"Whenever it's too dark to see the clock, you can just call any random number. Whoever answers always says 'Are you crazy? It's 3:45 in the morning!'" - A comedian I can't recall
The point is "it might just of been" ought to be "it might just have been". The incorrect "of" probably comes from the fact that the pronunciation of the contraction "might have"->"might've" sounds a lot like "might of".
You missed the point. Reemul is making an oblique reference to the 1972 Olympics where 11 Jewish athletes were murdered; look up "Munich massacre" on wikipedia.
And I just changed my compiler to make "char" be 32 bits, and then I recompiled a few libs and all my source code, and now all my programs automagically support Unicode!
The Internet wouldn't even EXIST if the Ron/Randoms had been in power in the 1970's, and now they figure they have something useful to say about how it ought to work? I suppose their "Internet Freedom" must mean that they want us to be free of the Internet entirely...
But that does not mean that in all puzzles with more than 17 clues you can remove a clue and still have a unique solution. This makes the last sentence in the main post kind of meaningless; plenty of (x+1)-clue puzzles are harder than some x-clue ones.
Re:The originals really are something else
on
Homebrew Cray-1
·
· Score: 5, Informative
"Why," you may ask, "was the internal wiring so insanely packed?" The length of each point-to-point wire was individually calibrated, such that all the signals to each gate arrived at the same moment, so you didn't need flip-flops to latch values in the flow of the circuits. Kind of a "just-in-time delivery" of electrons; and each layer of buffering avoided saved you delay along the pipeline. I don't think this sort of scheme was used on any other mainframe.
Five hundred plus years of non-digital typography says you are wrong. Go out and take some measurements from some old books. The formula you give is just something some programmer came up with a few decades ago, that kind of worked most of the time. Next thing you'll be telling us is that a point is exactly 1/72 of an inch...
Nope, he's wrong about the period. As one of his responders pointed out, just touch the ".?123" button, and, without lifting your finger, slide it over to the "." button, then lift your finger. Viola! Also works for the other common punctuation and digits. A pretty cute UI idea, I think.
Don't short the stock, especially when you claim to know that you're betting on the stock movement for exactly two quarters. Instead, buy a "put". That way, you limit your potential losses, and you also avoid getting scared out of you position if the stock goes up for a while before going down (plus, you don't risk a margin call, etc.) Similarly, your friend can buy a "call" and get the same sort of advantages.
The article and responses miss an important point: patches of any kind are risky! And not just because they might introduce a new security flaw, but more generally because they may break some feature or another. In applications with millions of lines of code, and where the cost of doing a patch release amortized over all customers is millions of dollars, it can make lots of sense to just roll a fix into the next planned upgrade release. That way you get a complete Q/A and customer beta-test cycle to increase the confidence level of the fix.
If you're looking for higher-quality, non-politically-motivated info, or think that the Cuban government is being unfairly maligned, check out Amnesty International's evaluation:
http://web.amnesty.org/report2006/cub-summary-eng/
I do infrequent, low-volume printing, and my biggest problem isn't how the output looks or the reliability of the cartridges; it's how long the under-used ink takes to evaporate from the cartridge. Brand-X cartridges seem to come up "out of ink" months and months sooner than OEM ones do.
Lost In Space had prior art on this in 1965! Their invisible "Force Field" caused all BEMs to bounce right off it, at a radius of about 25 feet, I'd estimate (about the depth of a sound stage, coincidently).
Nice, but why is the Scientist character a white male, and the interviewer a dark-skinned female? For that matter, why is the scientist blond? A little snooping around the web shows that Weimann and Cornell have dark hair, and Ketterle HAD dark hair (now it's gray).
In 1977 or so, the "cc" compiler on official Bell Labs Unix for the PDP-11 would automatically detect an infinite loop in your program by actually going into an infinite loop itself while compiling! Quite the feature. It turned out to be due to a simple optimization it was attempting to do: Any branch (conditional or unconditional) to an unconditional branch instruction would have its target changed to the target of the later; repeat until the branch no longer targeted an unconditional branch. So, any chain of branches that cycled back on itself would cause the optimizer to eventually reduce the first one to "here: goto here" and subsequently loop forever, chasing its own tail.
Slashdot Mirror
"Whenever it's too dark to see the clock, you can just call any random number. Whoever answers always says 'Are you crazy? It's 3:45 in the morning!'" - A comedian I can't recall
And the author was a postdoc at the Max Planck Institute at the time! Nothing to do with Microsoft!
I'm sure if you just start selling Sons of Anarchy t-shirts over the web and ship them out of your garage, you'll be fine!
The point is "it might just of been" ought to be "it might just have been". The incorrect "of" probably comes from the fact that the pronunciation of the contraction "might have"->"might've" sounds a lot like "might of".
Well, 2 billion, actually. They forgot to use "unsigned".
You missed the point. Reemul is making an oblique reference to the 1972 Olympics where 11 Jewish athletes were murdered; look up "Munich massacre" on wikipedia.
It can "detect...extra...joints"? Talk about features for a tiny niche market! How many people have six fingers? Or two elbows per arm?
You have to go on tour, and charge for live performances of the bits you created.
And I just changed my compiler to make "char" be 32 bits, and then I recompiled a few libs and all my source code, and now all my programs automagically support Unicode!
It's simply the jury's emotional response to the death of Peter Parker.
The Internet wouldn't even EXIST if the Ron/Randoms had been in power in the 1970's, and now they figure they have something useful to say about how it ought to work? I suppose their "Internet Freedom" must mean that they want us to be free of the Internet entirely...
But that does not mean that in all puzzles with more than 17 clues you can remove a clue and still have a unique solution. This makes the last sentence in the main post kind of meaningless; plenty of (x+1)-clue puzzles are harder than some x-clue ones.
"Why," you may ask, "was the internal wiring so insanely packed?" The length of each point-to-point wire was individually calibrated, such that all the signals to each gate arrived at the same moment, so you didn't need flip-flops to latch values in the flow of the circuits. Kind of a "just-in-time delivery" of electrons; and each layer of buffering avoided saved you delay along the pipeline. I don't think this sort of scheme was used on any other mainframe.
OK, I expected him to be more accurate than I am at folding towels, but faster too?!?
Doesn't that count as "slander of title" on SCO's part? (Which, as it happens, is just what SCO was suing Novell for!)
Five hundred plus years of non-digital typography says you are wrong. Go out and take some measurements from some old books. The formula you give is just something some programmer came up with a few decades ago, that kind of worked most of the time. Next thing you'll be telling us is that a point is exactly 1/72 of an inch...
Right. So, is it a win for the first or the second player? Would be nice to mention somewhere.
Nope, he's wrong about the period. As one of his responders pointed out, just touch the ".?123" button, and, without lifting your finger, slide it over to the "." button, then lift your finger. Viola! Also works for the other common punctuation and digits. A pretty cute UI idea, I think.
Don't short the stock, especially when you claim to know that you're betting on the stock movement for exactly two quarters. Instead, buy a "put". That way, you limit your potential losses, and you also avoid getting scared out of you position if the stock goes up for a while before going down (plus, you don't risk a margin call, etc.) Similarly, your friend can buy a "call" and get the same sort of advantages.
The article and responses miss an important point: patches of any kind are risky! And not just because they might introduce a new security flaw, but more generally because they may break some feature or another. In applications with millions of lines of code, and where the cost of doing a patch release amortized over all customers is millions of dollars, it can make lots of sense to just roll a fix into the next planned upgrade release. That way you get a complete Q/A and customer beta-test cycle to increase the confidence level of the fix.
If you're looking for higher-quality, non-politically-motivated info, or think that the Cuban government is being unfairly maligned, check out Amnesty International's evaluation: http://web.amnesty.org/report2006/cub-summary-eng/
I do infrequent, low-volume printing, and my biggest problem isn't how the output looks or the reliability of the cartridges; it's how long the under-used ink takes to evaporate from the cartridge. Brand-X cartridges seem to come up "out of ink" months and months sooner than OEM ones do.
Lost In Space had prior art on this in 1965! Their invisible "Force Field" caused all BEMs to bounce right off it, at a radius of about 25 feet, I'd estimate (about the depth of a sound stage, coincidently).
Nice, but why is the Scientist character a white male, and the interviewer a dark-skinned female? For that matter, why is the scientist blond? A little snooping around the web shows that Weimann and Cornell have dark hair, and Ketterle HAD dark hair (now it's gray).
In 1977 or so, the "cc" compiler on official Bell Labs Unix for the PDP-11 would automatically detect an infinite loop in your program by actually going into an infinite loop itself while compiling! Quite the feature. It turned out to be due to a simple optimization it was attempting to do: Any branch (conditional or unconditional) to an unconditional branch instruction would have its target changed to the target of the later; repeat until the branch no longer targeted an unconditional branch. So, any chain of branches that cycled back on itself would cause the optimizer to eventually reduce the first one to "here: goto here" and subsequently loop forever, chasing its own tail.