There seems to be a pretty high correlation between studies showing correlations and people saying that correlation doesn't imply causation. I wonder if there's a causal relationship?
It's true that most programs won't need 64-bit address space - right now - but that's only as long as their memory requirements are within 2GB.
And a lot of programs this is true, and will "always" be true. Will Emacs ever need more than 2GB for most people?
(And actually it's 4GB on Linux, or at least close to it.)
If that's the case, wouldn't there exist 2 versions of Linux in the tree
It's more like 99% of the code is shared, and changes depending on how you compile it.
wouldn't it make sense for the 32-bit Linux to have a 32-bit ABI, and the 64-bit Linux to have a 64-bit ABI?
That's how it has been, and those configurations will, of course, continue to be supported (in addition to supporting 32-bit apps on 64-bit Linux). They've just added the new x32 option.
Feel free to suggest alternative public DNS servers. I use Google's so that failed requests, you know, fail, unlike the DNS servers that the ISPs around here provide.
But my understanding is that GPL v3 introduced some change (that I now forget) to make the license stronger, which means that the FSF is now comfortable with that sort of thing. GCC has had a legitimate plugin interface for quite some time now.
My cellphone company dies not offer a cheaper smartphone plan if I bring my own phone. I pay $80.00 a month if I get the subsidized phone or if I buy one for full price.
So look at other companies. T-mobile has a prepaid, "unlimited" data (5 GB, then throttled), mostly-data plan for $30/month.
If those design specs are regularly violated in practice, sure.
Would you say that you have no right to complain if I sold you a lightbulb that only worked correctly if you sacrificed your first-born son at the alter in front of it? Or would you say "working as designed"?
I've been impressed with the Keynote presentations I've seen; I really wish I could get it for my PC.
Unfortunately, as I've become a little fond of saying, I don't want to spend several hundred to over a thousand dollars on presentation software, even if it does come with a free computer.:-)
Doing a quick Google search there are actually a couple programs (e.g. this) that I'll have to try out that may help a bit.
So that seems to have roughly the same effect as lowering contrast. It's a bit nicer in some ways (faster control) but doesn't go all that far toward the solution. Oh well.
FWIW I hooked up my kill-a-watt to my newer monitor (Dell 2312HM; my older one is almost the same build so I was too lazy to test it). At minimum brightness I got 13W with pure black and 14W with pure white. At maximum brightness I got 33W with both.
It's not the most precise tool, but there's another data point for you.:-) (One perhaps-relevant thing: I'm 99% positive dynamic contrast is off.)
FWIW I see virtually no difference on my monitor (Dell U2210H). All-white screen at min brightness is 14W, all-black is 13W. At max brightness even that difference disappears; it's 33W for both. Unfortunately, my kill-a-watt only measures to 1 W granuality.
The biggest advantage is probably that LCD's are significantly brighter.
Actually it's funny... if I were to name my single biggest gripe with my LCDs (Dell Ultrasharp IPSs), it would by without a doubt be that even at their dimmest, they are still too bright for dark environments. For instance, I occasionally have trouble falling asleep and decide to get up and do something for 30 minutes or an hour or something before going back to bed. And even though my monitors are at their dimmest settings virtually all the time, they're still painfully bright. Doing a quick Google search there are actually a couple programs (e.g. this) that I'll have to try out that may help a bit.
Yea, because I always thought "If only my monitor didn''t take up so much space, I could put so many things behind it":).
As a counter argument, if everyone in my office had CRTs the same size of our LCDs, we'd have to significantly rearrange the office; at home, my current desk just flat out wouldn't work. In both cases it's because the monitors are far back. In the office the extra depth would mean that, to maintain a comfortable distance from the screens and still have the keyboard at a good location, we'd have to move the desks away from the wall -- but I'm sitting almost back-to-back with someone, and the office is too narrow for us to both do that. (A keyboard tray would leave the same fundamental problem, though eliminating the desk-moving necessity. Though that would also mean that... I wouldn't really have a desk after that.) At home, I built my own standing desk. Due to... I guess not good enough planning (I did anticipate this issue a little bit but not nearly to the degree that it happened), the desk is a bit wobbly and back-heavy. (It will stand upright, but I don't think it'd take much of a bump for stuff -- read: monitors -- to slide off the back.) Right now I have a piece of wood between the desk and the wall that will keep it from tipping over backwards; if I moved it away from the wall to make room for the extra CRT depth, I'd have to come up with some other means to keep it stable. In either case, moving it away from the wall
In other words: I haven't thought "I'm glad I can put lots behind it", but I definitely rely on pushing the monitors back.
I use Latex for pretty much any document that isn't plain text, and it's great. (That's not true. It's a PITA to use and in many ways is almost unforgivably awful. (In particular, the error messages it gives you are frequently about as helpful as punching you in the face.) But compared to everything else, it's great.)
But I don't understand the practice of making presentations in Latex. Latex's big strengths are that you specify the logical form and it will automatically take care of the layout. In other words, you provide the content and it provides the form. The problem is if you want to override its form decisions, it can be like herding cats.
The problem is that, to a unique extent for presentations, the form is almost as important as the content. It's always true that form matters to some extent -- if uoy dont bleve me, imagne my hole post loked like dis; wood u rd it? -- but for presentations it's acutely so.
There are a few reasons this is so. First is that bad presentations are so easy to tune out. (In fact, they're hard to not tune out!) If you want your audience to know what you're talking about, you need to keep their attention. Tied up with this is the fact that presentations go at the speaker's pace, not at yours. If you explain something badly in something written, your reader can just look back a few sentences and give it another try. Not possible with a presentation. So it's important to not lose people in the first place and simultaneously get them back if you do.
Presentations also often have a different goal than something written, and as a result have a different audience. I'm biased by working in academia a bit, but consider a conference. The goal of paper you publish is to (1) convince people that you solved an interesting and/or important problem and (2) provide enough information about what you did that people can build on your work. People who read your papers will often have an active interest in doing so, because they think it will help them with what they're doing. (Not always, if it shows up in a reading group or class or something.) Contrast with a conference presentation. The goal of one of those is threefold: (1) advertise your paper so that people read it, (2) plant seeds in peoples' minds so that if in 6 months they have a problem that is related they'll think of your work and can go look up the paper, and (3) trigger related thoughts in the minds of the audience to spawn discussion. Most of the people in the audience don't have any active reason to watch your presentation other than "this may be interesting" -- and if you let them down by delivering a bad presentation, they'll ignore you and you've forsaken your goals.
Imagine a corporate motivational speaker or something (doesn't matter much how BS you consider that sort of thing) which stood up there with a monotone voice giving a boring-ass presentation. It almost doesn't matter what the words coming out of his mouth are; he's not going to be a motivational speaker for long.
So what this means is you have to try harder during presentations to keep the interest and attention of your audience than you usually do. Many of the things you do here are organizational, but not all. Others are visual. Presentations should almost always be far more visually-based than written forms, using pictures in preference to written or mathematical descriptions. There are many people who say that presentation slides shouldn't have mathematical expressions on them. I don't go quite that far, but they're certainly a strong smell -- a slide with a bunch of math is likely to lose a large portion of your audience. (Another Latex strength down!) If that slide doesn't involve you saying "the important thing to note" followed by something really simple, it's a near certainty.
And stuff like "I want this picture to be here on the slide" is pretty much exactly what Latex was designed to not do. You can do it, but it isn't pretty. And while there's a strong argument to be made that PowerPoint's desig
You also said 'You cannot publish a paper or write a thesis that says "I'm pretty sure P!=NP",' which isn't an even remotely good charactization of this.
You certainly could publish a paper, for instance, that showed that P != NP with 99.999999% probability.
I wasn't happy with OneNote on a standard laptop, but I used it for a while with my convertible tablet and it's almost a dream. Seriously, I complain endelessly about virtually every piece of software I use, I use different OSes at work and home in part so that they piss me off in different ways instead of all the same way... and I had virtually no complaints about how OneNote worked. A couple "this would be awesome" feature wishes, but that's different.
So my standard answer to this question is a convertible tablet + OneNote.
Benefits over paper&pencil is shareability, backup-ability, and (surprisingly good!) searchability. Drawbacks are high cost, heavy weight, and you have to deal with battery life.
You can make an argument that's a good explanation of why 4G isn't available in Australia. However, if the summary is accurate (RTFA? This is Slashdot!), Apple should get smacked down hard for their ads.
I've thought about this. The first solution, of course, is the best, and has the schadenfreude benefit of screwing the scalpers a bit.
But I don't like the second one because of the drawback you mention. I'd prefer an approach like what Roger Waters used for his presale tickets for his recent tour of The Wall. Have a lottery to allocate tickets, but make the tickets non-transferable and check IDs at the will-call booth. (This is like what the other reply said.)
It means that the prices remain in reach (still very expensive in the case of The Wall, but almost certainly still far less than what they'd otherwise have been), and I suspect goes a long way to reducing scalping. (Technically it could still have occurred as long as the scalper can travel to the venue to pick up tickets. You could even check IDs at the door if you wanted to eliminate that possibility.) Waters's lottery could have been better, but IMO the fundamentals were pretty sound.
Slashdot Mirror
There seems to be a pretty high correlation between studies showing correlations and people saying that correlation doesn't imply causation. I wonder if there's a causal relationship?
It's true that most programs won't need 64-bit address space - right now - but that's only as long as their memory requirements are within 2GB.
And a lot of programs this is true, and will "always" be true. Will Emacs ever need more than 2GB for most people?
(And actually it's 4GB on Linux, or at least close to it.)
If that's the case, wouldn't there exist 2 versions of Linux in the tree
It's more like 99% of the code is shared, and changes depending on how you compile it.
wouldn't it make sense for the 32-bit Linux to have a 32-bit ABI, and the 64-bit Linux to have a 64-bit ABI?
That's how it has been, and those configurations will, of course, continue to be supported (in addition to supporting 32-bit apps on 64-bit Linux). They've just added the new x32 option.
Feel free to suggest alternative public DNS servers. I use Google's so that failed requests, you know, fail, unlike the DNS servers that the ISPs around here provide.
Now now, even I've called RMS a zealot for some of the stuff he's said and done re. GCC (e.g. telling someone who wrote a JVM backend for GCC to delete it not tell anyone he wrote it) along that line.
But my understanding is that GPL v3 introduced some change (that I now forget) to make the license stronger, which means that the FSF is now comfortable with that sort of thing. GCC has had a legitimate plugin interface for quite some time now.
Good thing these passwords weren't obtained by attacking Twitter's servers directly then.
My cellphone company dies not offer a cheaper smartphone plan if I bring my own phone. I pay $80.00 a month if I get the subsidized phone or if I buy one for full price.
So look at other companies. T-mobile has a prepaid, "unlimited" data (5 GB, then throttled), mostly-data plan for $30/month.
Since when do the carriers let the user activate dumbphone service on a smartphone?
Since forever, if you buy the phone unlocked.
If those design specs are regularly violated in practice, sure.
Would you say that you have no right to complain if I sold you a lightbulb that only worked correctly if you sacrificed your first-born son at the alter in front of it? Or would you say "working as designed"?
I've been impressed with the Keynote presentations I've seen; I really wish I could get it for my PC.
Unfortunately, as I've become a little fond of saying, I don't want to spend several hundred to over a thousand dollars on presentation software, even if it does come with a free computer. :-)
Doing a quick Google search there are actually a couple programs (e.g. this) that I'll have to try out that may help a bit.
So that seems to have roughly the same effect as lowering contrast. It's a bit nicer in some ways (faster control) but doesn't go all that far toward the solution. Oh well.
FWIW I hooked up my kill-a-watt to my newer monitor (Dell 2312HM; my older one is almost the same build so I was too lazy to test it). At minimum brightness I got 13W with pure black and 14W with pure white. At maximum brightness I got 33W with both.
It's not the most precise tool, but there's another data point for you. :-) (One perhaps-relevant thing: I'm 99% positive dynamic contrast is off.)
FWIW I see virtually no difference on my monitor (Dell U2210H). All-white screen at min brightness is 14W, all-black is 13W. At max brightness even that difference disappears; it's 33W for both. Unfortunately, my kill-a-watt only measures to 1 W granuality.
The biggest advantage is probably that LCD's are significantly brighter.
Actually it's funny... if I were to name my single biggest gripe with my LCDs (Dell Ultrasharp IPSs), it would by without a doubt be that even at their dimmest, they are still too bright for dark environments. For instance, I occasionally have trouble falling asleep and decide to get up and do something for 30 minutes or an hour or something before going back to bed. And even though my monitors are at their dimmest settings virtually all the time, they're still painfully bright. Doing a quick Google search there are actually a couple programs (e.g. this) that I'll have to try out that may help a bit.
Yea, because I always thought "If only my monitor didn''t take up so much space, I could put so many things behind it" :).
As a counter argument, if everyone in my office had CRTs the same size of our LCDs, we'd have to significantly rearrange the office; at home, my current desk just flat out wouldn't work. In both cases it's because the monitors are far back. In the office the extra depth would mean that, to maintain a comfortable distance from the screens and still have the keyboard at a good location, we'd have to move the desks away from the wall -- but I'm sitting almost back-to-back with someone, and the office is too narrow for us to both do that. (A keyboard tray would leave the same fundamental problem, though eliminating the desk-moving necessity. Though that would also mean that... I wouldn't really have a desk after that.) At home, I built my own standing desk. Due to... I guess not good enough planning (I did anticipate this issue a little bit but not nearly to the degree that it happened), the desk is a bit wobbly and back-heavy. (It will stand upright, but I don't think it'd take much of a bump for stuff -- read: monitors -- to slide off the back.) Right now I have a piece of wood between the desk and the wall that will keep it from tipping over backwards; if I moved it away from the wall to make room for the extra CRT depth, I'd have to come up with some other means to keep it stable. In either case, moving it away from the wall
In other words: I haven't thought "I'm glad I can put lots behind it", but I definitely rely on pushing the monitors back.
Wow, that turned into longer than I expected. :-) Sorry for anyone who actually reads it.
I use Latex for pretty much any document that isn't plain text, and it's great. (That's not true. It's a PITA to use and in many ways is almost unforgivably awful. (In particular, the error messages it gives you are frequently about as helpful as punching you in the face.) But compared to everything else, it's great.)
But I don't understand the practice of making presentations in Latex. Latex's big strengths are that you specify the logical form and it will automatically take care of the layout. In other words, you provide the content and it provides the form. The problem is if you want to override its form decisions, it can be like herding cats.
The problem is that, to a unique extent for presentations, the form is almost as important as the content. It's always true that form matters to some extent -- if uoy dont bleve me, imagne my hole post loked like dis; wood u rd it? -- but for presentations it's acutely so.
There are a few reasons this is so. First is that bad presentations are so easy to tune out. (In fact, they're hard to not tune out!) If you want your audience to know what you're talking about, you need to keep their attention. Tied up with this is the fact that presentations go at the speaker's pace, not at yours. If you explain something badly in something written, your reader can just look back a few sentences and give it another try. Not possible with a presentation. So it's important to not lose people in the first place and simultaneously get them back if you do.
Presentations also often have a different goal than something written, and as a result have a different audience. I'm biased by working in academia a bit, but consider a conference. The goal of paper you publish is to (1) convince people that you solved an interesting and/or important problem and (2) provide enough information about what you did that people can build on your work. People who read your papers will often have an active interest in doing so, because they think it will help them with what they're doing. (Not always, if it shows up in a reading group or class or something.) Contrast with a conference presentation. The goal of one of those is threefold: (1) advertise your paper so that people read it, (2) plant seeds in peoples' minds so that if in 6 months they have a problem that is related they'll think of your work and can go look up the paper, and (3) trigger related thoughts in the minds of the audience to spawn discussion. Most of the people in the audience don't have any active reason to watch your presentation other than "this may be interesting" -- and if you let them down by delivering a bad presentation, they'll ignore you and you've forsaken your goals.
Imagine a corporate motivational speaker or something (doesn't matter much how BS you consider that sort of thing) which stood up there with a monotone voice giving a boring-ass presentation. It almost doesn't matter what the words coming out of his mouth are; he's not going to be a motivational speaker for long.
So what this means is you have to try harder during presentations to keep the interest and attention of your audience than you usually do. Many of the things you do here are organizational, but not all. Others are visual. Presentations should almost always be far more visually-based than written forms, using pictures in preference to written or mathematical descriptions. There are many people who say that presentation slides shouldn't have mathematical expressions on them. I don't go quite that far, but they're certainly a strong smell -- a slide with a bunch of math is likely to lose a large portion of your audience. (Another Latex strength down!) If that slide doesn't involve you saying "the important thing to note" followed by something really simple, it's a near certainty.
And stuff like "I want this picture to be here on the slide" is pretty much exactly what Latex was designed to not do. You can do it, but it isn't pretty. And while there's a strong argument to be made that PowerPoint's desig
i wonder if teller will be called to testify? that would be a first!
It is easy to find videos of Teller talking.
seriously though, did teller copywrite the work?
No. But he did copyright it, as TFA said, in 1983.
My read is he wants to scout for good climbing locations before trekking there. Safety is almost certainly better-assessed on-location.
I'm not an ice climber, but I have some knowledge of the sport and have done a bit of outdoor rock climbing.
First off, yes, it's not a proof.
However, probabilistic does not mean nonrigorous, even to a mathematician.
You also said 'You cannot publish a paper or write a thesis that says "I'm pretty sure P!=NP",' which isn't an even remotely good charactization of this.
You certainly could publish a paper, for instance, that showed that P != NP with 99.999999% probability.
You cannot publish a paper or write a thesis that says "I'm pretty sure P!=NP".
You can publish papers based on probabilistic proofs though. In fact, there's an entire complexity heirarchy based on such things.
I wasn't happy with OneNote on a standard laptop, but I used it for a while with my convertible tablet and it's almost a dream. Seriously, I complain endelessly about virtually every piece of software I use, I use different OSes at work and home in part so that they piss me off in different ways instead of all the same way... and I had virtually no complaints about how OneNote worked. A couple "this would be awesome" feature wishes, but that's different.
So my standard answer to this question is a convertible tablet + OneNote.
Benefits over paper&pencil is shareability, backup-ability, and (surprisingly good!) searchability. Drawbacks are high cost, heavy weight, and you have to deal with battery life.
You can make an argument that's a good explanation of why 4G isn't available in Australia. However, if the summary is accurate (RTFA? This is Slashdot!), Apple should get smacked down hard for their ads.
I've thought about this. The first solution, of course, is the best, and has the schadenfreude benefit of screwing the scalpers a bit.
But I don't like the second one because of the drawback you mention. I'd prefer an approach like what Roger Waters used for his presale tickets for his recent tour of The Wall. Have a lottery to allocate tickets, but make the tickets non-transferable and check IDs at the will-call booth. (This is like what the other reply said.)
It means that the prices remain in reach (still very expensive in the case of The Wall, but almost certainly still far less than what they'd otherwise have been), and I suspect goes a long way to reducing scalping. (Technically it could still have occurred as long as the scalper can travel to the venue to pick up tickets. You could even check IDs at the door if you wanted to eliminate that possibility.) Waters's lottery could have been better, but IMO the fundamentals were pretty sound.
"Judge Holderman sent a letter to hhgregg informing it of Hendersâ(TM) allegations and asking it to respond in writing. The company did not do so."
Yeahhhh, that's a good way to get off the ground...