The compound retained 75 percent of its original strength after the cracks had healed for 48 hours, the researchers reported.
So how much difference is there compared to cracks in conventional materials? Does anybody have a number on that so that I can appreciate the usefulness of this?
The email program was set up in about a minute; doing this by talk-through would have taken at least double that.
Wow, you saved a minute there! Woohooo!;-)
But seriously, you are describing in-house support. In this case, the question of trust (which I would presume to be the most important) is just not an issue (hopefully, anyway...). But this is quite different if a different company does the support and thus might get access to confident and perhaps very valuable data and documents.
Yes, I know. And I figured that in a low earth orbit, satellites will find more resistance from the atmosphere, and thus lose heigh faster. And that's what I wrote.
the company is planning to use decomissioned
Russian ICBMs to launch them... something formerly poised to rain nuclear death down on you may be launching your senior thesis
project into space.
So what? V2 rockets used by Nazi Germany to bomb London during WWII were at the beginning of the American space program. In both examples, this is the best use of military technology I can think of.
They say they are planning to bring them back once their mission is completed. Can't quite see how they want to do this though. But since they are in low earth orbit, I guess they will not stay there for long without propulsion, but simply enter the atmosphere and burn up.
Yeah, but that would make those inductive proofs really hard;-)
But seriously: There is no way to design a language for a Turing machine (or any real machine of your choice) that would allow the set of programs have a cardinality other than \Aleph_0. Think about it, it's quite easy. And besides, I don't see what you would gain with that.
As somebody working in information visualization, I would love to see a useful visual representation of programs. The idea is great, but they should better start working on the visual parts real soon, because this is going to decide between success and failure. Their underlying system might be a huge leap (which I doubt, but there you go), but if they don't have a good visual representation and no textual one, who is to use it? But if they have, this might become a great thing.
I'm really looking forward to more news from them.
While writing backwards might be a bit too simple, what about some permutation scheme that works on the whole text prior to encryption? Maybe controlled by a second key? That should make most attacks pretty hard or unusable. Any comments on that by somebody who knows a bit about cryptography?
I agree with what you say, but let me explain why I put that remark there: Most of the messages in this story were from people drooling over MIPS ratings and saying "I want one, too!". So I thought somebody asking a question like mine would be considered a troll (wouldn't have been the first time), and nobody would have answered. This is also the first time I posted at +2, because I wanted people to see my question and maybe answer it, even that late in the discussion.
I think you are right in criticizing the moderation system, but the question is: how else could you do that? How do you get rid of the junk and do that fairly?
I knew this kind of answer would come eventually;-) Okay, I never understood the difference between Air Force, Army and Navy (the Air Force has ships too, right? Or is it the Navy that has planes? And who's got airplane carriers? Navy or Air Force?). With "army", I meant "military"... or in that case probably Navy... whatever...
Please excuse my ignorance, I haven't followed hardware developments very closely for some time.
So those Thunderbirds have a multiplication factor of 11.5 over the system clock? And over the RAM, if it's SDRAM133 (or whatever that is called). Even with DDR that still makes a factor of about 6, which imho is downright ridiculous. How well do these things score in real applications, not just cycle counting in first level cache (aka MIPS and MFLOPS)? I can't imagine you get much over a 800 MHz system... could somebody enlighten me what news there are other than the raw clock speed? (and no, I'm not trolling, I really want to know. otherwise I would have checked 'post anonymously'...)
Not to mention the interferences with other people. I wouldn't be able to concentrate when my colleague would start talking to his computer. And there are a lot of symbols you need when programming that have such long names that you type them in about a tenth the time it takes to name them. "left angle bracket" for example...
But a traditional encyclopedia is written by experts in the field, or at least people who know how to research stuff. While existing encyclopedias may not be perfect, they are pretty close. The problem I see with gnupedia is that any kid can add some half-baked stuff and have that submitted as equally correct as something written by somebody who really knows that stuff.
And I don't understand how pointing out an error in one article in another would be useful. First, you have to find all the articles that talk about the one you are currently reading. And second, which one do you trust? If I want to look something up, I don't want to start doing lots of research to decide which of the different articles is the correct ones. That's not what I use encyclopedias for.
So in conclusion, I believe that an encyclopedia is about the last thing the open source idea is useful for. That's just a different kind of beast.
Interesting, two very different replies;-) You are right, of course, that there are a lot of crappy books. I bought a book from one publisher once (I can't recall their name at the moment, but I recognize the logo) that was really bad. You know these "picture books" that contain lots of screenshots, but very little actual information? One of those. I am not going to buy another book from that publisher, and I have also learned that lots of screenshots don't make a good book (ha, you would never have guessed that, right? But it was a book about MS VC++, so I thought it made sense... hmm).
True, there are people who buy a lot of crap, but especially the geekier ones (the ones that the guy asking the original question is targeting) will ask others for recommendations and look for opionons on the web, on usenet, etc. And especially with this clientele in mind, I think it's a very bad idea to be sloppy about facts in your books. And I also have this feeling that O'Reilley and Addison-Wesley sell more books than those crappy little publishers that try to sell you "217 More Dirty Little Windows Secrets Every Office User Should Know About".
What I think is more important than the possibility of being sued is your reputation. If you don't verify stuff, and you and your books are known to be sloppy and buggy, people won't buy them. So especially when you're doing stuff online, it is vitally important to do good work.
I disagree. Especially with manuals, I prefer paper, even though I can't do a full-text search, etc. It's just more convenient to browse through a book, and also to have it open next to you without the need for screen space for that information. And besides, you don't have to do *everything* with the 'puter...
The problem is that it is called a law, which it isn't. But as long as everybody refers to it as one, people will take it as a law, much like Newton's.
I think you mistake speech recognition with translation. If you get some English gibberish from the machine, that doesn't mean your Cantonese was flawed. Or if, you don't know what the problem was: Was it the pronounciation, the grammar? Which part of the grammar? What did you pronounce wrong? And are you sure the translation would be perfect? Or that your Cantonese would sound natural?
I don't think you would get anywhere with this method. For the above reasons, and because it would just take too long. Get a decent book and a few tapes, and you will probably get further much faster. And if you spend less time on/., you can invest that into learning the language, too;-)
When I first read the headline, I thought they had built in this e-Paper stuff, and you could write on that. Now *that* would have been useful (but it's probably years away). But the waste of paper and especially the fact that there doesn't seem to be much added value (can you make use of the space where you crossed something out? does it recognize the layout of your text, or does it stuff all the characters into one paragraph? What about moving things around on the paper?). So it really looks pretty backward to me, at the moment.
But even then, it should be trivial to build a copy of such an old chip in silicon. But then, there probably aren't that many people who would buy such a thing.
No, instead of 1 bit (2 states) you store 3 bits (8 states). So that gives you three times as many bits, hence three times the capacity. But to encode 3 bits, you have to be able to produce (and later read) 8 gray levels.
Slashdot Mirror
The compound retained 75 percent of its original strength after the cracks had healed for 48 hours, the researchers reported.
So how much difference is there compared to cracks in conventional materials? Does anybody have a number on that so that I can appreciate the usefulness of this?
The email program was set up in about a minute; doing this by talk-through would have taken at least double that.
;-)
...). But this is quite different if a different company does the support and thus might get access to confident and perhaps very valuable data and documents.
Wow, you saved a minute there! Woohooo!
But seriously, you are describing in-house support. In this case, the question of trust (which I would presume to be the most important) is just not an issue (hopefully, anyway
RSSH: Really Secure SHell.
...
The inventor of RSH(tm) is going to sue them over this one
I have a proposal for a new name: "Sheesh
Yes, I know. And I figured that in a low earth orbit, satellites will find more resistance from the atmosphere, and thus lose heigh faster. And that's what I wrote.
They say they are planning to bring them back once their mission is completed. Can't quite see how they want to do this though. But since they are in low earth orbit, I guess they will not stay there for long without propulsion, but simply enter the atmosphere and burn up.
Yeah, but that would make those inductive proofs really hard ;-)
But seriously: There is no way to design a language for a Turing machine (or any real machine of your choice) that would allow the set of programs have a cardinality other than \Aleph_0. Think about it, it's quite easy. And besides, I don't see what you would gain with that.
As somebody working in information visualization, I would love to see a useful visual representation of programs. The idea is great, but they should better start working on the visual parts real soon, because this is going to decide between success and failure. Their underlying system might be a huge leap (which I doubt, but there you go), but if they don't have a good visual representation and no textual one, who is to use it? But if they have, this might become a great thing.
I'm really looking forward to more news from them.
While writing backwards might be a bit too simple, what about some permutation scheme that works on the whole text prior to encryption? Maybe controlled by a second key? That should make most attacks pretty hard or unusable. Any comments on that by somebody who knows a bit about cryptography?
Thanks! That was very interesting.
I agree with what you say, but let me explain why I put that remark there: Most of the messages in this story were from people drooling over MIPS ratings and saying "I want one, too!". So I thought somebody asking a question like mine would be considered a troll (wouldn't have been the first time), and nobody would have answered. This is also the first time I posted at +2, because I wanted people to see my question and maybe answer it, even that late in the discussion.
I think you are right in criticizing the moderation system, but the question is: how else could you do that? How do you get rid of the junk and do that fairly?
I knew this kind of answer would come eventually ;-) Okay, I never understood the difference between Air Force, Army and Navy (the Air Force has ships too, right? Or is it the Navy that has planes? And who's got airplane carriers? Navy or Air Force?). With "army", I meant "military" ... or in that case probably Navy ... whatever ...
They probably don't give a damn about animals, but maybe if the US Army complains that their submarines can't use their sonar equipment anymore ...
Please excuse my ignorance, I haven't followed hardware developments very closely for some time. ... could somebody enlighten me what news there are other than the raw clock speed? (and no, I'm not trolling, I really want to know. otherwise I would have checked 'post anonymously' ...)
So those Thunderbirds have a multiplication factor of 11.5 over the system clock? And over the RAM, if it's SDRAM133 (or whatever that is called). Even with DDR that still makes a factor of about 6, which imho is downright ridiculous. How well do these things score in real applications, not just cycle counting in first level cache (aka MIPS and MFLOPS)? I can't imagine you get much over a 800 MHz system
Not to mention the interferences with other people. I wouldn't be able to concentrate when my colleague would start talking to his computer. And there are a lot of symbols you need when programming that have such long names that you type them in about a tenth the time it takes to name them. "left angle bracket" for example ...
But a traditional encyclopedia is written by experts in the field, or at least people who know how to research stuff. While existing encyclopedias may not be perfect, they are pretty close. The problem I see with gnupedia is that any kid can add some half-baked stuff and have that submitted as equally correct as something written by somebody who really knows that stuff.
And I don't understand how pointing out an error in one article in another would be useful. First, you have to find all the articles that talk about the one you are currently reading. And second, which one do you trust? If I want to look something up, I don't want to start doing lots of research to decide which of the different articles is the correct ones. That's not what I use encyclopedias for.
So in conclusion, I believe that an encyclopedia is about the last thing the open source idea is useful for. That's just a different kind of beast.
Interesting, two very different replies ;-) You are right, of course, that there are a lot of crappy books. I bought a book from one publisher once (I can't recall their name at the moment, but I recognize the logo) that was really bad. You know these "picture books" that contain lots of screenshots, but very little actual information? One of those. I am not going to buy another book from that publisher, and I have also learned that lots of screenshots don't make a good book (ha, you would never have guessed that, right? But it was a book about MS VC++, so I thought it made sense ... hmm).
True, there are people who buy a lot of crap, but especially the geekier ones (the ones that the guy asking the original question is targeting) will ask others for recommendations and look for opionons on the web, on usenet, etc. And especially with this clientele in mind, I think it's a very bad idea to be sloppy about facts in your books. And I also have this feeling that O'Reilley and Addison-Wesley sell more books than those crappy little publishers that try to sell you "217 More Dirty Little Windows Secrets Every Office User Should Know About".
What I think is more important than the possibility of being sued is your reputation. If you don't verify stuff, and you and your books are known to be sloppy and buggy, people won't buy them. So especially when you're doing stuff online, it is vitally important to do good work.
I disagree. Especially with manuals, I prefer paper, even though I can't do a full-text search, etc. It's just more convenient to browse through a book, and also to have it open next to you without the need for screen space for that information. And besides, you don't have to do *everything* with the 'puter ...
The problem is that it is called a law, which it isn't. But as long as everybody refers to it as one, people will take it as a law, much like Newton's.
I think you mistake speech recognition with translation. If you get some English gibberish from the machine, that doesn't mean your Cantonese was flawed. Or if, you don't know what the problem was: Was it the pronounciation, the grammar? Which part of the grammar? What did you pronounce wrong? And are you sure the translation would be perfect? Or that your Cantonese would sound natural? /., you can invest that into learning the language, too ;-)
I don't think you would get anywhere with this method. For the above reasons, and because it would just take too long. Get a decent book and a few tapes, and you will probably get further much faster. And if you spend less time on
When I first read the headline, I thought they had built in this e-Paper stuff, and you could write on that. Now *that* would have been useful (but it's probably years away). But the waste of paper and especially the fact that there doesn't seem to be much added value (can you make use of the space where you crossed something out? does it recognize the layout of your text, or does it stuff all the characters into one paragraph? What about moving things around on the paper?). So it really looks pretty backward to me, at the moment.
But even then, it should be trivial to build a copy of such an old chip in silicon. But then, there probably aren't that many people who would buy such a thing.
No, instead of 1 bit (2 states) you store 3 bits (8 states). So that gives you three times as many bits, hence three times the capacity. But to encode 3 bits, you have to be able to produce (and later read) 8 gray levels.