Really? So how do you know their articles are crap? Probably because you've read some of them???
Yes, that's generally accepted as the most honest and effective way to know that something is crap. Present comments excepted, of course.
So... you (like a ton of people posting here) want better stuff then they are producing now, don't want to pay for it, and don't want any ads in place to generate revenue some other way.
I think people need to take some economics courses. There is no free lunch.
Of course we want high-quality stuff, for free. THAT's basic economics. Additionally, if the content goes away, I won't care. That's also basic economics. Bandying about Adam Smith and guilt isn't going to win you an argument about content which was independent until about two years ago, and has since been taken over by a magazine publisher.
I used to like Wired in paper form. I really, really did. Now I can hardly wallow through their inserts and adverts, and the content, aside from one or two in-depth articles, is ALL FLUFF. If they didn't keep trying new layouts and "Wired, Tired, Expired" shit which no one seems to care about, and actually focused on the content, then I might put up with the ads. But they won't, and I won't even shell out $10 per year to have the land-filler shipped to me any more. That's basic environmentalism.
Since the intricacies of the drive's physical address space are not accessible from the outside, there will never never never be a reason to try and fiddle with it directly. Because you can't.
Careful there. I know you're addressing a typical user of the hard drives, but there ARE ways of -- and reasons for -- getting at the "bits themselves". One of my colleagues, as a fresh student at one of the National Labs in the US, was tasked with recovering data from a crashed (literally crashed, so that the controller was destroyed and platters bent, with lots of data loss) disk. Of course there are ways and means of doing so, usually involving fantastically specialized equipment and lots of expense (and, often, the complicity or orders at the Federal level).
He ended up building a sweet little system which could scan the surface (in a low-level clean-room, of course), albeit slowly, and interact directly with the bits.
I'll have to ask him how they figured out the filesystem, the error-correction, and so on, without any of the usual partition tables and so forth.
Oh, hell yeah. Sometimes on a slow day, when there's little wind and a crowd outside the building, my colleagues will send around a bunch of emails full of ones. The cables outside twist and swing, and people look around for the source of wind.
Those recent communication satellite crashes? Too many ones got in their relay buffers, weighing them down and destabilizing their orbits.
Perhaps, but it's common (and, I would argue, right) to mention work which has gone before, whether or not it was exactly the same. It gives alternative routes of learning about the given subject (which is, after all, the whole point of publishing results in the first place, right?). Sure, if the work isn't immediately applicable, then do it in a footnote or appendix, but unless one is totally unaware of the previously published (or even unpublished) work, it's better to be comprehensive than parochial.
Slides? Not a single professor of mine in graduate school made slides. They didn't have time to. It's much faster, easier, and more effective to write things out on the board, and helps the learning, especially if things are put up in some semblance of a nice order. Making slides for innumerable physics diagrams and equations is a huge waste of time.
Funny. I'm just sort of getting into OO-based programming in Python, and it DOES drive me insane, compared to the functional perspective of Mathematica. I find functional languages to be much easier to read, faster to write, and just how I think.
I AM happy with Python, and I'm trying to transition to it as my workhorse language.
It is NOT happening FTL; the "instantaneous" features of evanescent waves are well known, and have been since George Green described them in the 1820's and 1830's. Neither information nor energy is getting anywhere faster than c.
In the meantime, those of us who use our computers to get real work done will continue to use Windows 7 [...]
*Cough* Ah, yes. That heap, which because of various security problems and incompatibility with disk encryption, will not be used by certain government labs for at least a year, and probably much longer. Thanks be to Torvalds that linux does pass the tests, even the miniature distros, and is allowed, so we can get real work done.
Oh, this fighting is fun (and I have no horse in the race!). Note that even in the most generous listing of continents (comprising 7), New Zealand is NOT separated from Australia.
It means there's a principle of conservation of adipose tissue. If she starts to lose weight again, you'd better make sure the mailman isn't also putting on pounds . ...
That's either the most honest, insightful comment I've ever seen, or the most useless. I'm 92% sure, with an uncertainty of about +/-5%, that it's the latter.
I did read the article (which is one page, and contains nothing complicated). It's *exactly* a Newton's rings experiment, and has practically nothing to do with metamaterials, nor with an "adiabatically-tapered waveguide", as the article claims. Looks to me as though New Scientist did some _very_ sloppy reporting, and/. got snookered into picking it up as real research.
The part about the system running for 100 hours was pure gibberish. Yes, we can all divide that by 0.1 sec, but what on earth does that have to do with a real-time tracking system tracking a target is acquired a few minutes ago?!
Yes! This was what I was wondering, too. Who the hell cares how long the system had been running already? All that matters is the most recent sequence of (time, position) [ or maybe (time, position, velocity) ] readings. Does anyone have a reasonable explanation whatsoever?
You'd think that people would learn that language isn't always sensical, and that terms may have multiple --- even mutually contradictory --- meanings. Hope that's not too inflammatory a hope.
You're right about it not being a burn. However, one can have a _tremendous_ amount of energy around for a heat death. It's the entropy which matters, though, as for the energy to _do_ anything, there has to be an energy density difference from place-to-place, and time-to-time. No gradient, no energy flow. It's the equivalent of a glowing hot ceramics furnace: it's amazingly energetic, but the fact that it's uniformly energetic means that you can't tell what bit is furnace wall, and what bit is pottery.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? So how do you know their articles are crap? Probably because you've read some of them???
Yes, that's generally accepted as the most honest and effective way to know that something is crap. Present comments excepted, of course.
So... you (like a ton of people posting here) want better stuff then they are producing now, don't want to pay for it, and don't want any ads in place to generate revenue some other way.
I think people need to take some economics courses. There is no free lunch.
Of course we want high-quality stuff, for free. THAT's basic economics. Additionally, if the content goes away, I won't care. That's also basic economics. Bandying about Adam Smith and guilt isn't going to win you an argument about content which was independent until about two years ago, and has since been taken over by a magazine publisher.
I used to like Wired in paper form. I really, really did. Now I can hardly wallow through their inserts and adverts, and the content, aside from one or two in-depth articles, is ALL FLUFF. If they didn't keep trying new layouts and "Wired, Tired, Expired" shit which no one seems to care about, and actually focused on the content, then I might put up with the ads. But they won't, and I won't even shell out $10 per year to have the land-filler shipped to me any more. That's basic environmentalism.
Since the intricacies of the drive's physical address space are not accessible from the outside, there will never never never be a reason to try and fiddle with it directly. Because you can't.
Careful there. I know you're addressing a typical user of the hard drives, but there ARE ways of -- and reasons for -- getting at the "bits themselves". One of my colleagues, as a fresh student at one of the National Labs in the US, was tasked with recovering data from a crashed (literally crashed, so that the controller was destroyed and platters bent, with lots of data loss) disk. Of course there are ways and means of doing so, usually involving fantastically specialized equipment and lots of expense (and, often, the complicity or orders at the Federal level).
He ended up building a sweet little system which could scan the surface (in a low-level clean-room, of course), albeit slowly, and interact directly with the bits.
I'll have to ask him how they figured out the filesystem, the error-correction, and so on, without any of the usual partition tables and so forth.
Oh, hell yeah. Sometimes on a slow day, when there's little wind and a crowd outside the building, my colleagues will send around a bunch of emails full of ones. The cables outside twist and swing, and people look around for the source of wind.
Those recent communication satellite crashes? Too many ones got in their relay buffers, weighing them down and destabilizing their orbits.
Tautological, and not very helpful.
Perhaps, but it's common (and, I would argue, right) to mention work which has gone before, whether or not it was exactly the same. It gives alternative routes of learning about the given subject (which is, after all, the whole point of publishing results in the first place, right?). Sure, if the work isn't immediately applicable, then do it in a footnote or appendix, but unless one is totally unaware of the previously published (or even unpublished) work, it's better to be comprehensive than parochial.
Slides? Not a single professor of mine in graduate school made slides. They didn't have time to. It's much faster, easier, and more effective to write things out on the board, and helps the learning, especially if things are put up in some semblance of a nice order. Making slides for innumerable physics diagrams and equations is a huge waste of time.
Funny. I'm just sort of getting into OO-based programming in Python, and it DOES drive me insane, compared to the functional perspective of Mathematica. I find functional languages to be much easier to read, faster to write, and just how I think.
I AM happy with Python, and I'm trying to transition to it as my workhorse language.
It is NOT happening FTL; the "instantaneous" features of evanescent waves are well known, and have been since George Green described them in the 1820's and 1830's. Neither information nor energy is getting anywhere faster than c.
Ah. So the ability to "bit back the pain" makes one right.
I'm always kind of surprised when random shift-key hits get the capital letters to start words, but then lots of things surprise me.
OpenGL Programming Guide (Seventh Edition) –
That's some heavy-duty OpenGL code, right there.
In the meantime, those of us who use our computers to get real work done will continue to use Windows 7 [...]
*Cough* Ah, yes. That heap, which because of various security problems and incompatibility with disk encryption, will not be used by certain government labs for at least a year, and probably much longer. Thanks be to Torvalds that linux does pass the tests, even the miniature distros, and is allowed, so we can get real work done.
Oh, this fighting is fun (and I have no horse in the race!). Note that even in the most generous listing of continents (comprising 7), New Zealand is NOT separated from Australia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent#Number_of_continents
It means there's a principle of conservation of adipose tissue. If she starts to lose weight again, you'd better make sure the mailman isn't also putting on pounds . . ..
We know as much statistics as we need to know.
Some know more, some less.
That's either the most honest, insightful comment I've ever seen, or the most useless. I'm 92% sure, with an uncertainty of about +/-5%, that it's the latter.
I did read the article (which is one page, and contains nothing complicated). It's *exactly* a Newton's rings experiment, and has practically nothing to do with metamaterials, nor with an "adiabatically-tapered waveguide", as the article claims. Looks to me as though New Scientist did some _very_ sloppy reporting, and /. got snookered into picking it up as real research.
Yeah, microseconds are easy. Cheapo function generators synchronize to within nanoseconds, and femtoseconds are common timings for laser systems now.
The part about the system running for 100 hours was pure gibberish. Yes, we can all divide that by 0.1 sec, but what on earth does that have to do with a real-time tracking system tracking a target is acquired a few minutes ago?!
Yes! This was what I was wondering, too. Who the hell cares how long the system had been running already? All that matters is the most recent sequence of (time, position) [ or maybe (time, position, velocity) ] readings. Does anyone have a reasonable explanation whatsoever?
Win.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_curve#Common_terms
You'd think that people would learn that language isn't always sensical, and that terms may have multiple --- even mutually contradictory --- meanings. Hope that's not too inflammatory a hope.
You're right about it not being a burn. However, one can have a _tremendous_ amount of energy around for a heat death. It's the entropy which matters, though, as for the energy to _do_ anything, there has to be an energy density difference from place-to-place, and time-to-time. No gradient, no energy flow. It's the equivalent of a glowing hot ceramics furnace: it's amazingly energetic, but the fact that it's uniformly energetic means that you can't tell what bit is furnace wall, and what bit is pottery.
One of my favorite essays. Likely extremely outdated, but an eminently entertaining way to blow an afternoon!
Yep. Decoherence/absorption/dispersion happens. Packets get dropped.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.12/ffglass_pr.html
"Fuck it, we're going to five wings."