They didn't buy earthquake insurance. They should have ensured that they had enough funding to do so before undertaking such a risky business venture as mining. It's their own fault.
I don't know about internal timers, but here's a story from my exchange in Ecuador.
For a Spanish immersion program, I stayed with a host family in Quito. About 20 miles from the equator. There, there is no dawn or dusk. At 6 AM, broad daylight. At 6 PM, night.
We had to get up early to catch a bus to take us to school. We were supposed to bring an alarm clock, but I didn't. The first day, I thought, "oh well, I'll just wake up tomorrow and see what happens." (There was no jet lag because we were travelling N/S). So, with my east-facing window, the sun woke me up the next morning. I got up, left my room, went in to the kitchen, and checked the clock on the microwave. It said, "6:21".
I never needed an alarm clock during the whole stay. The sun always woke me up at 6:21 or 6:22.
Nobody tells scientists what to do. Scientists are human beings and thusly have motives, desires, interested, etc. They have a reason for doing the work they do. They decide *all on their own* what they want to study, and then study it. This robot does not decide on it own what to study, and is therefore not a scientist. It's just a tool. It requires a scientist to tell it what to do. Scientists don't have this requirement.
Also, your calculator could "Answer question 5 on my mid-term" if it had the midterm stored. Sort of like a computer. In fact, your computer is a big-ass calculator and it already does things more complex than "Answer question 5 on my midterm".
OK, but its not really a scientist then. Like another poster said, "Calculators are better at solving equations than Math PH.D.s."
Or better yet, like Picasso said, "Computers are useless. They can only give answers". Here's my turing test for A.I.: A computer that asks questions. (and not "Why do you feel that $previous_statement?")
This is what I've always wondered -- where does a totally objective, disinterested scientist start? Without motivation, this thing can't go anywhere on it's own.
Science requires some kind of passion/imagination/interest to start. After that, you employ scientific method to create knowledge. But, I don't think we fully understand the first part.
I remember back in the 70s, we used to get together with our old buddy weed and put on some tunes... Your friends would have some great album and then you'd go out and buy it.
So weed has been making music-sharing happen for several decades, at least. Hmph. Internet.
Probably you just haven't seen anyone who's *good*. Look at how scratching has progressed from, say, Kool Herc to DJ Qbert.
If you want want to see awesome video scratching, check out DJ Qbert's WaveTwisters You'll eat your post.
Are we alone in the universe?
on
Lonely Planets
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Previous question: Are we alone in our $land?
Current question: Are we alone in the universe?
Next question: Are we alone in the $next_step_up?
Seriously, the conversation could go like this: Us: Horray! You found us! We're not alone! Aliens: Sorry, but we're are actually terribly alone. As far as we can tell, all other dimensions are totally lifeless.
Open source makes sense economically. Remember, economics is not solely about monetary value. I was talking with the guy who developed the rotoscoping software (called "rotoshop") for the movie 'Waking Life'. It was at a lecture, and he explained that he didn't want to release the software at, because he didn't want to deal with legal issues, starting a business, tech support, etc. For him, there was value in not having to do all that other stuff. All he wanted to do was code. Unfortunately, I couldn't convince him to release it GPL:(
That's not brainwashing, those people were just plain old relatives, fellow tribesman (kind of like a fraternity, only with stronger emotional ties; maybe more like a family), and general supporters.
Furthermore, he chose his close ring when he was on the run because he knew he could depend on them.
You probably wouldn't give up your close family members for any amount of money. That's not because of brainwashing. That's just human nature. (The crimes against humanity is a moot point. His close supporters didn't think that he was doing anything wrong.)
It seems what you're talking about is our regular old hierarchical filesystem with a rdbms keeping track of locations. The idea of the dbfs is that it totally replaces a hierarchical filesystem. The user would never see a tree or a hierarchy. The rdbms decides where on the disk to put data. It then presents the data to the user in a way that closely mirrors the relationship of the data. The only reason we still use the hierarchical filesystem is pure cruft.
It's not only the metadata, but the unification of virtual directories that gives the benefit.
For any application or service you might have on your linux box, it probably has files in/bin,/usr/sbin,/usr/local/sbin,/usr/local,/etc, etc. etc. With virtual directories, you could have a setup like: /applications/$application/bin /applications/$application/conf /applications/$application/conf/$user /applications/$application/init
And then to get rid of an application, just rm -rf/application/$application. No hunting around for all the places the app put its parts! I realize this problem is already addressed by rpms and debs. But still, this crufty old hierarchical file system is in need of updating.
About the file organization -- most distros don't half-ass it; they have a rather good organization. The problem is that they're all different.
This is something we really need if we are interested in getting users to convert to linux. Currently, linux apps put their crap all over the place. If we had true virtual directories* with drag&drop installation of applications, linux would be second to Mac for ease of installation and un-installation.
Plus, if the filesystem is truly a relational db, then it can emulate and distro's directory tree for legacy applications that need it.
Dictonary.com says that 'window' is derived from Middle English : [Middle English, from Old Norse vindauga : vindr, air, wind;...]
There is no such language as 'Anglo-Saxon' -- it is a combination of the names of the two ethnic groups that made of the dominant majority of England, namely the Angles and the Saxons.
Slashdot Mirror
Hm, slashdot took away my home-made "stubborn free-market libertarian" tags. Treat the above as tongue-in-cheek sarcasm.
I don't get it either? Maybe because it sounded like the microwave was talking.
They didn't buy earthquake insurance. They should have ensured that they had enough funding to do so before undertaking such a risky business venture as mining. It's their own fault.
For a Spanish immersion program, I stayed with a host family in Quito. About 20 miles from the equator. There, there is no dawn or dusk. At 6 AM, broad daylight. At 6 PM, night.
We had to get up early to catch a bus to take us to school. We were supposed to bring an alarm clock, but I didn't. The first day, I thought, "oh well, I'll just wake up tomorrow and see what happens." (There was no jet lag because we were travelling N/S). So, with my east-facing window, the sun woke me up the next morning. I got up, left my room, went in to the kitchen, and checked the clock on the microwave. It said, "6:21".
I never needed an alarm clock during the whole stay. The sun always woke me up at 6:21 or 6:22.
Also, your calculator could "Answer question 5 on my mid-term" if it had the midterm stored. Sort of like a computer. In fact, your computer is a big-ass calculator and it already does things more complex than "Answer question 5 on my midterm".
Or better yet, like Picasso said, "Computers are useless. They can only give answers". Here's my turing test for A.I.: A computer that asks questions. (and not "Why do you feel that $previous_statement?")
Science requires some kind of passion/imagination/interest to start. After that, you employ scientific method to create knowledge. But, I don't think we fully understand the first part.
Isn't that an oxymoron? I thought phallus was a term denoting shape only. Or is an anatomical term in the original Latin?
So weed has been making music-sharing happen for several decades, at least. Hmph. Internet.
Now I can finally get my legotower working!
That one has fucked me every time. The funny part is I still do that.
Trailers != Movie. Please watch the movie.
If you want want to see awesome video scratching, check out DJ Qbert's WaveTwisters You'll eat your post.
Current question: Are we alone in the universe?
Next question: Are we alone in the $next_step_up?
Seriously, the conversation could go like this:
Us: Horray! You found us! We're not alone!
Aliens: Sorry, but we're are actually terribly alone. As far as we can tell, all other dimensions are totally lifeless.
Open source makes sense economically. Remember, economics is not solely about monetary value. I was talking with the guy who developed the rotoscoping software (called "rotoshop") for the movie 'Waking Life'. It was at a lecture, and he explained that he didn't want to release the software at, because he didn't want to deal with legal issues, starting a business, tech support, etc. For him, there was value in not having to do all that other stuff. All he wanted to do was code. Unfortunately, I couldn't convince him to release it GPL :(
Furthermore, he chose his close ring when he was on the run because he knew he could depend on them. You probably wouldn't give up your close family members for any amount of money. That's not because of brainwashing. That's just human nature. (The crimes against humanity is a moot point. His close supporters didn't think that he was doing anything wrong.)
It seems what you're talking about is our regular old hierarchical filesystem with a rdbms keeping track of locations. The idea of the dbfs is that it totally replaces a hierarchical filesystem. The user would never see a tree or a hierarchy. The rdbms decides where on the disk to put data. It then presents the data to the user in a way that closely mirrors the relationship of the data. The only reason we still use the hierarchical filesystem is pure cruft.
Well, it's not really for you, it's for newbies/converts. Plus, once it's up and running right, you'll like it. ;)
For any application or service you might have on your linux box, it probably has files in /bin, /usr/sbin, /usr/local/sbin, /usr/local, /etc, etc. etc. With virtual directories, you could have a setup like :
/applications/$application/bin
/applications/$application/conf
/applications/$application/conf/$user
/applications/$application/init /application/$application. No hunting around for all the places the app put its parts! I realize this problem is already addressed by rpms and debs. But still, this crufty old hierarchical file system is in need of updating.
And then to get rid of an application, just rm -rf
About the file organization -- most distros don't half-ass it; they have a rather good organization. The problem is that they're all different.
Plus, if the filesystem is truly a relational db, then it can emulate and distro's directory tree for legacy applications that need it.
*Not symlinks
Television will become solely a preview medium for movies and DVD series-es.
How about Train-quil? It really calms you down. Next day, thought, you feel like... well, kinda like you got hit by a train.
Some claim that dimethyl-triptamine will show you the secrets of the universe; I, however, doubt that it will help you with your finances.
How would you find that guy? Obviously, it's going to be a home-brew radio shack deal. No one is going to market such a product.
There is no such language as 'Anglo-Saxon' -- it is a combination of the names of the two ethnic groups that made of the dominant majority of England, namely the Angles and the Saxons.
This map of the indo-european language family tree should give you a better idea of how the languages are related.