The reason the US constitution makes a point of mentioning that a citizen's rights are not limited to those enumerated is that the US is a common law country. There are lots and lots of rights, many of them weird, that exist in common law. They ARE specified in legal precedent where there's been some dispute about them (over the centuries pretty much all the important ones).
Where I grew up, they decided to get rid of littering, and just cranked up the fines until people stopped. So it's a bit shocking, after having moved to a new city, to see people doing it.
The smokers somehow dodged most of the littering enforcement, so they still toss their butts everywhere. Except every once in a while there's a funny story, like some ass getting fined $10000 for tossing a butt out a car window while driving through a forest during fire season.
The core of a blockchain, a hash tree, is actually a pretty useful way of recording things like transactions. Git uses it, for example. I'm sure any kind of accounting process could benefit from the integrity checking and error detection it provides. It's not particularly revolutionary, but accountants are reasonably conservative.
Making that record public... okaaaay. Making it modifiable by the public, which is what "blockchain" really adds... what could possibly go wrong?
Naval tradition affects a lot more than the navy. If you belong to a (civilian) yacht club you may decide to participate in a regatta where the participants will salute the commodore. You will likely refer to many of the parts of your boat using the same terms that were used in Napoleonic-era navies. You may even roll your eyes at "landsmen" who call ships boats, charts maps, and talk about how many ropes there are.
OP specifically gave the example of semi-submersible heavy lift ships. They're a new class of very special purpose ship (remember, we're talking about tradition) that can carry other ships. The ships carrying boats thing is a rule of thumb, which means there's more to it. Ships often carry, and launch, utility boats because the boats can do things the ships are too big for.
Your second example is a dinghy. It's in the title. Dinghies aren't really boats in the naval sense, only the colloquial one. However, a dinghy does meet the definition of being small enough to be carried on a ship.
The definition I and the OP gave is more for identifying boats than ships. To be a ship you have to do more than just carry a boat. But if you're small enough to be carried by a ship, excluding the special cases, then you're a boat.
As I said, naval traditions are strict, but not consistent. The average Slashdotter would likely be what's known as a "sea lawyer" and would have to be flogged into submission before he could start being made into any kind of a seaman.
But the smartphone market is unique! No other major product has an annual update of existing products that's pretty much the same as what went before. *cough* cars
I can confirm his assertion about the rule of thumb. Ships carry boats, boats don't carry ships. Naval traditions are very strict, especially where naming things is involved. Not necessarily consistent, but strict.
Making a web site pretty doesn't require much space, unless you need pictures. Sounds like the problem was that the designers don't know how to do anything without a bunch of libraries.
Thatâ(TM)s the cynical view, yes. Itâ(TM)s not really true though. Historically wars have been fairly honourable affairs, and technologically conservative. Homerâ(TM)s dislike of archers colours military thinking right up to today, with our distaste for dehumanised video game style drone or over-the-horizon killing. Modern military training was invented to deal with the issue of many soldiers choosing to not actually fire at the enemy.
Psychology, conditioning and propaganda are used to overcome our apparently default humanity. Hello Facebook.
The anonymous author of the article has apparently learned (through long and hard business experience) that if you want someone to engineer software you need a software engineer.
Which has very little bearing on whether computer scientists are useful in industry. Lots of businesses find mathematicians invaluable. Computer science is a highly related field. But if youâ(TM)re using either one as a code monkey, youâ(TM)re doing it wrong.
It means that everybody who buys Apple stock thinks that the company is worth at least $1 trillion dollars. And the number of people who buy Apple stock is very, very large.
Apple mostly created the personal (as opposed to business) smartphone market. Particularly if you define "smartphone" as something you can install apps on, rather than a phone that can get e-mail.
Yeah, I might have been exaggerating a bit. The iPhone version of What's App was written by a Russian guy they hired from rentacoder.com. I don't know how long it took him to write it, but there are lots of tutorials that use making an XMPP IM app as an example. Add a bit of extra time to do the RAD GUI development (also lots of tutorials).
Iâ(TM)m sure it will scale. But will it scale better than an ASIC?
You could probably design some kind of adaptive optical element that could change its local diffractive properties on command, which would let you train something like this, or adapt it to different situations. But at the moment, and probably for some time, that sounds quite a bit more complicated than just reprogramming an FPGA or loading different values into one of googleâ(TM)s TPUs or tweaking some resistances in an analog (electrical) computer.
You might be able to come up with some very specialised applications where a fixed filter thatâ(TM)s faster than four or five analog elements in series is useful, but Iâ(TM)m having troubling thinking of one.
You can do a Fourier transform with light too, but nobody ever does because itâ(TM)s much easier to use a dsp.
I don't think so. Facebook gets a bit of lockin that way because it's a passive medium. You post something, your friends wander by to look at it. Same with instagram. No friends, less likes.
WhatsApp is active. I send you a message. You send me a message. Neither of us is fishing for likes, so the size of our audience doesn't matter. It's a low bar for you to install Telegram if WhatsApp starts pushing ads.
I think maybe that's something the marketers don't understand. "Social media" isn't special, it's just the same old old communication business where the characteristics of the medium are critical.
You'd think they would have learned from all the IM systems that went before. We all thought ICQ had a lock, until everyone stopped using it.
When I first signed up for WhatsApp they had a great way of making money too. It was free. And the amount of money though brought in covered the costs of the weekend spent coding an instant messenger.
Office prior to 2016 (17?) looks like ass on retina displays.
If it weren't for that I would still *absolutely* use a prior-to-the-bloated-toolbar version. The later versions only just stopped crashing when you dare to use a superscript.
Not sure what you mean. Any of the reasonably friendly modern Linux distros is pretty much equivalent to Windows. Open Office is big, bloated and crashy, but so are recent versions of Office.
The only real difference is one that's always been there: a lot of people write programs for Windows. It's a high barrier. But a monthly hit in the wallet might be exactly the springboard needed to push enough people over.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason the US constitution makes a point of mentioning that a citizen's rights are not limited to those enumerated is that the US is a common law country. There are lots and lots of rights, many of them weird, that exist in common law. They ARE specified in legal precedent where there's been some dispute about them (over the centuries pretty much all the important ones).
Where I grew up, they decided to get rid of littering, and just cranked up the fines until people stopped. So it's a bit shocking, after having moved to a new city, to see people doing it.
The smokers somehow dodged most of the littering enforcement, so they still toss their butts everywhere. Except every once in a while there's a funny story, like some ass getting fined $10000 for tossing a butt out a car window while driving through a forest during fire season.
How would you handle that? Proof of work? Whichever company is willing to devote the most compute time wins? Proof of stake? Biggest one takes all?
When two companies don't trust each other, you get them both to approve all transactions.
The core of a blockchain, a hash tree, is actually a pretty useful way of recording things like transactions. Git uses it, for example. I'm sure any kind of accounting process could benefit from the integrity checking and error detection it provides. It's not particularly revolutionary, but accountants are reasonably conservative.
Making that record public... okaaaay. Making it modifiable by the public, which is what "blockchain" really adds... what could possibly go wrong?
I don't think this is supposed to be a currency like bitcoin. They're proposing using a blockchain to record bond trading transactions.
I think central authorities using blockchain distributed databases like this is stupid, and potentially dangerous, but hey, buzzwords.
Yup, sea lawyer.
Naval tradition affects a lot more than the navy. If you belong to a (civilian) yacht club you may decide to participate in a regatta where the participants will salute the commodore. You will likely refer to many of the parts of your boat using the same terms that were used in Napoleonic-era navies. You may even roll your eyes at "landsmen" who call ships boats, charts maps, and talk about how many ropes there are.
True. Also cupholders. Just wait.
OP specifically gave the example of semi-submersible heavy lift ships. They're a new class of very special purpose ship (remember, we're talking about tradition) that can carry other ships. The ships carrying boats thing is a rule of thumb, which means there's more to it. Ships often carry, and launch, utility boats because the boats can do things the ships are too big for.
Your second example is a dinghy. It's in the title. Dinghies aren't really boats in the naval sense, only the colloquial one. However, a dinghy does meet the definition of being small enough to be carried on a ship.
The definition I and the OP gave is more for identifying boats than ships. To be a ship you have to do more than just carry a boat. But if you're small enough to be carried by a ship, excluding the special cases, then you're a boat.
As I said, naval traditions are strict, but not consistent. The average Slashdotter would likely be what's known as a "sea lawyer" and would have to be flogged into submission before he could start being made into any kind of a seaman.
But the smartphone market is unique! No other major product has an annual update of existing products that's pretty much the same as what went before. *cough* cars
I can confirm his assertion about the rule of thumb. Ships carry boats, boats don't carry ships. Naval traditions are very strict, especially where naming things is involved. Not necessarily consistent, but strict.
The web is decentralised. Go ahead. Make a web site. Done.
What they mean is, can we unseat Facebook and make money off the web instead of them. Oh, and maybe make it not addictive too. Yeah, probably not.
Making a web site pretty doesn't require much space, unless you need pictures. Sounds like the problem was that the designers don't know how to do anything without a bunch of libraries.
Probably. But who cares? The film is in the vault if the media ever gets lost. The film won't be readable in 100 years if it's in constant use.
Thatâ(TM)s the cynical view, yes. Itâ(TM)s not really true though. Historically wars have been fairly honourable affairs, and technologically conservative. Homerâ(TM)s dislike of archers colours military thinking right up to today, with our distaste for dehumanised video game style drone or over-the-horizon killing. Modern military training was invented to deal with the issue of many soldiers choosing to not actually fire at the enemy.
Psychology, conditioning and propaganda are used to overcome our apparently default humanity. Hello Facebook.
Donâ(TM)t be silly. The purpose of Facebook was so hot girls would send a bunch of college dudes pictures.
LATER a suit came along and realised the bycatch Facebook had turned up in their trawl was valuable.
The anonymous author of the article has apparently learned (through long and hard business experience) that if you want someone to engineer software you need a software engineer.
Which has very little bearing on whether computer scientists are useful in industry. Lots of businesses find mathematicians invaluable. Computer science is a highly related field. But if youâ(TM)re using either one as a code monkey, youâ(TM)re doing it wrong.
It means that everybody who buys Apple stock thinks that the company is worth at least $1 trillion dollars. And the number of people who buy Apple stock is very, very large.
Apple mostly created the personal (as opposed to business) smartphone market. Particularly if you define "smartphone" as something you can install apps on, rather than a phone that can get e-mail.
Yeah, I might have been exaggerating a bit. The iPhone version of What's App was written by a Russian guy they hired from rentacoder.com. I don't know how long it took him to write it, but there are lots of tutorials that use making an XMPP IM app as an example. Add a bit of extra time to do the RAD GUI development (also lots of tutorials).
The Blackberry port apparently took two months.
You know Steve Jobs wasn't a programmer right?
Iâ(TM)m sure it will scale. But will it scale better than an ASIC?
You could probably design some kind of adaptive optical element that could change its local diffractive properties on command, which would let you train something like this, or adapt it to different situations. But at the moment, and probably for some time, that sounds quite a bit more complicated than just reprogramming an FPGA or loading different values into one of googleâ(TM)s TPUs or tweaking some resistances in an analog (electrical) computer.
You might be able to come up with some very specialised applications where a fixed filter thatâ(TM)s faster than four or five analog elements in series is useful, but Iâ(TM)m having troubling thinking of one.
You can do a Fourier transform with light too, but nobody ever does because itâ(TM)s much easier to use a dsp.
I don't think so. Facebook gets a bit of lockin that way because it's a passive medium. You post something, your friends wander by to look at it. Same with instagram. No friends, less likes.
WhatsApp is active. I send you a message. You send me a message. Neither of us is fishing for likes, so the size of our audience doesn't matter. It's a low bar for you to install Telegram if WhatsApp starts pushing ads.
I think maybe that's something the marketers don't understand. "Social media" isn't special, it's just the same old old communication business where the characteristics of the medium are critical.
You'd think they would have learned from all the IM systems that went before. We all thought ICQ had a lock, until everyone stopped using it.
When I first signed up for WhatsApp they had a great way of making money too. It was free. And the amount of money though brought in covered the costs of the weekend spent coding an instant messenger.
Office prior to 2016 (17?) looks like ass on retina displays.
If it weren't for that I would still *absolutely* use a prior-to-the-bloated-toolbar version. The later versions only just stopped crashing when you dare to use a superscript.
Not sure what you mean. Any of the reasonably friendly modern Linux distros is pretty much equivalent to Windows. Open Office is big, bloated and crashy, but so are recent versions of Office.
The only real difference is one that's always been there: a lot of people write programs for Windows. It's a high barrier. But a monthly hit in the wallet might be exactly the springboard needed to push enough people over.