It means you get booted off certain stock markets, e.g., the NASDAQ. The company I used to work for kept doing reverse stock splits to raise their price above the dollar mark.
Yes: the payment is based on the number of times the author's book are borrowed. However, the payment per loan is small and it's capped (last figure I recall is £6,000 pa).
And, of course, some directors, like Stanley Kubrick, wanted their stuff shown as 4:3 in the first place.
Not quite true: he was so appalled at how his films were panned-and-scanned that he started shooting them so that they would look good at both 4:3 and widescreen ratios. Certainly, The Shining was shot this way.
When a patent is applied for, all kinds of drawings and stuff like that are needed right? It would then make sense that any company patenting software should have to supply source code in support of their patent application making it available for all to see right?
This makes perfect sense. Patents provide a temporary monopoly on a process for something that will ultimately benefit mankind. The patent application has to provide a complete working solution, with software this'd be a complete and visible solution (i.e., you see the source and compile it, but you can't copy it); moreover, it should be a solution that becomes open source (probably under a BSD license) once the patent expires.
Having the source would give a good defence against all the vague software patent cases: any infringement cases could be tested against actual working software rather than reams of verbose legalese. And once the patent expires, everybody would benefit without cost from the patent, just like they were originally meant to when the patent laws were drawn up.
It's the reverse, in fact: all campaigns are paid for by contributions by members and supportors of the party, though there are caps on how much you can spend at the constituency and national level (the latter cap was introduced only a few years ago). The opposition parties do receive public funds (known as Short money) but it's only to fund offices (e.g., the shadow cabinet) -- it's forbidden to use it for campaigning purposes.
No, there are an infinite number of primes, and this is easlily proven. Given that there is no largest prime (first year undergrad stuff that I can't remember), we have that the size of N (the -- infinite -- set of natural numbers) must be less than or equal to the size of P (the set of primes) since you can map n in N to the nth prime in P. And since P is a subset of N we have that the size of P is less than or equal to the size of N. Therefore the size of P is equal to the size of N, i.e., P is infinite.
This has been fixed in VS.Net, (if you compile with/Ze) though, Microsoft being Microsoft, this scoping issue is not a bug but a Microsoft language extension (a.k.a. "feature").
Buck Rogers dates from the 30s. Used to be a comic, then a movie serial starring Buster Crabbe, who also played Flash Gordon at the time. (Interestingly enough, George Lucas wanted to make a Flash Gordon film, but he couldn't get the rights, so he did Star Wars instead.)
Sorry, what I meant to say was that you're working out the probabilty that none of the other people have the same birthday as each other as well as you.
To clarify, in a group of 23 people, the probability that that none of them has the same birthday as each other is approx 0.48; hence the probability that two or more of them share a birthday is approx 0.52.
You have to be careful with probability theory. It's always ready to trip you up. A conspiracy, I tell you.;-)
It actually only takes 22 other people to have a better than evens chance (i.e., a probability of over one half) that one of them will have the same birthday as you. What you need to work out is the number, N, it takes for the probability to drop below 0.5 that none of those N people have the same birthday as you (once this drops below a half, the probability that some does have the same birthday as you rises above a half). It's a well known problem in probability and the result always surprises people.
Re:Python is a GREAT language, but. . .
on
Think Python
·
· Score: 1
The offside rule in Haskell (i.e., the indenting) is optional. You can bung in braces and semi-colons if you want.
There is: just append a.class to the end of the class name, e.g. Foo.class will give you the class object you want.
Also, if you want Class objects from the primitive types, each of the wrapper types has a TYPE static field. So for the class object for an int, use Integer.TYPE .
You're thinking is too US-centric. Sure, the US government might be able scare US-based companies, but what about all those in the Far East where all the cheap electronics are actually made?
And do you really think a non-US government, especially US-hostilte ones such as China, are going effectively to hand over control over their machines to a foreign company? Not a chance. China is at the forefront of the royalty-free alternative to DVD -- SVCD -- and is strongly pushing Linux. There's going to be an awfully big market for non-Palladium machines and there's plenty of Eastern and European companies who'll be willing to fill it. These machines might be banned in the US, but you can always smuggle them over from Mexico like you do with Kinder Eggs.
If they really did scrap all adverts, then your monthly fee would skyrocket to the point that it would be horrendiously expensive and no-one would be prepared to pay for it.
Who do you think's paying for all the adverts in the first place? Ultimately it's the consumer when they buy their goods. Without adverts, TV would be more expensive but other products'd be cheaper (okay, only theoretically, we know the bastards wouldn't lower their prices).
Slashdot Mirror
It means you get booted off certain stock markets, e.g., the NASDAQ. The company I used to work for kept doing reverse stock splits to raise their price above the dollar mark.
£1 Monday to Friday, £2 for the Sunday Times, about £1.50-ish for the Times on Saturday.
There's always the possibility of reducing the price once the paperback is issued.
Yes: the payment is based on the number of times the author's book are borrowed. However, the payment per loan is small and it's capped (last figure I recall is £6,000 pa).
Isn't that Bioshock?
No, each app has its own isolated portion of the file system that it can use as it likes. The OS stores the apps preferences here, for one.
BBC national and local radio is funded from the TV license: no separate radio license is necessary and you can have a radio without a TV license.
It's called "economics".
You'd only need two: Japan's in Region 2, the same as Europe.
And, of course, some directors, like Stanley Kubrick, wanted their stuff shown as 4:3 in the first place.
Not quite true: he was so appalled at how his films were panned-and-scanned that he started shooting them so that they would look good at both 4:3 and widescreen ratios. Certainly, The Shining was shot this way.
When a patent is applied for, all kinds of drawings and stuff like that are needed right? It would then make sense that any company patenting software should have to supply source code in support of their patent application making it available for all to see right?
This makes perfect sense. Patents provide a temporary monopoly on a process for something that will ultimately benefit mankind. The patent application has to provide a complete working solution, with software this'd be a complete and visible solution (i.e., you see the source and compile it, but you can't copy it); moreover, it should be a solution that becomes open source (probably under a BSD license) once the patent expires.
Having the source would give a good defence against all the vague software patent cases: any infringement cases could be tested against actual working software rather than reams of verbose legalese. And once the patent expires, everybody would benefit without cost from the patent, just like they were originally meant to when the patent laws were drawn up.
It's the reverse, in fact: all campaigns are paid for by contributions by members and supportors of the party, though there are caps on how much you can spend at the constituency and national level (the latter cap was introduced only a few years ago). The opposition parties do receive public funds (known as Short money) but it's only to fund offices (e.g., the shadow cabinet) -- it's forbidden to use it for campaigning purposes.
No, there are an infinite number of primes, and this is easlily proven. Given that there is no largest prime (first year undergrad stuff that I can't remember), we have that the size of N (the -- infinite -- set of natural numbers) must be less than or equal to the size of P (the set of primes) since you can map n in N to the nth prime in P. And since P is a subset of N we have that the size of P is less than or equal to the size of N. Therefore the size of P is equal to the size of N, i.e., P is infinite.
This has been fixed in VS .Net, (if you compile with /Ze) though, Microsoft being Microsoft, this scoping issue is not a bug but a Microsoft language extension (a.k.a. "feature").
No, you need a programmer to tell the difference between what are standard, widely-used algorithms, e.g., linked-lists, and what aren't.
Unfortunately
/* ... */ }
public void increment(Integer i) {
won't work either since java.lang.Integer objects are immutable. You have to write your own Integer class.
The PO's reforms seem to consist of just charging higher fees. Have they been reading from the Microsoft Guide to Innovation?
Buck Rogers dates from the 30s. Used to be a comic, then a movie serial starring Buster Crabbe, who also played Flash Gordon at the time. (Interestingly enough, George Lucas wanted to make a Flash Gordon film, but he couldn't get the rights, so he did Star Wars instead.)
And they're traditionally considered bad luck for romantic purposes because of their changeability.
:-)
Bugger, my wife has opals in her engagement ring. Still, it's an antique, so hopefully that accounts for the changeability.
Well, she chose it herself. A lot less hassle that way. And at least you know the bloody thing is going to fit.
Sorry, what I meant to say was that you're working out the probabilty that none of the other people have the same birthday as each other as well as you.
;-)
To clarify, in a group of 23 people, the probability that that none of them has the same birthday as each other is approx 0.48; hence the probability that two or more of them share a birthday is approx 0.52.
You have to be careful with probability theory. It's always ready to trip you up. A conspiracy, I tell you.
It actually only takes 22 other people to have a better than evens chance (i.e., a probability of over one half) that one of them will have the same birthday as you. What you need to work out is the number, N, it takes for the probability to drop below 0.5 that none of those N people have the same birthday as you (once this drops below a half, the probability that some does have the same birthday as you rises above a half). It's a well known problem in probability and the result always surprises people.
The offside rule in Haskell (i.e., the indenting) is optional. You can bung in braces and semi-colons if you want.
There is: just append a .class to the end of the class name, e.g. Foo.class will give you the class object you want.
Also, if you want Class objects from the primitive types, each of the wrapper types has a TYPE static field. So for the class object for an int, use Integer.TYPE .
You're thinking is too US-centric. Sure, the US government might be able scare US-based companies, but what about all those in the Far East where all the cheap electronics are actually made?
And do you really think a non-US government, especially US-hostilte ones such as China, are going effectively to hand over control over their machines to a foreign company? Not a chance. China is at the forefront of the royalty-free alternative to DVD -- SVCD -- and is strongly pushing Linux. There's going to be an awfully big market for non-Palladium machines and there's plenty of Eastern and European companies who'll be willing to fill it. These machines might be banned in the US, but you can always smuggle them over from Mexico like you do with Kinder Eggs.
If they really did scrap all adverts, then your monthly fee would skyrocket to the point that it would be horrendiously expensive and no-one would be prepared to pay for it.
Who do you think's paying for all the adverts in the first place? Ultimately it's the consumer when they buy their goods. Without adverts, TV would be more expensive but other products'd be cheaper (okay, only theoretically, we know the bastards wouldn't lower their prices).