So, could this be legit? Los Angeles Times book critic David L. Ulin says yes.
"I've never read "The Ocean Full of Bowling Balls": It's part of a collection of Salinger material at the Princeton University library and available only to scholars who are supervised as they read," he said in the online edition of the paper. "I have read the other two stories, however, at the University of Texas' Ransom Center, and the versions of them in 'Three Stories' are the real deal."
Another affirmation comes from Salinger scholar Kenneth Slawenski, author of "J.D. Salinger: A Life," who talked with BuzzFeed.
"While I do quibble with the ethics (or lack of ethics) in posting the Salinger stories, they look to be true transcripts of the originals and match my own copies," Slawenski told BuzzFeed in an e-mail.
Princeton had it's own theories on how the stories could have made it to the public.
"The story is probably an unauthorized version transcribed longhand in our reading room," said Martin Mbugua, a Princeton spokesman. "It's also possible that it came from photocopies of the typescript probably made before the mid-1980s when we decided that we would no longer allow photo-duplication for any work by Salinger."
"an injection of capital from outside the country allows spending on healthcare to increase without any drop in economic output."
Well, dang, ain't that just the statement of the century.
Right after submitting this I noticed my goof in the title. As a refracting telescope the primary optical device is a mirror, not a lens. Slapping myself in the face.
#!/usr/bin/env perl
use strict;
use Digest::SHA;
use Cwd;
use File::Util;
my $topDir=cwd();
my($f) = File::Util->new();
my(@files) = $f->list_dir($topDir,'--recurse');
my %hash;
my $deleteFlag=$ARGV[0];
#print $deleteFlag,"\n";
foreach my $file(@files) {
if(-d $file) {next;}
my $size=$f->size($file);
push @{$hash{$size}},$file;
}
my ($filectr,$setctr)=(0,0);
foreach my $key (sort { $a $b } keys %hash) {#loop through sizes
my $value=$hash{$key};
my @arr=@{$value};
my $numFiles = @arr;
if ($numFiles $b } keys %shahash) { #loop through files of same hash value
my $shavalue=$shahash{$shakey};
my @shaarr=@{$shavalue};
my $numFilesSha = @shaarr;
if($numFilesSha new($alg);
$sha->addfile($filename);
my $digest = $sha->hexdigest();
return $digest;
}
sub unixFilename {
my ($filename) = @_;
$filename =~ s/\)/\\\)/g;
$filename =~ s/\(/\\\(/g;
$filename =~ s/\/\\/g;
$filename =~ s/\;/\\\;/g;
$filename =~ s/\'/\\\'/g;
$filename =~ s/\"/\\\"/g;
$filename =~ s/\&/\\\&/g;
$filename =~ s/\!/\\\!/g;
return $filename;
}
'Linux has come to dominate almost every category of computing, with the exception of the desktop'
The desktop still dominates every other category of computing combined. Zemlin's statement that Linux has won is disingenuous.
we have an EXTREMELY functional interstate system for local travel
No. The interstate system kills 40K people per year and receives huge hidden subsidies such as military protection of the oil supply line.
The cost of driving is a huge burden for the poor.
and for all other domestic travel we have airplanes (very efficient and low cost if tickets are bought in advance.
Airplanes are a hassle because airports are located far from city centers and you can't always predict when you need to leave for a trip.
Don't like fees? Fly southwest).
Limited service areas.
High Speed Rail would have the EXACT same security measures as airplanes,
Preposterous, you can't redirect trains into skyscrapers or foreign countries and they do not fall out of the sky.
as well as the large trucks that are used to transport goods and services.
Large trucks are highly labor inefficient and there is no such thing as transporting services by freight.
But we already have a rail system, and it works just fine.
Sure, if crossing the country in eight days is your idea of "fine", if the trains even go where you need them to (fat chance).
To replace driving you need a public transporation system.
Part of the reason public transit doesn't do well in the US is you still need a car for short and medium intercity trips. Chicken-egg.
To replace planes you need it to be cheaper, safer, and actually faster.
You don't need all three.
High-speed trains for medium distances are faster when you consider the overhead of traveling to the airport and getting through security.
High-speed trains will be cheaper when peak oil hits, if it hasn't already.
Trains, with spacious seating, lounge cars, and dining facilities, are also much more comfortable to travel on than either bus or plane.
Finally, you must also consider that many people cannot drive because of disability, age, license revocation, or like myself, piss-poor at driving.
The pressure per unit of seating area for adults is much greater than for children because volume (and thereby weight) increases at a greater rate than surface area as one grows. Similar principles account for why insects are so strong for their size, why elephants can't survive moderate falls, and why cells are so small. Sea creatures have water to support them so they can grow to much larger sizes.
Money would be better spent on rigorous physical activity and nutritious meals that fights childhood obesity to decrease the mass per seating area of children than on comfy furniture that gets destroyed in a couple years.
I was scrawny all through childhood but I don't remember the hard furniture at school as particularly uncomfortable. Sitting in a hard chair now becomes torture after a few minutes.
Whether I meet them or not is irrelevant. They have either done the research or they haven't, and if they don't have PhDs in Climatology then it is extremely unlikely they have done the research.
"Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?"
Jones: "Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."
And later,
"How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?"
Jones: "I'm 100 percent confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity."
1) Few if any of those scientists are climate scientists
2) Only a small minority (~9000) have PhDs
3) 31,000 is a small minority of the American scientific community
The only opinions that count are expressed in peer-reviewed journals of climate scientists (which virtually requires a PhD), not publicity stunts such as this.
"the more you keep repeating something (or the louder you state it) the more inclined people will be to accept it. "
Which is the tactic of the global warming "skeptics." The people who actually have a truly informed opinion on this are generally too busy conducting research to be bothered trying to sway public opinion.
I have an MS in Software Engineering, but I wouldn't ever pronounce an opinion on if we'll get a computer to pass the Turing Test. I'm not an AI researcher, I don't know hard core Computer Science topics like Recursion Theory, and I never spent years earning a PhD to obtain a truly informed opinion. The folks who signed this petition can't really say they know what they are talking about.
The number and quality of programming tools in Java is much greater than in C# and are more likely to be open source and/or free. I find myself writing much more code in C# than I would in Java because of the enormous number of free Java APIs found on the Internet.
Cases in point, I tried MonoDevelop a few months back but gave up since it contained no integrated debugger. I needed a neural network library and found JOONE for Java but no such equivalent in C#. Both platforms have unit test facilities (JUnit and NUnit), but the number of extensions for JUnit dwarfs that of NUnit.
Based on the platform maturity criteria Java wins hands down. What are your objectives? I suspect you will need less aspirin completing your academic program in C# than in Java. Once you complete your program in C# you might be able to command a higher price on the job market but that is also a riskier proposition because C# is not entrenched like Java, and therefore the market for C# engineers is less stable than that of Java. Microsoft could pull the plug on C# in the future (and they've done this before with other technologies to force upgrades) and C# would quickly fade away, but Java would survive if Sun dropped support.
Java and C# are both C++ dialects, and their differences from C++ are largely identical (e.g. intermediate code, single inheritance, interfaces, garbage collection, lack of pointers). As some earlier posts noted, learning one enables you to pick the other up fairly rapidly at a basic level, but the standard Java and.NET libraries vary considerably (not to mention the non-standard libraries). Learning APIs/libaries/frameworks is where you will spend most of your learning efforts once you work professionally.
The late '80s and early '90s saw mass layoffs of middle managers. That job market recovered somewhat, but in a few years it will happen again. Why have visualization techniques when the information those techniques display could be better analyzed by the computer displaying the information? Soon we will have computers advanced enough to cheaply perform advanced optimization such as nonlinear programming and forecasting with accuracy better than people can achieve, and enough data will be gathered in digital form by then so that the optimization techniques will have plenty of data to work with. Humans will still be required to answer intuitive issues such as understanding consumer needs, but little reason will exist to have humans answer questions like how many widgets to build next month.
So long, pointy hair, don't forget to shut the door.
In an article cited just a few stories ("Andy Grove Says End Of Moore's Law At Hand") back, the author writes:
"Current is becoming a major factor and a limiter on how complex we can build chips," said Grove. He said the company' engineers "just can't get rid of" power leakage...
The problem of leakage threatens the future validity of Moores Law. As chips become more powerful and draw more power, leakage tends to increase. The industry is used to power leakage rates of up to fifteen per cent, but chips constructed of increasing numbers of transistors can suffer power leakage of up to 40 per cent said Grove. In chips made up of a billion transistors may leak between 60 and 70 Watts of power, he warned. The power is largely dissipated as heat causing cooling problems for powerful chips.
Now we have this story about AMD, where in the cited article, the author writes about AMD:
It's also working on new transistors and new chipmaking techniques that will let it
continue to boost chip performance through 2005 and beyond, company representatives said Monday... Two additional papers will discuss AMD's ideas on building transistors that use metal, rather than silicon gates. Using nickel for the gate improves electrical current flow through the transistor, AMD said...
So Intel wants us to believe chip speeds are nearing a plateau, while AMD wants us to believe everything is rosy. I suspect Grove is talking about a longer time period than AMD. But then, maybe it's time for AMD to eat Intel's lunch.
Slashdot Mirror
See Blade Runner Esper machine, which was parodied on Red Dwarf.
Oh yeah, the link: http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/29/showbiz/salinger-unpublished-stories/
So, could this be legit? Los Angeles Times book critic David L. Ulin says yes.
"I've never read "The Ocean Full of Bowling Balls": It's part of a collection of Salinger material at the Princeton University library and available only to scholars who are supervised as they read," he said in the online edition of the paper. "I have read the other two stories, however, at the University of Texas' Ransom Center, and the versions of them in 'Three Stories' are the real deal."
Another affirmation comes from Salinger scholar Kenneth Slawenski, author of "J.D. Salinger: A Life," who talked with BuzzFeed.
"While I do quibble with the ethics (or lack of ethics) in posting the Salinger stories, they look to be true transcripts of the originals and match my own copies," Slawenski told BuzzFeed in an e-mail.
Princeton had it's own theories on how the stories could have made it to the public.
"The story is probably an unauthorized version transcribed longhand in our reading room," said Martin Mbugua, a Princeton spokesman. "It's also possible that it came from photocopies of the typescript probably made before the mid-1980s when we decided that we would no longer allow photo-duplication for any work by Salinger."
"an injection of capital from outside the country allows spending on healthcare to increase without any drop in economic output." Well, dang, ain't that just the statement of the century.
Right after submitting this I noticed my goof in the title. As a refracting telescope the primary optical device is a mirror, not a lens. Slapping myself in the face.
Has your scientific expertise led you to think you know a lot or are more aware of your own ignorance?
For readability, s/;/;\n/g. From an error message it seems Slashdot is hostile to small lines in posts. The original is 73 lines.
http://pastebin.com/sUfZkVaQ
#!/usr/bin/env perl use strict; use Digest::SHA; use Cwd; use File::Util; my $topDir=cwd(); my($f) = File::Util->new(); my(@files) = $f->list_dir($topDir,'--recurse'); my %hash; my $deleteFlag=$ARGV[0]; #print $deleteFlag,"\n"; foreach my $file(@files) { if(-d $file) {next;} my $size=$f->size($file); push @{$hash{$size}},$file; } my ($filectr,$setctr)=(0,0); foreach my $key (sort { $a $b } keys %hash) {#loop through sizes my $value=$hash{$key}; my @arr=@{$value}; my $numFiles = @arr; if ($numFiles $b } keys %shahash) { #loop through files of same hash value my $shavalue=$shahash{$shakey}; my @shaarr=@{$shavalue}; my $numFilesSha = @shaarr; if($numFilesSha new($alg); $sha->addfile($filename); my $digest = $sha->hexdigest(); return $digest; } sub unixFilename { my ($filename) = @_; $filename =~ s/\)/\\\)/g; $filename =~ s/\(/\\\(/g; $filename =~ s/\ /\\ /g;
$filename =~ s/\;/\\\;/g;
$filename =~ s/\'/\\\'/g;
$filename =~ s/\"/\\\"/g;
$filename =~ s/\&/\\\&/g;
$filename =~ s/\!/\\\!/g;
return $filename;
}
'Linux has come to dominate almost every category of computing, with the exception of the desktop' The desktop still dominates every other category of computing combined. Zemlin's statement that Linux has won is disingenuous.
we have an EXTREMELY functional interstate system for local travel
No. The interstate system kills 40K people per year and receives huge hidden subsidies such as military protection of the oil supply line. The cost of driving is a huge burden for the poor.
and for all other domestic travel we have airplanes (very efficient and low cost if tickets are bought in advance.
Airplanes are a hassle because airports are located far from city centers and you can't always predict when you need to leave for a trip.
Don't like fees? Fly southwest).
Limited service areas.
High Speed Rail would have the EXACT same security measures as airplanes,
Preposterous, you can't redirect trains into skyscrapers or foreign countries and they do not fall out of the sky.
as well as the large trucks that are used to transport goods and services.
Large trucks are highly labor inefficient and there is no such thing as transporting services by freight.
But we already have a rail system, and it works just fine.
Sure, if crossing the country in eight days is your idea of "fine", if the trains even go where you need them to (fat chance).
To replace driving you need a public transporation system.
Part of the reason public transit doesn't do well in the US is you still need a car for short and medium intercity trips. Chicken-egg.
To replace planes you need it to be cheaper, safer, and actually faster.
You don't need all three. High-speed trains for medium distances are faster when you consider the overhead of traveling to the airport and getting through security. High-speed trains will be cheaper when peak oil hits, if it hasn't already. Trains, with spacious seating, lounge cars, and dining facilities, are also much more comfortable to travel on than either bus or plane. Finally, you must also consider that many people cannot drive because of disability, age, license revocation, or like myself, piss-poor at driving.
The pressure per unit of seating area for adults is much greater than for children because volume (and thereby weight) increases at a greater rate than surface area as one grows. Similar principles account for why insects are so strong for their size, why elephants can't survive moderate falls, and why cells are so small. Sea creatures have water to support them so they can grow to much larger sizes. Money would be better spent on rigorous physical activity and nutritious meals that fights childhood obesity to decrease the mass per seating area of children than on comfy furniture that gets destroyed in a couple years. I was scrawny all through childhood but I don't remember the hard furniture at school as particularly uncomfortable. Sitting in a hard chair now becomes torture after a few minutes.
Whether I meet them or not is irrelevant. They have either done the research or they haven't, and if they don't have PhDs in Climatology then it is extremely unlikely they have done the research.
Here's the relevant Phil Jones quote, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm/. Decide if Dailymail (a highly politicized news source, similar to Fox News in the US) reports it honestly.
"Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?"
Jones: "Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."
And later,
"How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?"
Jones: "I'm 100 percent confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity."
Here we go with that silly petition again:
1) Few if any of those scientists are climate scientists
2) Only a small minority (~9000) have PhDs
3) 31,000 is a small minority of the American scientific community
The only opinions that count are expressed in peer-reviewed journals of climate scientists (which virtually requires a PhD), not publicity stunts such as this.
"the more you keep repeating something (or the louder you state it) the more inclined people will be to accept it. "
Which is the tactic of the global warming "skeptics." The people who actually have a truly informed opinion on this are generally too busy conducting research to be bothered trying to sway public opinion. I have an MS in Software Engineering, but I wouldn't ever pronounce an opinion on if we'll get a computer to pass the Turing Test. I'm not an AI researcher, I don't know hard core Computer Science topics like Recursion Theory, and I never spent years earning a PhD to obtain a truly informed opinion. The folks who signed this petition can't really say they know what they are talking about.
I should have written "I suspect you will need more aspirin completing your academic program in C# than in Java."
Cases in point, I tried MonoDevelop a few months back but gave up since it contained no integrated debugger. I needed a neural network library and found JOONE for Java but no such equivalent in C#. Both platforms have unit test facilities (JUnit and NUnit), but the number of extensions for JUnit dwarfs that of NUnit.
Based on the platform maturity criteria Java wins hands down. What are your objectives? I suspect you will need less aspirin completing your academic program in C# than in Java. Once you complete your program in C# you might be able to command a higher price on the job market but that is also a riskier proposition because C# is not entrenched like Java, and therefore the market for C# engineers is less stable than that of Java. Microsoft could pull the plug on C# in the future (and they've done this before with other technologies to force upgrades) and C# would quickly fade away, but Java would survive if Sun dropped support.
Java and C# are both C++ dialects, and their differences from C++ are largely identical (e.g. intermediate code, single inheritance, interfaces, garbage collection, lack of pointers). As some earlier posts noted, learning one enables you to pick the other up fairly rapidly at a basic level, but the standard Java and .NET libraries vary considerably (not to mention the non-standard libraries). Learning APIs/libaries/frameworks is where you will spend most of your learning efforts once you work professionally.
The late '80s and early '90s saw mass layoffs of middle managers. That job market recovered somewhat, but in a few years it will happen again. Why have visualization techniques when the information those techniques display could be better analyzed by the computer displaying the information? Soon we will have computers advanced enough to cheaply perform advanced optimization such as nonlinear programming and forecasting with accuracy better than people can achieve, and enough data will be gathered in digital form by then so that the optimization techniques will have plenty of data to work with. Humans will still be required to answer intuitive issues such as understanding consumer needs, but little reason will exist to have humans answer questions like how many widgets to build next month. So long, pointy hair, don't forget to shut the door.