I certainly understand the frustration with filling in an online application, but if that's the biggest obstacle to getting the job, it's not that great of a job. Look at the fields required, copy them over to a text file, take your sweet time filling out the responses, and the online part can be a quick copy/paste. It's not that hard. Sure, find better ways to do it, but don't pretend it's this insurmountable challenge.
No, the Egyptians knew that a distant tribe of barbarians would one day become the French and invent the meter, and chose the location of Cairo to match the speed of light with their latitude, which they also realized would not be counted in a decimal way.
Some cats hunt and other don't because their mother needs to teach them that skill. All cats are born wanting to chase little moving things. It's the mom that needs to bring back prey and teach them the bite-neck-and-whip-it kill method they use. The difference between a hunting cat and a non-hunting cat is being taught by another one. We have had many vicious, animal-killing, *fixed* cats.
Unfortunately, it's "greater".
The code is greater than 100 lines.
There are more than 100 lines in it.
If you're talking about the lines, there's more. If you're talking about the container itself, it is greater.
I just want to point out that in the U.S., ex post facto laws aren't allowed. It's in Article 1 of the Constitution. Been there from the beginning. You can trust the FDIC as much as you can trust anyone with your money.
I think they are saying, that in a couple small tests, many cultures, particularly less wealthy or more family oriented cultures, react differently than Americans, and therefore Americans make incredibly bad case studies.
No.
They are saying that *culture* is what decides the results to these tests, and not inherent characteristics. Their entire point is that in these couple small tests the results differed everywhere. These "couple small tests" are tests we have traditionally held to be universal. We assume, for example, that in the same circumstances the $100-problem the author described people would universally settle on offering a "fair" 50/50 trade. People didn't expect that "fairness" was subjective even in something as perfectly quantifiable as cash. People didn't expect that "fair" is not something universally aspired-towards. People didn't expect that being "fair" to some cultures is a gift with a heavier burden than the gift itself.
What you concluded... yes, that's bullshit. The author had a good point, AND your post about the different reactions demonstrates that you came to the same conclusion, too.
How about two "infallible" coders who write the same function (let's say, in Perl) in two different ways - both of which produce the exact same result, processor usage, and runtime.
Could they not disagree on coding style yet remain infallible?
No. One of the two did it wrong. If they produce the exact same result, proc usage, runtime, AND effort to create, they'd be the same functions.
Besides, the infallible coder could just name off binary digits, all the while perfectly confident that it will work.
I've heard it's simply the amount of time from one noteworthy person to another in the family tree.
I.e.: ____ lived 300 years means it was 300 years between ______ and someone worth mentioning. For 300 years they were the clan/tribe/house of ______, after which the next guy on the tree did something important enough that his descendants considered themselves the clan/tribe/house of that guy instead.
Fastest on earth, "yet filled with energy-efficient multi-core architecture.":rolleyes
These are at cross-purposes. Do they want fastest on Earth, or pretty fast, but efficient, which is already driven by market mechanisms?
No, it's not. Today's supercomputers are thousands upon thousands times faster than those of decades past but are NOT taking up thousands of times more space or electricity.
Hopper is 16,000 nodes and two Pflops. Cray can't just make 10 of them, put 'em together, and consider the order filled. Efficiency is a LOT of the challenge in making the world's fastest computers.
I can't quote directly while at work, but I recall a TED talk mentioning that humans and the animals we raise (chickens, cats, dogs, sheep, cattle, etc.) now represent 98% of the world's terrestrial, vertebrate animals by mass. There's far more individual creatures in the wild than in domestication, but by weight we have overwhelmed the system.
IOW, the world is essentially running to support us. That's overpopulation. In the struggle to survive against nature, we're the first creatures to have essentially won.
What do you base that on? Humanity may have overpopulated Calcutta, or Sao Paulo.
We haven't overpopulated Wyoming.
Overpopulation isn't just about space to put people. Think about the food you eat and products you consume. The space required to support you is far, far larger than the area of your apartment.
Good God... a programmable robot?! He's only seven, little nerdlets.
Seriously, who here became a techie because their parents did this sort of stuff? I can see trying to shove computer programming to a child that only recently learned to spell as the sort of experience that convinces them NOT to take up computers as a hobby.
If he wants to know how computers work and not treat them like magic objects, then get him something. In the meantime, keep the magic alive and get him a soccerball.
To break the system, you need two taps on the wire, some distance apart. Now you get to see the sums of the signals from each end, but with different time shifts between them due to propagation delay. With that data, you can separate out what's coming from each end. This allows recovering the original signals.
From Wikipedia on the Kish cypher, just cut the signal during resistor switches. Or, more practically, note that recording noise accurately takes more time than switching the resistors would.
It could be that cell phones do increase the chance of brain cancer, but these other factors counteract it. To accurately determine whether or not cell phones affect brain cancer rates you need to control all the other variables.
This is an abuse of the "correlation is not causation" principle. This study is showing the LACK of causation, not causation.
Lack of correlation is strong evidence of lack of causation, even if the contrapositive isn't necessarily true. The parent post said that looking at the lack of pirates and global warming happening would be more accurate to the topic if you said that there was a lack of pirates and a lack of, say, a lack of global warming. Lack of correlation is also "evidence". It *could* be that cell phones increase brain cancer AND something else is counteracting it, but we have NO reason to suspect that. By the same reasoning, it could be that the lack of pirates is causing a rise in toe fungus... but smurfs eat it off our feet at night and are counteracting it. However, what would make you think pirates cause toe fungus?
Applying that to this situation, if there is a lack of correlation between cell phones and brain cancer, what reason would we have to suspect that there IS a correlation, but that it's being suppressed by something else? Until we have some sort of positive evidence of this, there's no more reason to suppose that than there is to just suppose that it doesn't cause brain cancer in the first place.
IOW, a HUGE rise in the frequency of cell phone use compared with hardly any rise in brain cancer is indeed good evidence that one isn't causing the other.
While it is perfectly acceptable to use God to fill the holes in knowledge for the time being
is it?
At some point I think we can safely say science and logical reasoning has given humankind enough answers to enough questions that we can safely assume that a god wasn't involved.
Gods have always been in the holes of our knowledge thus far, yes, but they've only been there: in the holes of our knowledge. In our knowledge we find no gods. People do not look in any microscope or telescope and observe "the part where God works". Physics equations don't include a god variable.
Furthermore, it's safe to say that in almost any situation where people have had the technology, opportunity, and determination to gather sufficient data, we have been able to explain most any given phenomena.
I agree with your post save for the above statement. Unfalsifiable ideas have no place in a person's notion of "reality". If it's something one still insists on personally believing, keep it that way: personal. No one else should be negatively affected by one's inability to view reality as we best know it. Children should NOT be taught the personal digressions from common sense their parents are afflicted with. Places of worship do not deserve tax breaks. Silly iron-age reasoning has no business impeding research that could very well save one of our lives.
I realize this is a hopeless argument (we're talking about people that have the ability to explicitly ignore reason here...), and that this question is essentially rhetorical, but exactly how much shit does science need to figure out before religious people realize that filling gaps of knowledge with the supernatural is getting them nowhere? What's so wrong about answering questions with "we don't know yet"? Why can't gaps of knowledge be just that?
They are also truly asking about how massive is a petabyte, for if you fill enough hard drives with helium, surely a petabyte's weight could be negative.
Think so? Something tells me you couldn't put nearly enough helium in a metal hard drive to make up for the weight of the metal.
Slashdot Mirror
I certainly understand the frustration with filling in an online application, but if that's the biggest obstacle to getting the job, it's not that great of a job. Look at the fields required, copy them over to a text file, take your sweet time filling out the responses, and the online part can be a quick copy/paste. It's not that hard. Sure, find better ways to do it, but don't pretend it's this insurmountable challenge.
No love for nano?
No.
If Wayland is able to make decent ground before Mir is ready, there's still hope Ubuntu will drop the whole thing.
No, the Egyptians knew that a distant tribe of barbarians would one day become the French and invent the meter, and chose the location of Cairo to match the speed of light with their latitude, which they also realized would not be counted in a decimal way.
Of course it's a coincidence.
I second this one. The keyfile sits on a USB drive on my keychain to provide safe, synchronized two-factor access across multiple machines.
Agreed. There's a distinct difference between rejecting a request because one does not agree, versus because one cannot acquiesce in the first place.
Man: Give me $1,000,000.
Me: I don't have $1,000,000.
Would it be fair to say I rejected the man's request for financial help?
Editors: not being able to proofread a few sentences is telling people "I want my job taken over by a computer program".
Some cats hunt and other don't because their mother needs to teach them that skill. All cats are born wanting to chase little moving things. It's the mom that needs to bring back prey and teach them the bite-neck-and-whip-it kill method they use. The difference between a hunting cat and a non-hunting cat is being taught by another one. We have had many vicious, animal-killing, *fixed* cats.
20g, so that's 4 nickels according to how an old roommate weed dealer calibrated his scale.
...
Sure, AC. Sure.
We believe you, really! It was your, uh, "roommate" with the side-biz.
Unfortunately, it's "greater". The code is greater than 100 lines. There are more than 100 lines in it. If you're talking about the lines, there's more. If you're talking about the container itself, it is greater.
I'd like to see atheist (sic) shout "Dawkins!" when they stub their toe.
Yeah... because atheists regard Dawkins like Christians regard God.
Dawkins is not the atheist God, fella. He's more like our C.S. Lewis.
I just want to point out that in the U.S., ex post facto laws aren't allowed. It's in Article 1 of the Constitution. Been there from the beginning. You can trust the FDIC as much as you can trust anyone with your money.
Wow, you must live a very sheltered existence. I would be flattered if someone said that about me. I don't want to represent the average.
Are you American?
Disclaimer: I am, too. Also flattered about our independent nature. Also undeniably American because I'm flattered by that.
I think they are saying, that in a couple small tests, many cultures, particularly less wealthy or more family oriented cultures, react differently than Americans, and therefore Americans make incredibly bad case studies.
No.
They are saying that *culture* is what decides the results to these tests, and not inherent characteristics. Their entire point is that in these couple small tests the results differed everywhere. These "couple small tests" are tests we have traditionally held to be universal. We assume, for example, that in the same circumstances the $100-problem the author described people would universally settle on offering a "fair" 50/50 trade. People didn't expect that "fairness" was subjective even in something as perfectly quantifiable as cash. People didn't expect that "fair" is not something universally aspired-towards. People didn't expect that being "fair" to some cultures is a gift with a heavier burden than the gift itself.
What you concluded... yes, that's bullshit. The author had a good point, AND your post about the different reactions demonstrates that you came to the same conclusion, too.
How about two "infallible" coders who write the same function (let's say, in Perl) in two different ways - both of which produce the exact same result, processor usage, and runtime. Could they not disagree on coding style yet remain infallible?
No. One of the two did it wrong. If they produce the exact same result, proc usage, runtime, AND effort to create, they'd be the same functions.
Besides, the infallible coder could just name off binary digits, all the while perfectly confident that it will work.
I've heard it's simply the amount of time from one noteworthy person to another in the family tree.
I.e.: ____ lived 300 years means it was 300 years between ______ and someone worth mentioning. For 300 years they were the clan/tribe/house of ______, after which the next guy on the tree did something important enough that his descendants considered themselves the clan/tribe/house of that guy instead.
Fastest on earth, "yet filled with energy-efficient multi-core architecture." :rolleyes
These are at cross-purposes. Do they want fastest on Earth, or pretty fast, but efficient, which is already driven by market mechanisms?
No, it's not. Today's supercomputers are thousands upon thousands times faster than those of decades past but are NOT taking up thousands of times more space or electricity.
Hopper is 16,000 nodes and two Pflops. Cray can't just make 10 of them, put 'em together, and consider the order filled. Efficiency is a LOT of the challenge in making the world's fastest computers.
And?
10 years ago I was very much the functioning adult I am today. I got a bit better at living.
10 years ago my brother couldn't wipe his own ass. He got a lot better at living.
I fail to see how being an older project makes it a better one. Take OOo when it's as old as Office was in 2007 and see if it has some staying power.
IOW, the world is essentially running to support us. That's overpopulation. In the struggle to survive against nature, we're the first creatures to have essentially won.
What do you base that on? Humanity may have overpopulated Calcutta, or Sao Paulo. We haven't overpopulated Wyoming.
Overpopulation isn't just about space to put people. Think about the food you eat and products you consume. The space required to support you is far, far larger than the area of your apartment.
Good God... a programmable robot?! He's only seven, little nerdlets.
Seriously, who here became a techie because their parents did this sort of stuff? I can see trying to shove computer programming to a child that only recently learned to spell as the sort of experience that convinces them NOT to take up computers as a hobby.
If he wants to know how computers work and not treat them like magic objects, then get him something. In the meantime, keep the magic alive and get him a soccerball.
To break the system, you need two taps on the wire, some distance apart. Now you get to see the sums of the signals from each end, but with different time shifts between them due to propagation delay. With that data, you can separate out what's coming from each end. This allows recovering the original signals. From Wikipedia on the Kish cypher, just cut the signal during resistor switches. Or, more practically, note that recording noise accurately takes more time than switching the resistors would.
It could be that cell phones do increase the chance of brain cancer, but these other factors counteract it. To accurately determine whether or not cell phones affect brain cancer rates you need to control all the other variables.
This is an abuse of the "correlation is not causation" principle. This study is showing the LACK of causation, not causation.
Lack of correlation is strong evidence of lack of causation, even if the contrapositive isn't necessarily true. The parent post said that looking at the lack of pirates and global warming happening would be more accurate to the topic if you said that there was a lack of pirates and a lack of, say, a lack of global warming. Lack of correlation is also "evidence". It *could* be that cell phones increase brain cancer AND something else is counteracting it, but we have NO reason to suspect that. By the same reasoning, it could be that the lack of pirates is causing a rise in toe fungus... but smurfs eat it off our feet at night and are counteracting it. However, what would make you think pirates cause toe fungus?
Applying that to this situation, if there is a lack of correlation between cell phones and brain cancer, what reason would we have to suspect that there IS a correlation, but that it's being suppressed by something else? Until we have some sort of positive evidence of this, there's no more reason to suppose that than there is to just suppose that it doesn't cause brain cancer in the first place.
IOW, a HUGE rise in the frequency of cell phone use compared with hardly any rise in brain cancer is indeed good evidence that one isn't causing the other.
I can't stand baseball and I like soccer (playing at least), I don't know if it's genetic or what, but my son is much the same.
...
No, I don't think there's a gene for that.
While it is perfectly acceptable to use God to fill the holes in knowledge for the time being
is it?
At some point I think we can safely say science and logical reasoning has given humankind enough answers to enough questions that we can safely assume that a god wasn't involved.
Gods have always been in the holes of our knowledge thus far, yes, but they've only been there: in the holes of our knowledge. In our knowledge we find no gods. People do not look in any microscope or telescope and observe "the part where God works". Physics equations don't include a god variable.
Furthermore, it's safe to say that in almost any situation where people have had the technology, opportunity, and determination to gather sufficient data, we have been able to explain most any given phenomena.
I agree with your post save for the above statement. Unfalsifiable ideas have no place in a person's notion of "reality". If it's something one still insists on personally believing, keep it that way: personal. No one else should be negatively affected by one's inability to view reality as we best know it. Children should NOT be taught the personal digressions from common sense their parents are afflicted with. Places of worship do not deserve tax breaks. Silly iron-age reasoning has no business impeding research that could very well save one of our lives.
I realize this is a hopeless argument (we're talking about people that have the ability to explicitly ignore reason here...), and that this question is essentially rhetorical, but exactly how much shit does science need to figure out before religious people realize that filling gaps of knowledge with the supernatural is getting them nowhere? What's so wrong about answering questions with "we don't know yet"? Why can't gaps of knowledge be just that?
They are also truly asking about how massive is a petabyte, for if you fill enough hard drives with helium, surely a petabyte's weight could be negative.
...But go for it! I'll grab a chair.
Think so? Something tells me you couldn't put nearly enough helium in a metal hard drive to make up for the weight of the metal.