Yeah, that's why we still see lots of audio tape recorders in the shops, as well as VCRs and CRTs. It's also why the floppy disk market is thriving. Oh, wait...
The e-paper readers have one huge advantage over tablets: Battery time. Add to that the better readability of the e-paper display, and you have a winner.
Note that the ease or hardness of reading PDFs is not inherent to a reader or tablet, but fully depends on the software.
I think with "ultraviolet paradox" he meant the problem Max Planck solved, that with classical physics you'd calculate the intensity of thermal (black body) radiation to always grow with growing frequency, giving rise to infinite total thermal radiation. Planck solved that problem by introducing the quantum hypothesis, that radiation energy can only be emitted in fixed portions proportional to the frequency.
The problem I think you are referring to is a problem in quantum field theory where certain integrals diverge, and which is solved using renormalization.
The two approaches are not mutually exclusive. A hash is an array of containers. Usually people use linear lists as containers because it's the simplest, and hash collisions are considered rare so the O(n) characteristics shouldn't matter. But when hash collisions may be intentionally caused, it's obvious that you should use a container more suited to your problem. Just think about what container you'd use if you weren't able to use a hash table, and then use that same container for the hash table array entries.
Or in short, make your hash table an array of balanced trees instead of linked lists. That way you get O(1) typical behaviour (assuming a good hash function) and O(log n) worst case (which includes malicious attacks).
Or just use a RB tree instead of a linear list for hash collisions, then you get only O(log n) instead of O(n) worst case search performance.
To quote Wikipedia:
Instead of a list, one can use any other data structure that supports the required operations. For example, by using a self-balancing tree, the theoretical worst-case time of common hash table operations (insertion, deletion, lookup) can be brought down to O(log n) rather than O(n). However, this approach is only worth the trouble and extra memory cost if [...] one must guard against many entries hashed to the same slot (e.g.[...] in the case of web sites or other publicly accessible services, which are vulnerable to malicious key distributions in requests).
While a file system is not generally publicly available (actually it may be, if e.g. used on an FTP server), it is still shared.
Only initially. Later, they will be able to write their code themselves.
Of course you'll still have to have someone who checks this code, to make sure the robots don't get programmed to harm us. For obvious reasons, you wouldn't trust that job to a computer.
The problem is that our current economy is built on the assumption that people work to get the resources they need for living (well, unless you've got enough money that you can let others work for you). When robots make more and more of that work, this means less is available for humans, and thus the basic assumption the economy is built on breaks down. Which of course doesn't mean that the machines are bad, but it means that our economy is not adapted to their existence. Unfortunately for many people the economic system is a sort of religion, so they refuse to even think about how to change it to adapt to the new situation.
I've once read a very insightful sentence (unfortunately I don't remember who wrote it):
One thing all the world's stories of paradise have in common is that the humans are out of work.
The circus performer, we have robots that dance and feed animals.
Yes, but when you go to a circus, you want to see humans, not robots. A human walking on a rope high up gets attraction, because everyone feels the danger of the situation (usually far more than there's real danger). A robot walking on a rope high up will interest no one (assuming the general development has gone so far that the ability alone isn't any more extraordinary). If the robot falls down, it will be harmed or maybe even destroyed, but so what? It's just a robot, it can be replaced, and the new one will be just as good as the old one. It's some financial loss, but that's it. Nobody cares about the individual robot.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, that's why we still see lots of audio tape recorders in the shops, as well as VCRs and CRTs. It's also why the floppy disk market is thriving. Oh, wait ...
If you want to read epub, you just could have chosen a different reader. Any different reader, actually. Nobody forced you to go with a Kindle.
(oops, that comment went to the wrong parent ...)
The e-paper readers have one huge advantage over tablets: Battery time. Add to that the better readability of the e-paper display, and you have a winner.
Note that the ease or hardness of reading PDFs is not inherent to a reader or tablet, but fully depends on the software.
Actually I'd like a model with Ethernet port and enough RAM but without graphics (that should save a lot of power, too).
Worst case for a tree is O(n), not O(log n).
What exactly did you not understand about balanced tree?
I think with "ultraviolet paradox" he meant the problem Max Planck solved, that with classical physics you'd calculate the intensity of thermal (black body) radiation to always grow with growing frequency, giving rise to infinite total thermal radiation. Planck solved that problem by introducing the quantum hypothesis, that radiation energy can only be emitted in fixed portions proportional to the frequency.
The problem I think you are referring to is a problem in quantum field theory where certain integrals diverge, and which is solved using renormalization.
Actually, the two particles are Susy Higgs Enterprise and OPENSusy.
Higgs and Anti-Higgs have the same mass, even if they should turn out to be not identical.
But maybe the Higgs is not an elementary particle but two particles bound together, and the higher mass corresponds to an excited Higgs?
You know that not everyone who reads the bible must be religious?
One is the Happy Higgs, the other an Angry Higgs. Being angry adds 3GeV.
Anger leads to the dark side...
So, the god particle and the devil particle?
The two approaches are not mutually exclusive. A hash is an array of containers. Usually people use linear lists as containers because it's the simplest, and hash collisions are considered rare so the O(n) characteristics shouldn't matter. But when hash collisions may be intentionally caused, it's obvious that you should use a container more suited to your problem. Just think about what container you'd use if you weren't able to use a hash table, and then use that same container for the hash table array entries.
Or in short, make your hash table an array of balanced trees instead of linked lists. That way you get O(1) typical behaviour (assuming a good hash function) and O(log n) worst case (which includes malicious attacks).
Does anyone still use Solaris?
That's a brand of cooking oil, right?
No, it's a novel by Stanislav Lem.
Or just use a RB tree instead of a linear list for hash collisions, then you get only O(log n) instead of O(n) worst case search performance.
To quote Wikipedia:
Instead of a list, one can use any other data structure that supports the required operations. For example, by using a self-balancing tree, the theoretical worst-case time of common hash table operations (insertion, deletion, lookup) can be brought down to O(log n) rather than O(n). However, this approach is only worth the trouble and extra memory cost if [...] one must guard against many entries hashed to the same slot (e.g.[...] in the case of web sites or other publicly accessible services, which are vulnerable to malicious key distributions in requests).
While a file system is not generally publicly available (actually it may be, if e.g. used on an FTP server), it is still shared.
DOS = Disk Operating System
DoS = Denial of Service
Stop whining, start working.
But what if he is a professional whiner? Then whining is working. :-)
Well, the lawyers will make sure that there will be a law against having computers do the lawyer's job. Except if owned by a lawyer, of course.
Only initially. Later, they will be able to write their code themselves.
Of course you'll still have to have someone who checks this code, to make sure the robots don't get programmed to harm us. For obvious reasons, you wouldn't trust that job to a computer.
The problem is that our current economy is built on the assumption that people work to get the resources they need for living (well, unless you've got enough money that you can let others work for you). When robots make more and more of that work, this means less is available for humans, and thus the basic assumption the economy is built on breaks down. Which of course doesn't mean that the machines are bad, but it means that our economy is not adapted to their existence. Unfortunately for many people the economic system is a sort of religion, so they refuse to even think about how to change it to adapt to the new situation.
I've once read a very insightful sentence (unfortunately I don't remember who wrote it):
One thing all the world's stories of paradise have in common is that the humans are out of work.
Organ donor. You cannot use a robot for that. :-)
Yes, but when you go to a circus, you want to see humans, not robots. A human walking on a rope high up gets attraction, because everyone feels the danger of the situation (usually far more than there's real danger). A robot walking on a rope high up will interest no one (assuming the general development has gone so far that the ability alone isn't any more extraordinary). If the robot falls down, it will be harmed or maybe even destroyed, but so what? It's just a robot, it can be replaced, and the new one will be just as good as the old one. It's some financial loss, but that's it. Nobody cares about the individual robot.
Sorry, but we don't know what the ancient cheese tasted like. So being in possession of taste buds may have been a reason to not eat that cheese ...
Actually when introduced, the metric system was exactly that.
However modern phones tend not to have a cradle to pulse-dial with.
Only in america. The rest of the world places 0 before 1 on the disc, making 9 the last (and slowest) digit.
Then Germany must be part of America. ;-)