Can a face turn be 180 degrees, or is that 2 turns? My guess from a normal person perspective is that a 180 degree turn is one move. The programmer and armchair mathematician in me says that a 180 degree turn is two moves, as it passes through one configuration on the way to another. So what is the generally agreed upon definition of a move?
On a related note, when I was a kid some people thought sliding a middle slice was a move, when it was clear to me that it was really 2 "face turns". From the terminology you use, we seem to agree on that. I just thought I'd mention it.
If antimatter falls up, would that mean it has negative mass?
I've been asking this for a long time. Dirac predicted the existence of the anti-electron as a result of an equation that had both positive and negative roots when solved for MASS. The observation of the positron "confirmed" this. If you put a negative mass into some of the equations for the right-hand rule, it's indistinguishable from using a positive mass and a opposite charge.
Depending which equation you tweak, and how you do it, all these possibilites are there. This measurement is very important IMHO. Also, if antimatter "falls up" and also repels antimatter, this offers an immediate solution to the question of "where is all the anti-matter?". It's inbetween all the galaxies, and it also exerts an outward pressure on everything causing expansion. It would also explain the anhialation radiation observed at the perimeter of galaxies (matter interacting with the antimatter cloud).
IMHO this is among the most important physics experiments that needs to be done.
Usually I don't feed ACs, but here I am astonished and ask for clarifications, because we, as educational institution with a 'university' in its name, have to pay horrendous sums for the licenses of Matlab. One single seat license is close to the campus license price of Microsoft.
OK, so I'm logged in now. I was assuming that faculty also got "cheap" versions of Matlab like the students do. Since you say they don't that just further supports my request that you drop the tool and switch to open source alternatives like Octave and Scilab. You can do this for free, even if the University is already paying for Matlab. The point was that people continue to use the tools they learned at university long after that, and this costs industry a lot of money needlessly. When someone higher up the oganization likes Matlab because that what he knows, we're just screwed. I have to deal with limited shared licenses, network licenses that don't work when I'm not connected, etc.
For Matlab compatibility use Octave
If you need something like Simulink, use Scilab/Scicos
For symbolic math, use (wx)Maxima
For statistics use R
Quit complaining about costs (we're in agreement) and switch to free tools. This will trickle down into my world eventually and I'll be very appreciative. Thanks.
The GPL doesn't violate anything, but even if they did manage to get the License declared illegal in some way... They would still be using someone else's copyrighted code without a license. GPL is the only thing that grants you the right to distribute copies, if you throw it out then you've got nothing to stand on. After all the other cases, I still find it amazing that people don't understand this.
Subscribe to Circuit Cellar Ink Steve Ciarcia has been doing electronic/software projects every month for over 30 years. Well OK, now he's just in charge of the magazine. That means you get to read about several projects every month instead of just one:-) This is exactly what you want to be reading. You can suplement it with some of the other suggestions on slashdot, but only to fill in the gaps when you don't understand something in Circuit Cellar. I'm shocked that I didn't see this listed in the comments so far - it's mandatory reading for what you want to do.
One thing that is overlooked. They include the arbitrary code in the flash file and then use this exploit to run it. If you've got no-execute enabled for data and stack, this will crash and not do anything.
The cheapest way to do tire pressure monitoring is not to add RF hardware and sensors to the wheels, but to use passive pressure monitoring with the existing breaking/traction control system. I used to work with some guys that did braking systems, and this is fairly do-able. I'm not sure if it meets all the federal requirements though. If you want to know if one tire is low they can probably tell without any extra hardware (flash for code does cost a few cents).
They're only talking about primary rays - camera rays. They use packets of coherent rays to speed up the hierarchy traversal. This falls apart for shadow rays and refracted rays etc... So they'll be able to use RT as a OpenGL or DX replacement, but you won't be seeing the effects RT is known for. I still predict 2012 for really good RTRT, and I first said that back around 2001. My library is still on track for that timeframe. Oh, and the Intel work to date is just for walk-throughs, not real games AFAIK.
I consider myself to be a great programmer (in some areas, and I know where my weaknesses are). Or more accurately, someone I consider really great can vouch for me. Anyway, I find that companies looking for great talent for important projects often list a masters degree or better as a requirement. This always turns me off for two reasons. 1) I don't have one, so I figure they'll reject me based on resume alone. 2) If they actually have some PhD types, they'll be making all the decisions and I'll be their go-fer (management supports this based on credentials of course). I can handle being a gopher for someone, but only if they're actually better than me. In that case, I'll be learning from them.
Your data may be valuable to an attacker, but it's probably even more valuable to you. This type of attack makes a company vulnerable rather than their customers for example. Steal (copy) a few customers identities and most companies won't care. Steal (as in take away) all our customer data and most will be really concerned.
No problem. The first part of my post was just venting about a general frustration I've been having with the IT policies at a certain big company I work for (and others, but not you in particular). OK, and a bit of that continued through the rest of it. It's really unfortunate that I did that, as I think my on-the-spot ideas for dealing with our email problem aren't too bad.
This company caps email at 120 Meg, and whenever I get a warning that I'm reaching my quota I end up searching email by attachment size. People have bad habits of putting spreadsheets inside word docs, and all sorts of neat ways to clog things up. I just like to keep old email. I've only been there 6 months and have had to clean out the inbox a few times. Other places I've worked have automatically deleted old mail after 60 days and left it up to the users to "archive" it in a place that requires extra effort to get at. This is really frustrating given all the free space I have locally (as you pointed out).
Sorry for being an ass, but venting on rare occasions is good for the soul. Better to direct it into slashdot than people in the real world:-) Ummm my real world that is.
Hey, all my users have a bunch of disk space available because I make them keep all their stuff on servers that *I* control. How can I make a giant network drive that *I* control and then let my users keep data on it?
Well dude, just start by letting users keep their data locally. Remind them that it's not backed up though because they are "stupid users" after all. How about seeing if the email software you use can seamlessly put old mail on the local drive since you automatically delete it after 30,60,90,(whatever) days to keep it from clogging *your* server. No archiving procedure for the user, just have old messages moved to a local folder and still show right there in the mailbox (this is probably a feature request for email software vendors). Or how about if all attachments are stored locally automatically and deleted from "your" servers - this would be great for all those idiots that make 30Meg office documents and send them to everyone in the department:-) This is probably the best idea, but I don't know of any email clients that do it (killer feature request here for Mozilla and Evolution teams). Oh right, the server would need the ability to delete just the attachments after downloading by clients (another feature request for someone).
Ask yourself what you want to put on this huge shared resource you want to control, and figure out what you might actually be able to let users handle themselves. OK, I agree that users aren't to be trusted with certain things, but making another big centrally controlled storage device doesn't seem like the right answer.
Based on your descriptions for other OSes, Fedora should read "Gnome primarily". Sure it will have KDE 4 but also the latest Gnome by default. I don't follow the others, so can't comment. The only reason my Fedora installation involves KDE libs is some odd dependency for Gnash of all things....
In my opinion exposing the recognition results over e.g. dbus would be a better way than to quadruple the efforts by splitting this (HUGE) task to gnome, kde, xfce, window, etc. Maybe. IMHO the UI needs to be involved though to make sure the speech goes to the right place. Some good forethought could create a really cool environment. Could the WM or something pick it up off dbus and route it to the appropriate apps? Remember, we want "the computer" to respond to voice, not a particular app. "the computer" would determine context and send the voice input to the appropriate app - the one with focus initially until a smarter router is devised. You need the mediator, so not every app that is voice enabled is picking up the same speech. The mediator could pick it up from dbus, and applications could too I suppose, but that would bypass "the computer" and chaos would follow with lots of windows open.
There is a single gene in Ebola that makes it deadly. Should that gene be transfered to another virus (cold, flu, etc...) it will convey that lovely hemorrhaging symptom to people infected with that virus. This has already been proven in a lab (deliberately, not on people). Since these guys already have the ability to remove a single specific gene from the virus, it would be prudent to also remove this other one before allowing it to replicate inside animal host cells. OTOH, if that gene is needed for this particular virus to survive then they need to leave it in and do this work in a suitable environment - level 4 biohazard or whatever.
On another note, I've wondered how an Ebola virus minus the hemorrhagic gene would be as a vaccination. Since newer reports indicate chronic problems for survivors of the disease, the first thing to do is determine if it's that gene that causes those problems. If not, it's not really viable to have a viral vaccine running around giving everyone chronic headaches. Oh wait...
The reason we're not there yet is that standalone speech recognition software is stupid. We need KDE and gnome to have built-in speech recognition with a simple API so any application can just monitor the speech input. It should not come in as keystrokes though - must be separate. The speech engine should be a component so different ones can be used of course. If it was there, any app could use it easy enough.
I've always thought that if there is a mathematical description of our universe (a simulation qualifies) then there is no need to actually execute the simulation. Did the Mandelbrot set exist prior to its discovery? I'd say yes. Recall that a computer generated image of it is exactly that, and it's an approximation to the well defined mathematical object. I contend that such things exist in some sense weather we look at them or not. In this way, it is sufficient for there to exist a concise definition of our universe in order for it to exist. It is not required that it actually be discovered by anyone, or run on anything. This is also the only explanation I know of that does not require anything "prior to" or "outside of" our universe.
There's a lot of discussion about how low the cost should really be - and I agree. I think the point is that MPAA wants to inflate all costs in order to NOT PAY actors or anyone else who may claim a cut of the "profit". Claim the cost of a data center, an IT guy etc *for each film* and say just keeping the thing around is eating up all future revenue, so no royalties for you sir.
When something is claimed to cost an order of magnitude more than it should, it's because someone WANTS it to be expensive.
I read about the ruling over the weekend. It never occured to me to short SCOX on Monday even though I thought about it on past occasions. OTOH, if I did think of it I probably would have seen how low it was already and not done it.
They claim n^2 time complexity. Then they point out the number of photons needed is n^n. There are physical limits to photon production rates. I would say they're still looking at an n^n problem unless they can produce an infinite number of photons instantly, and that would damage the equipment. It's an interesting method, but it doesn't actually improve the time complexity of the problem as they claim.
GPLv2 has an implicit patent license in it. It makes it pretty clear that people who receive the code can do whatever they like with it - including make chips in this case. It also makes it pretty clear that they can distribute or sell derived works to others who have the same permissions. If you can't give the code or chips (which are literally "printed" derived works) to someone else then you don't really have the rights the GPL says you do. In case that isn't enough, GPLv3 has explicit patent coverage.
Is this like an old Dilbert comic I read? Dogbert convinced Dilbert that because they were going to vote of opposing candidates, that it would be simpler and have the same effect if they agreed not to vote at all. After not participating in the election, Dilbert realized that Dogbert can't vote anyway. His response? "Not directly anyway."
So is this vote swapping thing related to that in some way?
Slashdot Mirror
On a related note, when I was a kid some people thought sliding a middle slice was a move, when it was clear to me that it was really 2 "face turns". From the terminology you use, we seem to agree on that. I just thought I'd mention it.
Depending which equation you tweak, and how you do it, all these possibilites are there. This measurement is very important IMHO. Also, if antimatter "falls up" and also repels antimatter, this offers an immediate solution to the question of "where is all the anti-matter?". It's inbetween all the galaxies, and it also exerts an outward pressure on everything causing expansion. It would also explain the anhialation radiation observed at the perimeter of galaxies (matter interacting with the antimatter cloud).
IMHO this is among the most important physics experiments that needs to be done.
For Matlab compatibility use Octave
If you need something like Simulink, use Scilab/Scicos
For symbolic math, use (wx)Maxima
For statistics use R
Quit complaining about costs (we're in agreement) and switch to free tools. This will trickle down into my world eventually and I'll be very appreciative. Thanks.
The GPL doesn't violate anything, but even if they did manage to get the License declared illegal in some way... They would still be using someone else's copyrighted code without a license. GPL is the only thing that grants you the right to distribute copies, if you throw it out then you've got nothing to stand on. After all the other cases, I still find it amazing that people don't understand this.
Subscribe to Circuit Cellar Ink Steve Ciarcia has been doing electronic/software projects every month for over 30 years. Well OK, now he's just in charge of the magazine. That means you get to read about several projects every month instead of just one :-) This is exactly what you want to be reading. You can suplement it with some of the other suggestions on slashdot, but only to fill in the gaps when you don't understand something in Circuit Cellar. I'm shocked that I didn't see this listed in the comments so far - it's mandatory reading for what you want to do.
One thing that is overlooked. They include the arbitrary code in the flash file and then use this exploit to run it. If you've got no-execute enabled for data and stack, this will crash and not do anything.
I've said it a lot... Teach them to MAKE games. Even programming simple stuff teaches a lot.
The cheapest way to do tire pressure monitoring is not to add RF hardware and sensors to the wheels, but to use passive pressure monitoring with the existing breaking/traction control system. I used to work with some guys that did braking systems, and this is fairly do-able. I'm not sure if it meets all the federal requirements though. If you want to know if one tire is low they can probably tell without any extra hardware (flash for code does cost a few cents).
They're only talking about primary rays - camera rays. They use packets of coherent rays to speed up the hierarchy traversal. This falls apart for shadow rays and refracted rays etc... So they'll be able to use RT as a OpenGL or DX replacement, but you won't be seeing the effects RT is known for. I still predict 2012 for really good RTRT, and I first said that back around 2001. My library is still on track for that timeframe. Oh, and the Intel work to date is just for walk-throughs, not real games AFAIK.
Is this the same jackass from Sun that came to Detroit in the 90's and claimed a car was just a browser on wheels?
I consider myself to be a great programmer (in some areas, and I know where my weaknesses are). Or more accurately, someone I consider really great can vouch for me. Anyway, I find that companies looking for great talent for important projects often list a masters degree or better as a requirement. This always turns me off for two reasons. 1) I don't have one, so I figure they'll reject me based on resume alone. 2) If they actually have some PhD types, they'll be making all the decisions and I'll be their go-fer (management supports this based on credentials of course). I can handle being a gopher for someone, but only if they're actually better than me. In that case, I'll be learning from them.
Your data may be valuable to an attacker, but it's probably even more valuable to you. This type of attack makes a company vulnerable rather than their customers for example. Steal (copy) a few customers identities and most companies won't care. Steal (as in take away) all our customer data and most will be really concerned.
This company caps email at 120 Meg, and whenever I get a warning that I'm reaching my quota I end up searching email by attachment size. People have bad habits of putting spreadsheets inside word docs, and all sorts of neat ways to clog things up. I just like to keep old email. I've only been there 6 months and have had to clean out the inbox a few times. Other places I've worked have automatically deleted old mail after 60 days and left it up to the users to "archive" it in a place that requires extra effort to get at. This is really frustrating given all the free space I have locally (as you pointed out).
Sorry for being an ass, but venting on rare occasions is good for the soul. Better to direct it into slashdot than people in the real world
Hey, all my users have a bunch of disk space available because I make them keep all their stuff on servers that *I* control. How can I make a giant network drive that *I* control and then let my users keep data on it?
:-) This is probably the best idea, but I don't know of any email clients that do it (killer feature request here for Mozilla and Evolution teams). Oh right, the server would need the ability to delete just the attachments after downloading by clients (another feature request for someone).
Well dude, just start by letting users keep their data locally. Remind them that it's not backed up though because they are "stupid users" after all. How about seeing if the email software you use can seamlessly put old mail on the local drive since you automatically delete it after 30,60,90,(whatever) days to keep it from clogging *your* server. No archiving procedure for the user, just have old messages moved to a local folder and still show right there in the mailbox (this is probably a feature request for email software vendors). Or how about if all attachments are stored locally automatically and deleted from "your" servers - this would be great for all those idiots that make 30Meg office documents and send them to everyone in the department
Ask yourself what you want to put on this huge shared resource you want to control, and figure out what you might actually be able to let users handle themselves. OK, I agree that users aren't to be trusted with certain things, but making another big centrally controlled storage device doesn't seem like the right answer.
Based on your descriptions for other OSes, Fedora should read "Gnome primarily". Sure it will have KDE 4 but also the latest Gnome by default. I don't follow the others, so can't comment. The only reason my Fedora installation involves KDE libs is some odd dependency for Gnash of all things....
There is a single gene in Ebola that makes it deadly. Should that gene be transfered to another virus (cold, flu, etc...) it will convey that lovely hemorrhaging symptom to people infected with that virus. This has already been proven in a lab (deliberately, not on people). Since these guys already have the ability to remove a single specific gene from the virus, it would be prudent to also remove this other one before allowing it to replicate inside animal host cells. OTOH, if that gene is needed for this particular virus to survive then they need to leave it in and do this work in a suitable environment - level 4 biohazard or whatever.
On another note, I've wondered how an Ebola virus minus the hemorrhagic gene would be as a vaccination. Since newer reports indicate chronic problems for survivors of the disease, the first thing to do is determine if it's that gene that causes those problems. If not, it's not really viable to have a viral vaccine running around giving everyone chronic headaches. Oh wait...
The reason we're not there yet is that standalone speech recognition software is stupid. We need KDE and gnome to have built-in speech recognition with a simple API so any application can just monitor the speech input. It should not come in as keystrokes though - must be separate. The speech engine should be a component so different ones can be used of course. If it was there, any app could use it easy enough.
I've always thought that if there is a mathematical description of our universe (a simulation qualifies) then there is no need to actually execute the simulation. Did the Mandelbrot set exist prior to its discovery? I'd say yes. Recall that a computer generated image of it is exactly that, and it's an approximation to the well defined mathematical object. I contend that such things exist in some sense weather we look at them or not. In this way, it is sufficient for there to exist a concise definition of our universe in order for it to exist. It is not required that it actually be discovered by anyone, or run on anything. This is also the only explanation I know of that does not require anything "prior to" or "outside of" our universe.
When something is claimed to cost an order of magnitude more than it should, it's because someone WANTS it to be expensive.
Dumb Dumb Dumb. It was like free money.
I didn't think so.
Been there, had to deal with that. No more.
They claim n^2 time complexity. Then they point out the number of photons needed is n^n. There are physical limits to photon production rates. I would say they're still looking at an n^n problem unless they can produce an infinite number of photons instantly, and that would damage the equipment. It's an interesting method, but it doesn't actually improve the time complexity of the problem as they claim.
GPLv2 has an implicit patent license in it. It makes it pretty clear that people who receive the code can do whatever they like with it - including make chips in this case. It also makes it pretty clear that they can distribute or sell derived works to others who have the same permissions. If you can't give the code or chips (which are literally "printed" derived works) to someone else then you don't really have the rights the GPL says you do. In case that isn't enough, GPLv3 has explicit patent coverage.
So is this vote swapping thing related to that in some way?