You're assuming that the reviewer actually does things like ask questions about the paper. There's a lot of ego in academia, and people tend to try to appear omniscient while reviewing, whether they know what the paper is talking about or not.
Peer review is done on a volunteer basis. The journals do not pay their reviewers. Very often they solicit the very same authors who submitted their papers to the journal to review.
The model used by academic journals is quite exploitative to all parties involved and needs to change.
When you purchase something, you are compensating the people who produced it. Once you do that, the product of their effort is yours; it was traded at a mutually agreeable price in exchange for a symbolic representation of your own effort (money). If you then trade the property you have already paid for with someone else, they pay you in exchange for your property according to what you both believe is fair. The developer/producer was already compensated for that copy by the initial purchase and had nothing to do with the second trade.
They may have a case if the issue is the ability to retain a copy of the game and still sell it. Then you'd have two copies of the game when the producer was only compensated for one. But it sounds to me like they're just opposed to used game sales because they don't get a kickback on them.
Do photons have mass? I was under the impression that they didn't, and thus no amount of scaling could make them weigh more, but I am not a particle physicist.
I've found that good students tend to do well with any paradigm you introduce them to, while bad students do poorly no matter the paradigm. Few seem to be in the middle. I would argue that the choice of starting language or paradigm is therefore not as important as people think it is.
*I teach an introductory data structures & algorithms course. The school I teach at just switched from C++ to Java.
HSV and VZV take up residency within the nervous system, where they remain indefinitely. Even if your proposed solution does kill an active HSV infection, it will not root out the latent virus, thus the cold sores will continue to periodically recur.
Just because you can abstract something to the degree that it is the same as anything else in the universe does not mean it is proper to do so. It would be like programming in an OOP language by upcasting everything to Object before working with it.
I admire some of Dijkstra's contributions. Certainly his shortest-path algorithm was a great accomplishment. But he was very opinionated, and some of his opinions aren't necessarily the best strategies for others to employ in their own work.
Most modern distros have process ulimits in place to prevent this. In the event one didn't, a competent administrator would set one. I think there's also a limit in the kernel itself. All of this is to say that a forkbomb probably wouldn't be very effective on a modern Linux system - a limit would be reached and the subsequent calls to fork would start failing.
Running code that you don't understand in signatures is probably a bad idea regardless. There are far more nefarious things the code could have been doing than forking.
One of the interesting properties of the video game medium is being the cause of in-game events. Sure, there's programming governing every action that takes place in the game world. But your input is triggering various parts of that programming. Your choices are the character's choices.
Given this, it only makes sense that the player should come to identify more closely with the character being controlled in a video game than with a character in a passive medium, such as TV. Even good books that make you empathize or somehow resonate with characters don't really relate the characters to you; it's as if the character is someone you know going through some sort of drama (the drama being the plot of the book). The character in a book is another person.
There are also instruments that can make pleasing noises in the absence of the ability to sing. If we're going to revive the classical tradition, we may as well do it right:). Nothing says that music must have words. And fewer people look at you funny when you start out on an instrument than when you start singing.
They could actually work false Dragons in as well if they did it right. Could lead to some interesting large-scale PvP events as players rally behind them.
Slashdot Mirror
You're assuming that the reviewer actually does things like ask questions about the paper. There's a lot of ego in academia, and people tend to try to appear omniscient while reviewing, whether they know what the paper is talking about or not.
It's a screwed up system.
Peer review is done on a volunteer basis. The journals do not pay their reviewers. Very often they solicit the very same authors who submitted their papers to the journal to review.
The model used by academic journals is quite exploitative to all parties involved and needs to change.
There is only one way to prove an assertion like this wrong, and it isn't to be found on Slashdot.
You have obviously never done biomedical research :)
On the other hand, that whooshing noise could either be the joke or a remote.
No, no, no, the ??? goes before the Profit. :)
When you purchase something, you are compensating the people who produced it. Once you do that, the product of their effort is yours; it was traded at a mutually agreeable price in exchange for a symbolic representation of your own effort (money). If you then trade the property you have already paid for with someone else, they pay you in exchange for your property according to what you both believe is fair. The developer/producer was already compensated for that copy by the initial purchase and had nothing to do with the second trade.
They may have a case if the issue is the ability to retain a copy of the game and still sell it. Then you'd have two copies of the game when the producer was only compensated for one. But it sounds to me like they're just opposed to used game sales because they don't get a kickback on them.
Do photons have mass? I was under the impression that they didn't, and thus no amount of scaling could make them weigh more, but I am not a particle physicist.
I've found that good students tend to do well with any paradigm you introduce them to, while bad students do poorly no matter the paradigm. Few seem to be in the middle. I would argue that the choice of starting language or paradigm is therefore not as important as people think it is.
*I teach an introductory data structures & algorithms course. The school I teach at just switched from C++ to Java.
HSV and VZV take up residency within the nervous system, where they remain indefinitely. Even if your proposed solution does kill an active HSV infection, it will not root out the latent virus, thus the cold sores will continue to periodically recur.
You don't. Change it.
heh, I read that as Vas Corp Por. I know exactly what that would do in a graveyard...
Just because you can abstract something to the degree that it is the same as anything else in the universe does not mean it is proper to do so. It would be like programming in an OOP language by upcasting everything to Object before working with it.
I admire some of Dijkstra's contributions. Certainly his shortest-path algorithm was a great accomplishment. But he was very opinionated, and some of his opinions aren't necessarily the best strategies for others to employ in their own work.
Most modern distros have process ulimits in place to prevent this. In the event one didn't, a competent administrator would set one. I think there's also a limit in the kernel itself. All of this is to say that a forkbomb probably wouldn't be very effective on a modern Linux system - a limit would be reached and the subsequent calls to fork would start failing.
Running code that you don't understand in signatures is probably a bad idea regardless. There are far more nefarious things the code could have been doing than forking.
It sort of exists.
I bet it gets released right when the world ends.
One of the interesting properties of the video game medium is being the cause of in-game events. Sure, there's programming governing every action that takes place in the game world. But your input is triggering various parts of that programming. Your choices are the character's choices.
Given this, it only makes sense that the player should come to identify more closely with the character being controlled in a video game than with a character in a passive medium, such as TV. Even good books that make you empathize or somehow resonate with characters don't really relate the characters to you; it's as if the character is someone you know going through some sort of drama (the drama being the plot of the book). The character in a book is another person.
So just clone two of them: one male, one female.
Then they would be the ones cloning us.
In Soviet Russia, NAPOLEON DYNAMITE likes YOU? :)
The geocentric model is usually attributed to Ptolemy. I have no idea what people believed before then.
There are also instruments that can make pleasing noises in the absence of the ability to sing. If we're going to revive the classical tradition, we may as well do it right :). Nothing says that music must have words. And fewer people look at you funny when you start out on an instrument than when you start singing.
Wouldn't that theory also prevent stars from forming?
They could actually work false Dragons in as well if they did it right. Could lead to some interesting large-scale PvP events as players rally behind them.
This actually is a phenomenon known as the overview effect. Space travelers often report a transcendental sense of connectedness.