, but it really doesn't come up all that often.
It's simple SQL:
update client set unique_id = ?, first_name = ?, last_name = ? where unique_id = ? and first_name = ? and last_name = ?; (assuming no nulls allowed)
In the set clause you use the new values, in the where clause you use the old values. If zero records are updated, you have a conflict.
As a an administrator I am not happy about this. Now all my users are going to be prompted to upgrade, even though they can't.
We need to upgrade Firefox when our network is ready for it (which will be soon). How do they expect organizations to deal with this? Do they not realize that upgrades have dependencies?!
It's only been out for a couple of months. Do they expect site administrators to be at their beck and call?
Obviously they haven't thought this through.
It's still the best browser. I just wish they'd have consideration for anyone other desktop users.
It's working on my setup: Ubuntu Hardy Heron, Firefox 3.0, Shockwave Flash 9.0 r124.
YouTube works great and I don't get any crashes.
Converting energy into a mobile for is important. Further, there are places that have cheap reliable electricity. There are lots of places that could be developed to have cheap reliable electricity. In other places, there is already a transmission grid in place.
There is a huge hole in any security model. The users.
>Folks on slashdot are always talking about how it's possible to make money on free/open source software, and that F/OSS is >the wave of the future. Well, if you *really* believe this, why are you shocked that large companies agree with you? Or >that people who start open source projects agree with you?
You are apparently assuming that the set of "those who agree that companies buying up FOSS companies is worrisome" overlaps largely with the set of "those who think that FOSS can be profitibile." I think that this assumption is incorrect.
Even where they do overlap, there is a big difference between an open source company profiting and a non-open source company buying an open source projects whose intentions may not be the same as an open source company.
We can always fork if the projects become closed.
Check out gdesklets for gnome. There are all sorts of widgets for the desktop, including starterBar, which is much like the animated icons at the bottom of the screen on OS X.
I know Vista just keeps giving me more and more reason to overcome my difficulties with Linux.
Need to overcome difficulties with Linux? Try http://www.ubuntulinux.org/.
Sys Admins have a new way to keep their users' windows machines up to date. Simply enocde your updates into a WMF file and place it on the intranet home page.
I see nothing to stop you from generating your own private/public key pairs and using them in software.
Sorry, that should read "link layer" not "network layer".
In order for any web site to "read" my identity (assuming the chip is installed), data from the chip would need to be sent over HTTP. So, if you are not using a browser capable of sending it, or your OS does not have a driver to access the device, the device is useless. Not to mention, there is nothing to prevent you from using a browser that supplies false information.
If this were done purely in hardware, the data would be encoded in the network layer, which means that the data would not leave the subnet (assuming current network technologies used on the internet).
We've had this ability in Winnipeg for a couple of years now: http://www.winnipegtransit.com/main/index.jsp
When Linux has as many third party apps and interconnecting drivers as Windows does,
Linux IS a bunch of third party apps and drivers.
What it comes down to in the end, is that Apache on Linux performs to my liking. Let's not nit pick about which one is faster. From a security and administratability stand point, Apache on Linux blows IIS on Windows out of the water.
This seems like Microsoft is advertising to the inexperienced or fly by night sys admins.
This FAQ entry referenced by TFA makes it pretty clear that MSFT is not claiming ownership of anything with this.
That is correct. However, there is nothing to stop MSFT from getting people to sign an agreement that states that the liscensee agrees to pay royalties in the future, regardless of what OS they are using.
They may also lead people to believe that they own the protocols and scare them into continued use of MSFT software.
Why would they be trying to apply any sort of license to public domain protocols?
Distro Elitism does not server any beneficail purpose. It only serves to generalize and then demean people.
If you have contributed to open source, then you should be proud of what the movement has accomplished. There are many different programs, tools and distrobutions that people can choose from. People will use what works for them.
If use open source, then you should be greatful that you have this massive resource at your disposal.