Hasn't the term "spam" been rendered generic by now? I don't think Hormel has done anything in the past to protect the trademark against this use. Besides, the last time I read their website it indicated that only the form "SPAM" was trademarked and copyrighted by them.
In closing, I would personally like to lick each and every person for their continued support during this challenging chapter of our company's history.
I run Mandrake and am proud to give them my support, but is it OK if I pass on that?
RIAA knows there's no way in hell to stop millions of P2P user's individually, but they realized they don't have to. The RIAA is not going after people who download music, they're going after people who SHARE the music. Sometimes, those are one in the same, but in going after people that have a large amount of files shared, they can potentially bring down all the mainstream P2P systems (Kazaa et. al.).
Think about it, RIAA sues a bunch of file sharers, the message is "share our music, lose your life savings." People get the message, but of course, since most people are lazy, they won't just stop sharing the files they aren't supposed to, they'll simply disable sharing and share zero files (thereby becoming leechers).
Of course, in small numbers this won't have mutch affect, but if everyone disables sharing and starts leeching... well, no more P2P.
Don't know if more distributed systems like gnutella would be affected by this strategy, but I can very much see the mainstream guys getting destroyed by this.
I'll bet that's their strategy... and I'll bet it works.
Time to fire up iTunes and bust out the credit card:)
Except the oil companies are not stupid. They know that eventual movement to another energy source is inevitable.
They also know that their expertise in refining, storing, and distributing large quantities of matter will be profitable even in a new Hydrogen economy.
Oil companies are in the business to make money, even if it isn't oil that's the cash cow any more. Why do you think oil companies have been slowly rebranding themselves as "energy companies"?
For an example of what I'm talking about, look into BP.
Re:The result was the programmed result.
on
Digital Darwin
·
· Score: 1
The code IS published on their website, and if you are so confident in your conclusions why don't you analyze the code yourself and give us a full report of your findings.
Re:Everything can be related to math.
on
Origami and Math
·
· Score: 1
Mods: You need to mod the parent of this up to at least three, so people browsing at normal levels will see it.
Without its parent visible, this statement is merely a statement about mathematics, and not funny at all.
I just threw it in there because it would make the function faster not doing two summations for larger sequences......that and I'm trying desperately to make up for the fact that I have a small penis;-)
You have a good point. However, I think a small function such as the swap is good because it lets you see how programmers solve a problem on the spot, yet it's not large or complex enough to be downright unfair.
To be honest with you, I'd probably look it up too... given a choice that is:)
Do you think it's the actual sort function that matters? No, it's the fact that you have to understand what a pointer is and how to use one to write it well.
Trust me, it's served my company quite well over the years.
You don't know which number you're missing ahead of time. Here's what I'd do:
Sum up the numbers you DO have, then subtract it from 11(10)/2 (the old Gaussian summation formula).
Whatever number that is is your missing number.
For example, you're missing 3:
(11)(10)/2 = 55
1+2+4+5+6+7+8+9+10 = 52
55 - 52 = 3 (your missing number)
(I'd do the summation formula because then it would work quicker if you had a larger sequence, like 1...1000). Doing one summation is always better than two.
... the swap function. It may be simple and about three lines long, but you'd be surprised how many people it weeds out who simply don't understand pointers.
And understanding pointers (even if you use non-pointer languages) seems to be a common trait of most "Good Programmers".
We could call it "Slashdot Vapor Extermination, Inc." Everyday, we would take a different piece of cool-sounding vaporware that gets reported on Slashdot's front page, and then produce it before the original company puts out the press release saying they've had "implementation difficulties" (they weren't smart enough to figure it out) or "that was a concept never destined for production" (we just wanted to tease you so you'd read our press releases).
So, what will it be? A multi-processor quantum teleported dual monitor touchscreen e-ink notebook with a fuel cell running Duke Nukem Forever anyone?
Ok, I'm being pedantic with myself, but that should read:
"Any simply connected closed 3-manifold is homeomorphic to the 3-sphere."
This is, of course, the Poincaire Conjecture.
The article wasn't about making the interface pretty (in fact the author comments about how Mac OS X made the Mac interface "pretty", but it was still the Mac classic interface that was his example of an ideal UI).
The author wants to make the interface useful. There are UI interface issues in opens source software which detract from useability but have nothing to do with attractiveness (too many preferences was the author's main thesis).
I understand your view that the CLI is the best approach for some software, but it definitely isn't for others. How would you like to use a CLI word-processing app?
Besides, some of the same arguments he makes apply to CLI apps as well. How do I find out how to use gnuFoo if the non-verbose gnuFoo --help command spews forth 20 pages of options?
Yes, I think the CLI world and the GUI world can and will peacefully co-exist (in my view, I think every app should have a console mode where advanced users can control the software, but beginning to intermediate users will never even need to know it's there), we just need people who understand both sides of the coin.
Actually, it's not that backwards, just small. Also, that email was a joke. Yes, we can make fun of ourselves.
Re:Implications for Solar Power
on
Stopping Light
·
· Score: 1
Sounds good, one problem though:
They didn't store the energy of the photons, they stored and retransmitted the information from the original light source.
What you are talking about is finding a way to store huge amounts of energetic photons in such a way that they are in some sort of "stasis" until they need to be released again. Sorry to say, but this definitely HASN'T been done.
Now, if you were to find a way in which we could have photons strike a large group of atoms (thereby driving them to their next highest energy state) but then somehow keep them from returning to their natural state by releasing another photon until we wanted them to, then we might have something. Photonic batteries anyone?
Anyway, don't hold your breath. But hey, if you want to get started on it, please be my guest, maybe I can bum a few billion bucks off of you in 40 years:)
Slashdot Mirror
For the same reason a package of peanuts proclaims:
"Warning: contains nuts"
Perhaps you missed this part of my post:
Besides, the last time I read their website it indicated that only the form "SPAM" was trademarked and copyrighted by them.
IANAL but...
Hasn't the term "spam" been rendered generic by now? I don't think Hormel has done anything in the past to protect the trademark against this use. Besides, the last time I read their website it indicated that only the form "SPAM" was trademarked and copyrighted by them.
Hmmm....
In closing, I would personally like to lick each and every person for their continued support during this challenging chapter of our company's history.
I run Mandrake and am proud to give them my support, but is it OK if I pass on that?
...and here's how:
:)
RIAA knows there's no way in hell to stop millions of P2P user's individually, but they realized they don't have to. The RIAA is not going after people who download music, they're going after people who SHARE the music. Sometimes, those are one in the same, but in going after people that have a large amount of files shared, they can potentially bring down all the mainstream P2P systems (Kazaa et. al.).
Think about it, RIAA sues a bunch of file sharers, the message is "share our music, lose your life savings." People get the message, but of course, since most people are lazy, they won't just stop sharing the files they aren't supposed to, they'll simply disable sharing and share zero files (thereby becoming leechers).
Of course, in small numbers this won't have mutch affect, but if everyone disables sharing and starts leeching... well, no more P2P.
Don't know if more distributed systems like gnutella would be affected by this strategy, but I can very much see the mainstream guys getting destroyed by this.
I'll bet that's their strategy... and I'll bet it works.
Time to fire up iTunes and bust out the credit card
Seems a little bland to me.
Except the oil companies are not stupid. They know that eventual movement to another energy source is inevitable.
They also know that their expertise in refining, storing, and distributing large quantities of matter will be profitable even in a new Hydrogen economy.
Oil companies are in the business to make money, even if it isn't oil that's the cash cow any more. Why do you think oil companies have been slowly rebranding themselves as "energy companies"?
For an example of what I'm talking about, look into BP.
The code IS published on their website, and if you are so confident in your conclusions why don't you analyze the code yourself and give us a full report of your findings.
Mods: You need to mod the parent of this up to at least three, so people browsing at normal levels will see it.
Without its parent visible, this statement is merely a statement about mathematics, and not funny at all.
Hmmmmmm,
I wonder if CmdrTaco meant "BODY Parts". Oh well, it's funny either way.
Me sah Dobby, sah...
Wow, the resemblence was quite unsettling.
Perhaps you should reread the problem there bud. You can't find a number missing from a list with an empty for loop.
Also, I'm not a mathematician, I'm a software engineer.
I just threw it in there because it would make the function faster not doing two summations for larger sequences... ...that and I'm trying desperately to make up for the fact that I have a small penis ;-)
You have a good point. However, I think a small function such as the swap is good because it lets you see how programmers solve a problem on the spot, yet it's not large or complex enough to be downright unfair.
:)
To be honest with you, I'd probably look it up too... given a choice that is
Do you think it's the actual sort function that matters? No, it's the fact that you have to understand what a pointer is and how to use one to write it well.
Trust me, it's served my company quite well over the years.
You don't know which number you're missing ahead of time. Here's what I'd do:
Sum up the numbers you DO have, then subtract it from 11(10)/2 (the old Gaussian summation formula).
Whatever number that is is your missing number.
For example, you're missing 3:
(11)(10)/2 = 55
1+2+4+5+6+7+8+9+10 = 52
55 - 52 = 3 (your missing number)
(I'd do the summation formula because then it would work quicker if you had a larger sequence, like 1...1000). Doing one summation is always better than two.
Anyone know a faster way?
... the swap function. It may be simple and about three lines long, but you'd be surprised how many people it weeds out who simply don't understand pointers.
And understanding pointers (even if you use non-pointer languages) seems to be a common trait of most "Good Programmers".
"Score 3: Funny"
Somehow, I'm having a hard time figuring out how this is funnier than the 30 other Beowulf jokes in this thread.
Would someone please enlighten me? Anyone? Anyone?
We could call it "Slashdot Vapor Extermination, Inc." Everyday, we would take a different piece of cool-sounding vaporware that gets reported on Slashdot's front page, and then produce it before the original company puts out the press release saying they've had "implementation difficulties" (they weren't smart enough to figure it out) or "that was a concept never destined for production" (we just wanted to tease you so you'd read our press releases).
So, what will it be? A multi-processor quantum teleported dual monitor touchscreen e-ink notebook with a fuel cell running Duke Nukem Forever anyone?
Ok, I'm being pedantic with myself, but that should read: "Any simply connected closed 3-manifold is homeomorphic to the 3-sphere." This is, of course, the Poincaire Conjecture.
This is becoming the stock answer to every question in existence.
"Say, how do you show that every simply connected manifold is homeomorphic to the 3-sphere?"
"I don't know, but I'm sure it's possible with a properly configured linux server/firewall along with some kind of proxy program."
I tried to replicate the two slit experience once.
I got slapped from both sides.
The article wasn't about making the interface pretty (in fact the author comments about how Mac OS X made the Mac interface "pretty", but it was still the Mac classic interface that was his example of an ideal UI).
The author wants to make the interface useful. There are UI interface issues in opens source software which detract from useability but have nothing to do with attractiveness (too many preferences was the author's main thesis).
I understand your view that the CLI is the best approach for some software, but it definitely isn't for others. How would you like to use a CLI word-processing app?
Besides, some of the same arguments he makes apply to CLI apps as well. How do I find out how to use gnuFoo if the non-verbose gnuFoo --help command spews forth 20 pages of options?
Yes, I think the CLI world and the GUI world can and will peacefully co-exist (in my view, I think every app should have a console mode where advanced users can control the software, but beginning to intermediate users will never even need to know it's there), we just need people who understand both sides of the coin.
Actually, it's not that backwards, just small. Also, that email was a joke. Yes, we can make fun of ourselves.
Sounds good, one problem though:
:)
They didn't store the energy of the photons, they stored and retransmitted the information from the original light source.
What you are talking about is finding a way to store huge amounts of energetic photons in such a way that they are in some sort of "stasis" until they need to be released again. Sorry to say, but this definitely HASN'T been done.
Now, if you were to find a way in which we could have photons strike a large group of atoms (thereby driving them to their next highest energy state) but then somehow keep them from returning to their natural state by releasing another photon until we wanted them to, then we might have something. Photonic batteries anyone?
Anyway, don't hold your breath. But hey, if you want to get started on it, please be my guest, maybe I can bum a few billion bucks off of you in 40 years