Why do they still keep up this embargo? Does the US have an embargo against China? No, and they are probably a much worse country than Cuba, in just about every way. Cuba doesn't really have much to offer the US, which is why it's easy to keep up the embargo. However, I think that it's kind of stupid to bother keeping up the embargo, since it probably causes more problems then it solves.
The only reason that chess cannot be solved completely is because there are too many solutions for today's computers to search out all the solutions, and figure out the optimal solution. Computers can only go so many moves ahead, especially when you factor in the time constraint. However if you look at a game of checkers, we have gotten computer algorithms to a point where it is impossible to beat the computer. The best you could do is tie. I imagine that the same will be true eventually for the game of chess, once computers are fast enough.
If all the action is on the same screen, computers can do that trivially. Just hook up two joysticks. Computers have done this for quite a long time. I'm pretty sure the Commodore 64 supported dual joysticks, with two players playing at the same time.
First, the instructions for hooking up a computer to a large TV are easy to obtain, especially for the new fancy TVs with VGA/DVI in. Also, everyone playing on the same screen ala goldeneye is not the the same as everybody having their own screen, like networked on computer games. You get a low resolution section of an already low resolution screen (even 1080p is lower than a lot of the current PC monitors). With a Quad SLI setup, it would probably be feasible for there to be 4 separate monitors all hooked to the same computer, with each user having their own input device via usb. So you could have 4 people, each with their own separate screen and input device, which would be much better than the current consoles, and much better than what most computers offer.
According to this article you can sort in constant time, although current systems allow you to sort in O(log (n)) time. However this only works if you have n^2 processors. Which was kind of my original point. Parallelization can offer significant increases in the speed of an algorithm, but only if you have an inordinately large number of processors.
I'd rather they just provide support for other already developed File systems like EXT3. If you could use EXT3 for windows, most Linux users would just use that for windows, and stop trying to get NTFS to work at all.
The problem will be in the dependancies. Want MSN Messenger, that relies on IE, because it can display HTML content. So to install messenger, you have to install IE. Same goes for Linux. You want GIMP, well you have to install GTK, because you can't have one without the other.
Most people who do anything are mediocre. Otherwise, mediocre would be redefined. It's like saying, half the people in the class scored below average. The fact that half the people scored below some value determines what the value of average is.
The problem is that things that take O(n) time still take O(n) time when using parallel algorithms. The only difference is that when you use parallel processing, you can make that O(n/p), where p is the number of processors. If you have 100 items to sort, you it's feasible that you could have 100 cores, it's feasible that you could sort in O(1) time. However, sorting 100 items is trivial anyway, any you probably wouldn't notice the difference between O(1), and O(n^3). When your dataset starts getting really huge, like 1 billion items, or even 1 trillion, you have to throw way too many cores at the problem for what it would really take to speed it up significantly.
The question is, can anybody really provide unlimited throughput at $40 (or whatever) a month. With torrents, and a good connection it's easily possible to get download rates of 500 KB/s. With 2592000 seconds in a 30 day period, one could easily download 1200 GBytes every month. That's 1.2 terabits, and about 20 times the regular 60 GB cap I get on Rogers. Is it really feasible for them offer unlimited throughput, to all users as downloading videos becomes commonplace?
Yes, I realize it's not exactly the same as regular expressions, but it's kind of the same thing. Look for files that have such and such in the name. Mastering Regular Expressions even brings this up as an example, because just about everybody who would be reading the book has probably used this concept at some point in their lives.
I read Mastering Regular Expressions, cover to, cover. I find that it started off very easily and even having no Regex knowledge outside of using *.* on the command line, I was able to pick up Regex using just this book pretty well. Sure you can't just read the book, and master regular expressions, but what programming concept can be mastered from simply reading a book? It's a really good starter, and a really good reference. Everything else you'll figure out from experimentation, and just using it.
Personally, I feel more awake during the day when I get 7 hours sleep as opposed to 9 hours. When I get too much sleep, it takes me a couple hours to wake from the daze.
A better solution may be to convert everything, but not to another scripting language inside your office suite. If it's that important that you need a program, you should probably have a real software project for it. Putting everything in a spreadsheet may seem like a good idea when you start, but it really does tie you to that platform. A little programming here and there isn't bad, but if it's something you require for you day-to-day business needs, you should probably do a proper software project for it.
Also, there's much easier ways to change the results without coercing anyone. Simple way is to make people not vote. With voting machines, it often seems to be the case, that they don't have enough machines, or many of them are not working, and people end up waiting in line for hours on end just to vote. Some people just decide it's not worth it, and walk away. With paper and pencil, there is little if any reason not to have enough resources so that nobody has to wait. With machines, people expect that there will be problems, so it's seen as not something that can be solved.
As others have stated, if somebody is coercing you into voting a specific way, saying that you lost your voting receipt isn't going to be the right answer, they will still break your legs, fire you, or use whatever means they were going to use to get to vote the way they wanted to in the first place. If it's impossible to prove how you voted, then it's impossible for somebody to coerce you.
How do you know that the computer thinks "the choice on the left" is the same thing that you thought was "the choice on the left" and that it didn't get somehow swapped, but a mischievous person, who hacked the system? All you have proof of is that the computer says you voted for A, and so does your receipt, but the computer doesn't show you which candidate it has A mapped to. If it did, it wouldn't be a secret ballot.
If you can prove to yourself that you voted for candidate X, you can prove to someone else that you voted for candidate X. This leads to things just a vote buying, and coercion of voters. The vote is supposed to be anonymous. And it should be impossible to link back a vote to who cast it.
Even if the scripting was good, nobody is going to want to port all their scripts over to some other language, just to switch to a different office suite. If you do, you either don't have many/any scripts to begin with, or you must really hate your current solution quite a bit.
Mine isn't an anecdote, it's an imaginary case study. I know what it's like in the country. My mother-in-law is on country dial-up. I think she usually connects at 26 kbps, but the actual transfer rate due to packet loss and such is probably around 15 kbps. It would be nice if it was 4 times faster, but it's only a stop-gap solution, to get a little extra bit of speed. Sure it's 3 times faster as you state, but it's also only 40 kbps faster. Which doesn't really give you much, especially the way most internet sites are growing. Having a 60 kbps connection would be better than a 20 kbps connection, but it would still suck.
Yes, but that's 6 mbps split between everybody who wants to use it. Let's say you have a small town with 400 computers. And lets say that 1/4 of them want to go online at the same time. So, we have 6 mbps / 100 users, and you have 60 kbps per user. Which ends up being not that much faster than your average dial-up service. Using wireless is like hooking everybody up to a single hub. The bandwidth gets shared between all the users. Works great when you have 4 people sharing a 10 mbit LAN connection to a 1 mbit internet connection, but not so well when you want hundreds of people on the same network.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do they still keep up this embargo? Does the US have an embargo against China? No, and they are probably a much worse country than Cuba, in just about every way. Cuba doesn't really have much to offer the US, which is why it's easy to keep up the embargo. However, I think that it's kind of stupid to bother keeping up the embargo, since it probably causes more problems then it solves.
The only reason that chess cannot be solved completely is because there are too many solutions for today's computers to search out all the solutions, and figure out the optimal solution. Computers can only go so many moves ahead, especially when you factor in the time constraint. However if you look at a game of checkers, we have gotten computer algorithms to a point where it is impossible to beat the computer. The best you could do is tie. I imagine that the same will be true eventually for the game of chess, once computers are fast enough.
If all the action is on the same screen, computers can do that trivially. Just hook up two joysticks. Computers have done this for quite a long time. I'm pretty sure the Commodore 64 supported dual joysticks, with two players playing at the same time.
First, the instructions for hooking up a computer to a large TV are easy to obtain, especially for the new fancy TVs with VGA/DVI in. Also, everyone playing on the same screen ala goldeneye is not the the same as everybody having their own screen, like networked on computer games. You get a low resolution section of an already low resolution screen (even 1080p is lower than a lot of the current PC monitors). With a Quad SLI setup, it would probably be feasible for there to be 4 separate monitors all hooked to the same computer, with each user having their own input device via usb. So you could have 4 people, each with their own separate screen and input device, which would be much better than the current consoles, and much better than what most computers offer.
According to this article you can sort in constant time, although current systems allow you to sort in O(log (n)) time. However this only works if you have n^2 processors. Which was kind of my original point. Parallelization can offer significant increases in the speed of an algorithm, but only if you have an inordinately large number of processors.
I'd rather they just provide support for other already developed File systems like EXT3. If you could use EXT3 for windows, most Linux users would just use that for windows, and stop trying to get NTFS to work at all.
The problem will be in the dependancies. Want MSN Messenger, that relies on IE, because it can display HTML content. So to install messenger, you have to install IE. Same goes for Linux. You want GIMP, well you have to install GTK, because you can't have one without the other.
Most people who do anything are mediocre. Otherwise, mediocre would be redefined. It's like saying, half the people in the class scored below average. The fact that half the people scored below some value determines what the value of average is.
The problem is that things that take O(n) time still take O(n) time when using parallel algorithms. The only difference is that when you use parallel processing, you can make that O(n/p), where p is the number of processors. If you have 100 items to sort, you it's feasible that you could have 100 cores, it's feasible that you could sort in O(1) time. However, sorting 100 items is trivial anyway, any you probably wouldn't notice the difference between O(1), and O(n^3). When your dataset starts getting really huge, like 1 billion items, or even 1 trillion, you have to throw way too many cores at the problem for what it would really take to speed it up significantly.
The question is, can anybody really provide unlimited throughput at $40 (or whatever) a month. With torrents, and a good connection it's easily possible to get download rates of 500 KB/s. With 2592000 seconds in a 30 day period, one could easily download 1200 GBytes every month. That's 1.2 terabits, and about 20 times the regular 60 GB cap I get on Rogers. Is it really feasible for them offer unlimited throughput, to all users as downloading videos becomes commonplace?
Yes, I realize it's not exactly the same as regular expressions, but it's kind of the same thing. Look for files that have such and such in the name. Mastering Regular Expressions even brings this up as an example, because just about everybody who would be reading the book has probably used this concept at some point in their lives.
If they went through school for the same thing, they probably understand how hard it was, and why it isn't easy to get straight A's.
I read Mastering Regular Expressions, cover to, cover. I find that it started off very easily and even having no Regex knowledge outside of using *.* on the command line, I was able to pick up Regex using just this book pretty well. Sure you can't just read the book, and master regular expressions, but what programming concept can be mastered from simply reading a book? It's a really good starter, and a really good reference. Everything else you'll figure out from experimentation, and just using it.
Ask them to take a look at one of your boring textbooks, and see if they can understand a single word from it.
At this point, since they know there's 2 keys, the Mafia hitman would ask you to surrender both keys.
Maybe it's just because I'm Canadian, but to me, blue light means snow removal. Either that, or crappy beer.
Personally, I feel more awake during the day when I get 7 hours sleep as opposed to 9 hours. When I get too much sleep, it takes me a couple hours to wake from the daze.
A better solution may be to convert everything, but not to another scripting language inside your office suite. If it's that important that you need a program, you should probably have a real software project for it. Putting everything in a spreadsheet may seem like a good idea when you start, but it really does tie you to that platform. A little programming here and there isn't bad, but if it's something you require for you day-to-day business needs, you should probably do a proper software project for it.
Also, there's much easier ways to change the results without coercing anyone. Simple way is to make people not vote. With voting machines, it often seems to be the case, that they don't have enough machines, or many of them are not working, and people end up waiting in line for hours on end just to vote. Some people just decide it's not worth it, and walk away. With paper and pencil, there is little if any reason not to have enough resources so that nobody has to wait. With machines, people expect that there will be problems, so it's seen as not something that can be solved.
As others have stated, if somebody is coercing you into voting a specific way, saying that you lost your voting receipt isn't going to be the right answer, they will still break your legs, fire you, or use whatever means they were going to use to get to vote the way they wanted to in the first place. If it's impossible to prove how you voted, then it's impossible for somebody to coerce you.
How do you know that the computer thinks "the choice on the left" is the same thing that you thought was "the choice on the left" and that it didn't get somehow swapped, but a mischievous person, who hacked the system? All you have proof of is that the computer says you voted for A, and so does your receipt, but the computer doesn't show you which candidate it has A mapped to. If it did, it wouldn't be a secret ballot.
If you can prove to yourself that you voted for candidate X, you can prove to someone else that you voted for candidate X. This leads to things just a vote buying, and coercion of voters. The vote is supposed to be anonymous. And it should be impossible to link back a vote to who cast it.
Even if the scripting was good, nobody is going to want to port all their scripts over to some other language, just to switch to a different office suite. If you do, you either don't have many/any scripts to begin with, or you must really hate your current solution quite a bit.
Mine isn't an anecdote, it's an imaginary case study. I know what it's like in the country. My mother-in-law is on country dial-up. I think she usually connects at 26 kbps, but the actual transfer rate due to packet loss and such is probably around 15 kbps. It would be nice if it was 4 times faster, but it's only a stop-gap solution, to get a little extra bit of speed. Sure it's 3 times faster as you state, but it's also only 40 kbps faster. Which doesn't really give you much, especially the way most internet sites are growing. Having a 60 kbps connection would be better than a 20 kbps connection, but it would still suck.
Yes, but that's 6 mbps split between everybody who wants to use it. Let's say you have a small town with 400 computers. And lets say that 1/4 of them want to go online at the same time. So, we have 6 mbps / 100 users, and you have 60 kbps per user. Which ends up being not that much faster than your average dial-up service. Using wireless is like hooking everybody up to a single hub. The bandwidth gets shared between all the users. Works great when you have 4 people sharing a 10 mbit LAN connection to a 1 mbit internet connection, but not so well when you want hundreds of people on the same network.