Would brute force debugging be considered hacking?
There are systematic ways of debugging problematic code or even a miss-wired circuit such as divide-and-conquer to isolate the location of a bug, doing a diff against a functioning earlier version, conducting tests to verify assertions and so on? Is it hacking when you keep testing the code with change A, change B, change C in the hope of fixing it?
As in, "I am just hacking, I need to get up and walk around to clear my head and get back to working on this systematically?"
I think of this as hacking in that one way to "hack" into a system is to probe known vulnerabilities systematically whereas another way is to just keep trying plausible simple passwords that people use?
Nissan makes the #1 selling LEAF all-electric car, Toyota makes the Prius Prime that has an all-electric mode along with improved hybrids using the lithium ion battery, and these manufacturers are not positions to make all-electric cars?
It is this kind of over-the-top bragging that has serious people shorting the Tesla stock?
where the guy is loved by the leaders of Japan, Philippines, Saudi, Israel, Hungary, Croatia, Serbia, and yes, Montenegro.
A tragic comedy where the leader of Saudi is telling the Palestinians to "go for whatever 'deal' the Americans offer"?
I all suppose that recovery won't be easy or cheap if you take the view that Harry Truman made a big mistake recognizing the State of Israel? That what the Germans or what this guy https://www.bing.com/images/se... thinks of us is important?
I incorporated programming and testing a logic circuit implemented on an FPGA into a lab course. To motivate including this in the lab to the students, I had them do a comparison with the complexity of wiring 7400-series logic to do the same hardware function. The lab manual was revised to ask them to time themselves doing the wiring manually using a Protoboard.
TAs taught the lab sections, but I was required to attend lab sections to supply mandatory evaluations of the TAs. Sitting in on one such lab section, I overheard one of the students exercising leadership of his group by calling out, "Take whatever measurement of time we get and double it!"
I had thought that this element of the lab that I had added was make-work that the students would consider to be lame. But here was one student exercising influence over his peer lab partners, and this man with one statement understood more about engineering practice than anything I taught in lecture section with formulas and circuit diagrams. This student "got" what I was after with the time-to-build exercise.
In thinking about the high-calorie foods that would make our coder-drone selves become obese, I got to wondering where recipes for things like fried chicken and pecan pie came from and what social purpose to they serve?
Pre-mechanization, the use of horses was a productivity enhancer over human labor but even over draft animals such as oxen that are used throughout the world, past and present. An ox has pulling force, but a horse owing to its higher capacity cardiovascular system has a lot more power output, and the use of horses over oxen in agriculture was a breakthrough.
Likewise, the consumption of high-calorie foods by farm workers as opposed to having them get by with a minimum-calorie subsistence diet that is the norm in many parts of the world is also a productivity enhancer.
It has been said that air conditioning kindled the economic growth of the American South, or at least the southward migration of Yankees. Yes, one can subsist at a poverty level on minimal calories and natural outdoor temperatures, but think of the increased work, both physical and mental, one can do with enough to eat and respite from the heat? And think of this as breaking out of subsistence-level poverty?
until you get them going about either not speaking French or speaking French, they hassle you about the alcoholic beverages and sausages in a cooler buried under camping gear, go on-and-on about how much nicer Toronto is than any U.S. city, torture you to boredom with endless gossip about ice dancers or hockey players, and warn you "I'll be back" with the speech accent of Jordan Peterson before they crash a Bombardier Ski-Doo through the glass doors?
Is that like our engineering computer center that has purged Eclipse from the teaching labs because it requires a Java runtime and Java is a security hazard, but it still supports Matlab that installs a Java runtime, because if they pulled that the Engineering students and faculty who don't know how to code in anything else would riot?
We shall sue them in France, we shall litigate on the seas and oceans, we shall litigate with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our domain name, whatever the cost may be. We shall litigate on the beaches, we shall litigate on the landing grounds, we shall litigate in the fields and in the streets, we shall litigate in the hills; we shall never surrender,
The oceans are not absorbing the bulk of the (anthropogenic) carbon emissions -- their net absorption is only a quarter of what is emitted. This is the consensus, not a fringe conclusion.
The "CO2" skeptics Salby, Pettersson and Essenhigh claim that the oceans should be absorbing the bulk of the emitted CO2 -- mainstream scientists Revelle and Suess thought the same thing, but the reasons why they are not absorbing the bulk of CO2 is buried in the literature.
I shall look for your reference, but the technical understanding of the Carbon Cycle to refute Salby and the others is not generally available in undergraduate textbooks, otherwise, Salby's arguments would have been countered without resorting attacks on his character.
The reasons why the consensus Carbon Cycle explains the Keeling Curve of the 20th century increase in CO2 concentration along with why the extinction of the Bomb Test C-14 post the Test Ban Treaty are deep, not widely known even among the informed, and I had to dig deep to get at them.
The Consensus Carbon Cycle according to my dynamic system calculation indeed explains the Keeling curve quite accurate, that is ignoring the year-to-year fluctuations in the derivative of that curve that correlate with temperature according to Salby and other sources. What happens when you account for that temperature sensitivity, the amount of CO2 resulting from human activity in relation to the amount of increase from natural source on account of 20th century warming becomes uncertain. Pieter Tams of NOAA dismisses this uncertainty by claiming that the source of the fluctuation is a small tropical-forest leaf litter reservoir that rapidly rots and releases carbon back to the atmosphere on a 1-2 year time scale. Other data call this into question by measuring significant emission of carbon from temperate soils that correlates with temperature on decade-long times.
How many scientists engaged in climate science research understand even the basics of the Carbon Cycle?
It is more or less generally accepted in the climate science community that the 20th century increase in atmospheric CO2 accounts for half of humanity's emissions of CO2, with the remaining half absorbed by sinks that are only partially understood. There is evidence from high-precision analytical chemistry methods for quantifying atmospheric oxygen available for only the last decades that about half of the net "sunk" CO2 is taken up by net photosynthesis over respiration whereas the remaining sink must be inorganic where free oxygen is not released in exchange for sequestered CO2.
It is broadly reasoned that emissions of CO2 are changing the carbon-isotope profile of the atmosphere -- what is called the Suess Effect after R. Revelle and H. E. Suess (1957) Carbon Dioxide Exchange Between Atmosphere and Ocean and the Question of an Increase of Atmospheric CO, during the Past Decades, Tellus IX (1) pp. 18-27. This dilution of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere from combustion of fuel with a "fossil" isotope profile differing from the atmospheric baseline was throwing off C-14 carbon dating until it was recognized data methods were accordingly corrected.
The Suess Effect dilution of carbon isotopes, however, is considerable less than expected from a simple addition of combusted carbon with the fossil isotope profile. The carbon capacity of the ocean is 50 times that of the atmosphere, so why doesn't nearly all of the emitted CO2 isn't absorbed into the ocean. The rapid extinction of radioactive C-14 after the 60's Nuclear Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty suggests this should be the case.
The linear Henry's Law for solubility of gas in liquid would require that the dilution of carbon isotopes should be in direct measure with the emitted CO2, but Revelle's earlier work posited a chemical buffer system, where the mineral stew that is ocean water binds absorbed CO2 into what are called "soluble inorganic carbonates." Equilibrium in chemical reactions is non-linear and follows product law in the concentrations of the reagents. Physical chemists regard Revelle's buffer system to follow a 10th power law in the concentration of atmospheric CO2. This means that it takes a 10-fold increase in atmospheric CO2 to effect a 1-fold increase in CO2 in the ocean buffer system.
The ocean is vast, and even with the Revelle Factor of 10, most of the CO2 emitted by humanity should have disappeared into the ocean. Revelle and Suess in 1957 speculated on possible large natural sources of CO2 emission to balance this out. Since then, it is a scientific consensus that it takes a long time for the deep ocean to "turn over" by natural circulation and the combination of the Revelle buffer with a "compartmental" ocean model accounts for what is observed without that large, unknown natural source. But the deep ocean is difficult to measure, and the modelling is hand-wavy, at least in comparison to the multiple sigmas required to discover a new subatomic particle, although the atmospheric oxygen measures suggest a bound on how much CO2 is absorbed in the ocean.
But not just in the annual seasonal fluctuation but also year-to-year and over longer time scales, the variation in net CO2 increase in the atmosphere is large in comparison to the human contribution, suggesting variation in the exchanges of CO2 with the biosphere, the flows of which are known to be large compared to human-caused emissions. This variation also correlates with atmospheric temperature data. NOAA Carbon Cycle maven Pieter Tams argues this variation to result from changes in the rapid rotting of leaf litter in the tropical rain forests and is only short term. There is a body of literature emerging that rising global temperature are having a multi-decadal effect on increased CO2 driven out of temperate region soils, a potentially dangerous positive feedback leading to a runaway greenhouse.
Two identical cars from the NUMI plant in Fremont that Tesla took over, the Toyota Corolla and the Chevy Nova (later Geo Prizm). The Corolla had a noticeably lower driver death rate per miles driven.
This indeed that "the nut behind the wheel" is perhaps a more critical safety component than seatbelts or stopping distance or crumple zones.
Do you suppose high IQ people were purchasing the Corolla and driving safer? Or do you suppose high IQ people were in the Nova because it was hundreds of dollars cheaper and it is not smart to pay more money for the same car apart from the badge on the trunk lid, and high IQ people daydream and get in more accidents?
Or do wealthier people purchase the Corolla because they have the money and a Toyota has better social status than a Chevy, and wealthier people engage in less high-risk behavior because they feel better off? And is wealth correlated with higher IQ, so even a high IQ person does a stupid thing like pay hundreds more for the same car so as to not being seen in a Chevy?
The guitar solo is not in Beethoven's Fifth Symphony. Instead, it is in the 3rd Presto Agitato movement of Beethoven's Sonata #14 in C# minor ("The Moonlight Sonata").
Often times there is a book and then a movie is based on the book. Owing to difference in narrative style, even a wordy movie script is much shorter in length than most novels, the movie script writers and director have to find a different way to express the book. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they fail (cough, Dune, cough).
With 2001, the movie came first and the book was either co-written or came shortly later. It is also my understanding that the movie storyline was really Stanley Kubrick's creative product with the Clarke collaborating or advising, and Kubrick did not want to explain everything. He wanted the aliens to be a confounding mystery rather than being the cheesy guy-in-a-rubber-suit from Lost in Space or even from Star Trek.
Physicist Freeman Dyson explains this in one of his popular books. Dyson was interviewed as a "scientific authority on the possibility of contact with aliens and what that could be like and how this could differ from the typical science fiction movie." He told about how they filmed him using the IBM computer in the studio's accounting department as a movie prop, which they had to power down because its cooling system was making too much noise for the audio technicians to get a clean recording of the Dyson interview, which was a big hassle to the business office of the studio trying to get their payroll checks printed on time. Dyson also explained that his "part" in 2001 ended up on the cutting room floor, Dyson explained that Kubrick wanted the aliens to be a mystery and decided to do without a "scientific authority on the possibility of contact with aliens . . . and how this could differ from the typical science fiction movie" and let the visual imagery tell the tale. Dyson also writes that he agreed with Kubrick even if that meant that he Dyson couldn't be in the movie; Dyson argues that not explaining the aliens made 2001 a better movie because Dyson believes that our first contact with aliens will be bizarre beyond any sci-fi imagining of it.
Whereas Kubrick had a reputation for relying on the visuals to move his story forward, Clarke had a reputation in his novels for explaining everything beyond recognition. So yes, the book differs from the movie, famously having Discovery 1's continue to Saturn rather than stop at Jupiter, where famous special effects expert Douglas Trumbull didn't feel confident he could "do" Saturn's rings until later when he worked on Silent Running. So the movie only guesses at HAL's breakdown whereas the book explains that HAL never properly learned how to lie in protection of the secret regarding the Monolith and the nature of the Discovery 1 mission, which is a Star Trek trope that a computer can be messed up when Kirk reasons with it and catches it in a logical contradiction. Kubrick just shows the Star Child gazing over the Earth, playing Thus Spoke Zarathustra that is supposed to build on Nietzsche's notions of a Super Man as a next step in human evolution. Clarke goes into details regarding what the Star Child is and how the Star Child willed a premature detonation of the orbiting atomic weapons that gave the people of Earth quite a fright regarding the manner in which they were delivered from a potential world-ending war. Clarke needed the Star Child to have a purpose whereas Kubrick wanted to appeal to the viewers' imaginations.
Whether 2001 is a good movie or not, it certainly sparks a lot of geek discussion, and there hasn't been anything like it since despite attempts to imitate -- consider Mission to Mars being rendered a silly movie by having the aliens explain themselves to tie up all the loose ends rather than leaving loose ends as in 2001. .
Galaxies are indeed not rigid disks, but the remarkable thing is that your garden-variety spiral galaxy behaves much more like a rigid disk than your angular-momentum-conserving bathtub drain. These rotation rates, by the way, are measured using the Doppler shift observed in spectrographic observations of those galaxies.
It is hypothesized that the "halo" of a spiral galaxy must either contain considerable unobserved "dark matter" or Newton's laws of acceleration and gravitation need a correction term. Most astrophysicists base their work on the Dark Matter explanation, but there are holdouts for MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics). So yes, the outer portions of a spiral galaxy have nearly the same rate of angular rotation as in the inner parts, and physical theory needs to account for this conundrum.
To simplify things, consider a taxi company paying a driver an hourly wage but otherwise taking responsibility for all other expenses -- the taxi permit ("medallion"), fuel, insurance, car repairs, car replacement.
Compare that to an Uber driver being paid by the trip and otherwise responsible for whatever expenses of the vehicle they use. Are not pizza delivery drivers paid according to a similar model. My simplified taxi model is wage labor for the driver whereas the Uber of pizza driver is running a small business.
Businesses are notoriously difficult to determine the "actual" returns from their operations. Yes, there is GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles), but business "succeed" and "fail" all the time and accounting firms continue to collect their fees.
Suppose you are an Uber driver and you deduct only gas against your earnings and net $15/hour -- great deal, huh? Suppose you deduct gas and the full IRS formula for mileage expense (which is not really what it "costs" -- it is a rule that the IRS came up with for a "level playing field" in collecting taxes). You net only $3.50 an hour. Is this a bad decision? Suppose you were given the car by your parents and you want to "monetize" its value by driving for Uber to pay for living expenses until you can establish yourself in a higher paying career?
My point is that a lot of Slashdot commentators are quick to call people stupid about things that are intrinsically complicated. The scary thing is if the people saying "stupid, stupid stupid" are serious software developers. Given the complexity of software systems and the deep levels of design trades in almost every aspect of them, very, very scary.
Slashdot Mirror
Listen Carefully! We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction. We respect your business, but not the country it serves.
. . .
It's up to you now John! Victory!
Would brute force debugging be considered hacking?
There are systematic ways of debugging problematic code or even a miss-wired circuit such as divide-and-conquer to isolate the location of a bug, doing a diff against a functioning earlier version, conducting tests to verify assertions and so on? Is it hacking when you keep testing the code with change A, change B, change C in the hope of fixing it?
As in, "I am just hacking, I need to get up and walk around to clear my head and get back to working on this systematically?"
I think of this as hacking in that one way to "hack" into a system is to probe known vulnerabilities systematically whereas another way is to just keep trying plausible simple passwords that people use?
There are stronger statements of Celtic solidarity than a shamrock on a bumper sticker.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I don't have a position in Tesla, but I got to get me some "put" options real quick to make me some money!
Nissan makes the #1 selling LEAF all-electric car, Toyota makes the Prius Prime that has an all-electric mode along with improved hybrids using the lithium ion battery, and these manufacturers are not positions to make all-electric cars?
It is this kind of over-the-top bragging that has serious people shorting the Tesla stock?
where the guy is loved by the leaders of Japan, Philippines, Saudi, Israel, Hungary, Croatia, Serbia, and yes, Montenegro.
A tragic comedy where the leader of Saudi is telling the Palestinians to "go for whatever 'deal' the Americans offer"?
I all suppose that recovery won't be easy or cheap if you take the view that Harry Truman made a big mistake recognizing the State of Israel? That what the Germans or what this guy https://www.bing.com/images/se... thinks of us is important?
I incorporated programming and testing a logic circuit implemented on an FPGA into a lab course. To motivate including this in the lab to the students, I had them do a comparison with the complexity of wiring 7400-series logic to do the same hardware function. The lab manual was revised to ask them to time themselves doing the wiring manually using a Protoboard.
TAs taught the lab sections, but I was required to attend lab sections to supply mandatory evaluations of the TAs. Sitting in on one such lab section, I overheard one of the students exercising leadership of his group by calling out, "Take whatever measurement of time we get and double it!"
I had thought that this element of the lab that I had added was make-work that the students would consider to be lame. But here was one student exercising influence over his peer lab partners, and this man with one statement understood more about engineering practice than anything I taught in lecture section with formulas and circuit diagrams. This student "got" what I was after with the time-to-build exercise.
It was just so satisfying to hear that.
In thinking about the high-calorie foods that would make our coder-drone selves become obese, I got to wondering where recipes for things like fried chicken and pecan pie came from and what social purpose to they serve?
Pre-mechanization, the use of horses was a productivity enhancer over human labor but even over draft animals such as oxen that are used throughout the world, past and present. An ox has pulling force, but a horse owing to its higher capacity cardiovascular system has a lot more power output, and the use of horses over oxen in agriculture was a breakthrough.
Likewise, the consumption of high-calorie foods by farm workers as opposed to having them get by with a minimum-calorie subsistence diet that is the norm in many parts of the world is also a productivity enhancer.
It has been said that air conditioning kindled the economic growth of the American South, or at least the southward migration of Yankees. Yes, one can subsist at a poverty level on minimal calories and natural outdoor temperatures, but think of the increased work, both physical and mental, one can do with enough to eat and respite from the heat? And think of this as breaking out of subsistence-level poverty?
Only USians use kWh as a measure of any kind of energy consumption -- the rest of the world uses MJ?
until you get them going about either not speaking French or speaking French, they hassle you about the alcoholic beverages and sausages in a cooler buried under camping gear, go on-and-on about how much nicer Toronto is than any U.S. city, torture you to boredom with endless gossip about ice dancers or hockey players, and warn you "I'll be back" with the speech accent of Jordan Peterson before they crash a Bombardier Ski-Doo through the glass doors?
Is that like our engineering computer center that has purged Eclipse from the teaching labs because it requires a Java runtime and Java is a security hazard, but it still supports Matlab that installs a Java runtime, because if they pulled that the Engineering students and faculty who don't know how to code in anything else would riot?
What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
https://www.bing.com/videos/se...
We shall sue them in France, we shall litigate on the seas and oceans, we shall litigate with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our domain name, whatever the cost may be. We shall litigate on the beaches, we shall litigate on the landing grounds, we shall litigate in the fields and in the streets, we shall litigate in the hills; we shall never surrender,
My "daily driver", you insensitive clod!
The oceans are not absorbing the bulk of the (anthropogenic) carbon emissions -- their net absorption is only a quarter of what is emitted. This is the consensus, not a fringe conclusion.
The "CO2" skeptics Salby, Pettersson and Essenhigh claim that the oceans should be absorbing the bulk of the emitted CO2 -- mainstream scientists Revelle and Suess thought the same thing, but the reasons why they are not absorbing the bulk of CO2 is buried in the literature.
I shall look for your reference, but the technical understanding of the Carbon Cycle to refute Salby and the others is not generally available in undergraduate textbooks, otherwise, Salby's arguments would have been countered without resorting attacks on his character.
The reasons why the consensus Carbon Cycle explains the Keeling Curve of the 20th century increase in CO2 concentration along with why the extinction of the Bomb Test C-14 post the Test Ban Treaty are deep, not widely known even among the informed, and I had to dig deep to get at them.
The Consensus Carbon Cycle according to my dynamic system calculation indeed explains the Keeling curve quite accurate, that is ignoring the year-to-year fluctuations in the derivative of that curve that correlate with temperature according to Salby and other sources. What happens when you account for that temperature sensitivity, the amount of CO2 resulting from human activity in relation to the amount of increase from natural source on account of 20th century warming becomes uncertain. Pieter Tams of NOAA dismisses this uncertainty by claiming that the source of the fluctuation is a small tropical-forest leaf litter reservoir that rapidly rots and releases carbon back to the atmosphere on a 1-2 year time scale. Other data call this into question by measuring significant emission of carbon from temperate soils that correlates with temperature on decade-long times.
How many scientists engaged in climate science research understand even the basics of the Carbon Cycle?
It is more or less generally accepted in the climate science community that the 20th century increase in atmospheric CO2 accounts for half of humanity's emissions of CO2, with the remaining half absorbed by sinks that are only partially understood. There is evidence from high-precision analytical chemistry methods for quantifying atmospheric oxygen available for only the last decades that about half of the net "sunk" CO2 is taken up by net photosynthesis over respiration whereas the remaining sink must be inorganic where free oxygen is not released in exchange for sequestered CO2.
It is broadly reasoned that emissions of CO2 are changing the carbon-isotope profile of the atmosphere -- what is called the Suess Effect after R. Revelle and H. E. Suess (1957) Carbon Dioxide Exchange Between Atmosphere and Ocean and the Question of an Increase of Atmospheric CO, during the Past Decades, Tellus IX (1) pp. 18-27. This dilution of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere from combustion of fuel with a "fossil" isotope profile differing from the atmospheric baseline was throwing off C-14 carbon dating until it was recognized data methods were accordingly corrected.
The Suess Effect dilution of carbon isotopes, however, is considerable less than expected from a simple addition of combusted carbon with the fossil isotope profile. The carbon capacity of the ocean is 50 times that of the atmosphere, so why doesn't nearly all of the emitted CO2 isn't absorbed into the ocean. The rapid extinction of radioactive C-14 after the 60's Nuclear Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty suggests this should be the case.
The linear Henry's Law for solubility of gas in liquid would require that the dilution of carbon isotopes should be in direct measure with the emitted CO2, but Revelle's earlier work posited a chemical buffer system, where the mineral stew that is ocean water binds absorbed CO2 into what are called "soluble inorganic carbonates." Equilibrium in chemical reactions is non-linear and follows product law in the concentrations of the reagents. Physical chemists regard Revelle's buffer system to follow a 10th power law in the concentration of atmospheric CO2. This means that it takes a 10-fold increase in atmospheric CO2 to effect a 1-fold increase in CO2 in the ocean buffer system.
The ocean is vast, and even with the Revelle Factor of 10, most of the CO2 emitted by humanity should have disappeared into the ocean. Revelle and Suess in 1957 speculated on possible large natural sources of CO2 emission to balance this out. Since then, it is a scientific consensus that it takes a long time for the deep ocean to "turn over" by natural circulation and the combination of the Revelle buffer with a "compartmental" ocean model accounts for what is observed without that large, unknown natural source. But the deep ocean is difficult to measure, and the modelling is hand-wavy, at least in comparison to the multiple sigmas required to discover a new subatomic particle, although the atmospheric oxygen measures suggest a bound on how much CO2 is absorbed in the ocean.
But not just in the annual seasonal fluctuation but also year-to-year and over longer time scales, the variation in net CO2 increase in the atmosphere is large in comparison to the human contribution, suggesting variation in the exchanges of CO2 with the biosphere, the flows of which are known to be large compared to human-caused emissions. This variation also correlates with atmospheric temperature data. NOAA Carbon Cycle maven Pieter Tams argues this variation to result from changes in the rapid rotting of leaf litter in the tropical rain forests and is only short term. There is a body of literature emerging that rising global temperature are having a multi-decadal effect on increased CO2 driven out of temperate region soils, a potentially dangerous positive feedback leading to a runaway greenhouse.
Actually, you cannot have it
Are we to discriminate against people based on their Slashdot user-id digit length?
Two identical cars from the NUMI plant in Fremont that Tesla took over, the Toyota Corolla and the Chevy Nova (later Geo Prizm). The Corolla had a noticeably lower driver death rate per miles driven.
This indeed that "the nut behind the wheel" is perhaps a more critical safety component than seatbelts or stopping distance or crumple zones.
Do you suppose high IQ people were purchasing the Corolla and driving safer? Or do you suppose high IQ people were in the Nova because it was hundreds of dollars cheaper and it is not smart to pay more money for the same car apart from the badge on the trunk lid, and high IQ people daydream and get in more accidents?
Or do wealthier people purchase the Corolla because they have the money and a Toyota has better social status than a Chevy, and wealthier people engage in less high-risk behavior because they feel better off? And is wealth correlated with higher IQ, so even a high IQ person does a stupid thing like pay hundreds more for the same car so as to not being seen in a Chevy?
They have been illegally copying GNU-Linux? Or at they just breaking the law with the Linux kernel and not using any of the GNU utilities?
The guitar solo is not in Beethoven's Fifth Symphony. Instead, it is in the 3rd Presto Agitato movement of Beethoven's Sonata #14 in C# minor ("The Moonlight Sonata").
https://www.bing.com/videos/se...
Geez, I thought this was common knowledge?
Often times there is a book and then a movie is based on the book. Owing to difference in narrative style, even a wordy movie script is much shorter in length than most novels, the movie script writers and director have to find a different way to express the book. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they fail (cough, Dune, cough).
With 2001, the movie came first and the book was either co-written or came shortly later. It is also my understanding that the movie storyline was really Stanley Kubrick's creative product with the Clarke collaborating or advising, and Kubrick did not want to explain everything. He wanted the aliens to be a confounding mystery rather than being the cheesy guy-in-a-rubber-suit from Lost in Space or even from Star Trek.
Physicist Freeman Dyson explains this in one of his popular books. Dyson was interviewed as a "scientific authority on the possibility of contact with aliens and what that could be like and how this could differ from the typical science fiction movie." He told about how they filmed him using the IBM computer in the studio's accounting department as a movie prop, which they had to power down because its cooling system was making too much noise for the audio technicians to get a clean recording of the Dyson interview, which was a big hassle to the business office of the studio trying to get their payroll checks printed on time. Dyson also explained that his "part" in 2001 ended up on the cutting room floor, Dyson explained that Kubrick wanted the aliens to be a mystery and decided to do without a "scientific authority on the possibility of contact with aliens . . . and how this could differ from the typical science fiction movie" and let the visual imagery tell the tale. Dyson also writes that he agreed with Kubrick even if that meant that he Dyson couldn't be in the movie; Dyson argues that not explaining the aliens made 2001 a better movie because Dyson believes that our first contact with aliens will be bizarre beyond any sci-fi imagining of it.
Whereas Kubrick had a reputation for relying on the visuals to move his story forward, Clarke had a reputation in his novels for explaining everything beyond recognition. So yes, the book differs from the movie, famously having Discovery 1's continue to Saturn rather than stop at Jupiter, where famous special effects expert Douglas Trumbull didn't feel confident he could "do" Saturn's rings until later when he worked on Silent Running. So the movie only guesses at HAL's breakdown whereas the book explains that HAL never properly learned how to lie in protection of the secret regarding the Monolith and the nature of the Discovery 1 mission, which is a Star Trek trope that a computer can be messed up when Kirk reasons with it and catches it in a logical contradiction. Kubrick just shows the Star Child gazing over the Earth, playing Thus Spoke Zarathustra that is supposed to build on Nietzsche's notions of a Super Man as a next step in human evolution. Clarke goes into details regarding what the Star Child is and how the Star Child willed a premature detonation of the orbiting atomic weapons that gave the people of Earth quite a fright regarding the manner in which they were delivered from a potential world-ending war. Clarke needed the Star Child to have a purpose whereas Kubrick wanted to appeal to the viewers' imaginations.
Whether 2001 is a good movie or not, it certainly sparks a lot of geek discussion, and there hasn't been anything like it since despite attempts to imitate -- consider Mission to Mars being rendered a silly movie by having the aliens explain themselves to tie up all the loose ends rather than leaving loose ends as in 2001. .
Galaxies are indeed not rigid disks, but the remarkable thing is that your garden-variety spiral galaxy behaves much more like a rigid disk than your angular-momentum-conserving bathtub drain. These rotation rates, by the way, are measured using the Doppler shift observed in spectrographic observations of those galaxies.
It is hypothesized that the "halo" of a spiral galaxy must either contain considerable unobserved "dark matter" or Newton's laws of acceleration and gravitation need a correction term. Most astrophysicists base their work on the Dark Matter explanation, but there are holdouts for MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics). So yes, the outer portions of a spiral galaxy have nearly the same rate of angular rotation as in the inner parts, and physical theory needs to account for this conundrum.
So you can upgrade your processor without having to pay for a new Windows license?
On the other hand, and with respect to some members of The Hacker Community, Windows license, what's that?
To simplify things, consider a taxi company paying a driver an hourly wage but otherwise taking responsibility for all other expenses -- the taxi permit ("medallion"), fuel, insurance, car repairs, car replacement.
Compare that to an Uber driver being paid by the trip and otherwise responsible for whatever expenses of the vehicle they use. Are not pizza delivery drivers paid according to a similar model. My simplified taxi model is wage labor for the driver whereas the Uber of pizza driver is running a small business.
Businesses are notoriously difficult to determine the "actual" returns from their operations. Yes, there is GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles), but business "succeed" and "fail" all the time and accounting firms continue to collect their fees.
Suppose you are an Uber driver and you deduct only gas against your earnings and net $15/hour -- great deal, huh? Suppose you deduct gas and the full IRS formula for mileage expense (which is not really what it "costs" -- it is a rule that the IRS came up with for a "level playing field" in collecting taxes). You net only $3.50 an hour. Is this a bad decision? Suppose you were given the car by your parents and you want to "monetize" its value by driving for Uber to pay for living expenses until you can establish yourself in a higher paying career?
My point is that a lot of Slashdot commentators are quick to call people stupid about things that are intrinsically complicated. The scary thing is if the people saying "stupid, stupid stupid" are serious software developers. Given the complexity of software systems and the deep levels of design trades in almost every aspect of them, very, very scary.
There are too many self-appointed who have simple solutions for every complicated problem.
Thank you for setting the record straight.