Well, every other result would have been exactly as improbable. In other words, the probability of such an improbable result occuring was almost exactly 1 (there was a slight chance for some unusual event preventing the command to finish, like e.g. a power outage).
How can Google break an NDA which forbids you (not them) to disclose certain facts? And in what way would offering you a job imply making it public? Does Google anywhere have a publicly accessible list of employees? BTW, what if they don't offer you a job after the interview?
As someone who has signed the damned thing (after showing it to my lawyer), I can tell you for sure that it can be attacked on the grounds of blatant inequity.
I conclude that those clauses are against the law. Now, how is having illegal clauses in an NDA not evil? (Unless that law itself is evil, of course, which I highly doubt in this case)
Also the sun is not environmentally friendly. It sends out lots of radioactivity (luckily we are shielded from most of it by the earth's magnetic field), it can cause skin cancer, it contributes to global warming, and one day it will blow up and destroy the earth. I don't get how people can claim solar energy is clean.:-)
No. There can be only one pixel at position x=100, y=200 in frame 125.
The number of dimensions is the number of numbers you need to identify something (with some continuity conditions; otherwise you could declare everything as one-dimensional). Either you want to identify a certain pixel, then you need two spatial and one temporal (frame) number, that is, three dimensions. With those numbers, the pixel is uniquely identified, and anything else (i.e. the color) is just a function of those coordinates.
OTOH you can try to uniquely identify the movie. Then you need to give the three color numbers for every single pixel, which for n pixels makes 3n numbers, thus you have 3n dimensions.
Well, actually software cannot be "free as in freedom", because freedom is about rights, and software doesn't have rights, only humans have. What actually happens with "free software" is that the users of the software are free (i.e. enjoy certain freedoms), f.ex. they are free to share the software with others, or to modify it. Thus without further knowledge about the specific term coined by RMS, the only reasonable interpretation of "free software" would be "no-cost software", because that's the only meaning of free which can be applied to software, as opposed to humans.
In the physical sense, only space and time are the dimensions; the color is a function of space and time, and thus a field (with three field components). OTOH, if you count color dimensions, there are three separate color dimensions per pixel and frame (because the color can vary independently for each pixel in each frame). Assuming a movie resolution of 2048x1536 at 24 frames per second, an 1.5 hour movie would then have approx. 408 billion dimensions.
This "circular" polarization only solves problem with head tilting.
Indeed, it doesn't even do that. If you tilt your head, the images of the movie your eyes get will still be shifted horizontally in respect to the ground, instead of in respect to your head (after all, there are only those two images, and the camera doesn't know about your head movement). Since stereo seeing in your brain works through the horizontal displacement in respect of your eyes, tilting your head will make the 3D effect go away.
Now you might argue that the 3D effect won't go away if you don't tilt your head too much, but then, in that case you also don't get noticeable wrong-eye images with linearly polarized light.
Of course not having plenty of engineers who do not know UNIX is not the same as having plenty of engineers who do know UNIX.
To take an extreme case, if they had no engineers at all, the original statement would be true, while the repacement one wouldn't. OTOH, if there are plenty engineers of both types, the original statement isn't true, but the replacement statement is.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is obviously a true statement, since 1 + (1/1) = 2, thus the first equation doesn't hold, while the second one trivially does.
Well, every other result would have been exactly as improbable. In other words, the probability of such an improbable result occuring was almost exactly 1 (there was a slight chance for some unusual event preventing the command to finish, like e.g. a power outage).
How can Google break an NDA which forbids you (not them) to disclose certain facts? And in what way would offering you a job imply making it public? Does Google anywhere have a publicly accessible list of employees?
BTW, what if they don't offer you a job after the interview?
I conclude that those clauses are against the law. Now, how is having illegal clauses in an NDA not evil? (Unless that law itself is evil, of course, which I highly doubt in this case)
Also the sun is not environmentally friendly. It sends out lots of radioactivity (luckily we are shielded from most of it by the earth's magnetic field), it can cause skin cancer, it contributes to global warming, and one day it will blow up and destroy the earth. I don't get how people can claim solar energy is clean. :-)
Why would you do nothing after you retire?
I guess that question has been answered by the moderators
Surely this is somehow related to life, the universe and everything?
Well, have the ISP give the guy a home. That way you can pay for it through your ISP bill, and everyone is happy.
It actually was a successful test of the ultimate firewall. It prohibited all malicious hacking on Internet2.
That it wasn't designed as a means of communication in the event of a homeless guy dropping his cigarette?
Ok, let's start a new space travel religion now, so we have the believers when we need them ...
Well, maybe that's why MS assumes to be first: The traces of the earlier horses are long gone
No. There can be only one pixel at position x=100, y=200 in frame 125.
The number of dimensions is the number of numbers you need to identify something (with some continuity conditions; otherwise you could declare everything as one-dimensional). Either you want to identify a certain pixel, then you need two spatial and one temporal (frame) number, that is, three dimensions. With those numbers, the pixel is uniquely identified, and anything else (i.e. the color) is just a function of those coordinates.
OTOH you can try to uniquely identify the movie. Then you need to give the three color numbers for every single pixel, which for n pixels makes 3n numbers, thus you have 3n dimensions.
The number of dimension is, by definition, the number of independent coordinates.
Well, actually software cannot be "free as in freedom", because freedom is about rights, and software doesn't have rights, only humans have. What actually happens with "free software" is that the users of the software are free (i.e. enjoy certain freedoms), f.ex. they are free to share the software with others, or to modify it. Thus without further knowledge about the specific term coined by RMS, the only reasonable interpretation of "free software" would be "no-cost software", because that's the only meaning of free which can be applied to software, as opposed to humans.
Of course: If the cost of saying something is the danger of getting in jail, then that speech is obviously not free.
In the physical sense, only space and time are the dimensions; the color is a function of space and time, and thus a field (with three field components). OTOH, if you count color dimensions, there are three separate color dimensions per pixel and frame (because the color can vary independently for each pixel in each frame). Assuming a movie resolution of 2048x1536 at 24 frames per second, an 1.5 hour movie would then have approx. 408 billion dimensions.
Are there also analog DLP projectors?
Actually, the typical movie is already 3D: horizontal dimension, vertical dimension and time dimension.
Well, at least at IMAX, the polarizing glasses are so huge that you won't have any troubles to put them above your normal ones.
Indeed, it doesn't even do that. If you tilt your head, the images of the movie your eyes get will still be shifted horizontally in respect to the ground, instead of in respect to your head (after all, there are only those two images, and the camera doesn't know about your head movement). Since stereo seeing in your brain works through the horizontal displacement in respect of your eyes, tilting your head will make the 3D effect go away.
Now you might argue that the 3D effect won't go away if you don't tilt your head too much, but then, in that case you also don't get noticeable wrong-eye images with linearly polarized light.
But isn't eating chicken effectively eating grown-up egg?
Of course not having plenty of engineers who do not know UNIX is not the same as having plenty of engineers who do know UNIX.
To take an extreme case, if they had no engineers at all, the original statement would be true, while the repacement one wouldn't. OTOH, if there are plenty engineers of both types, the original statement isn't true, but the replacement statement is.