Elevons. Easy peasy, and used in dozens of different aircraft of various types (including the very popular delta-wing class).
This page claims the elevon was invented by Northrop specifically for the N1M flying wing demonstrator, so we can assume that the pitch control issue was well and truly solved.
no one has cited this yet. This particular comic strip is the "smug" side of the mathematician mindset, whereas the essay cited in TFA is the "angry" side.
that math is better taught as an art than as a pragmatic problem-solving toolset when you can convince me that Pablo Picasso should have been forced to paint the Golden Gate bridge.
Society needs math as a tool in far greater quantity than math as an art. Socially-funded education serves the greater need of society. QED.
I survived public school mathematics. I still appreciate the beauty of patterns, especially the relatedness of art, music, and math. (Godel, Escher, and Bach really resonated for me. But that didn't make me a mathematical artist, any more than a musical composer or a woodblock printer.)
Lockhart's essay is an interesting read, really, but on some level it boils down to "Those unworthy schlubs treating Mathematics as a tool don't deserve it. It belongs to the artists, the dreamers, the purists!"
It's a pretty common arrogation in the math culture, it seems. I dont' recall sculptors ever being pissed at concrete workers or ironworkers. And I've never heard of any artist painter getting mad at the other kind of painter for not employing good artistic composition principle while painting the side of the barn.
Seriously. Math is both an art and a tool. The best artists find their art by themselves; they're not turned out by artist factories. School mathematics is to turn out the mathematical equivalent of bridge painters and ironworkers, because society needs those more (in greater quantity).
OTOH, once City of Bozeman's HR department looks at Mr. Coward's posting history here (GNAA trolls, tubgirl and goatse, etc.), they won't be able to refuse to hire him fast enough.
If you comply with a common good out of fear of the repercussions of not doing so, is that objectively different than if you comply with a common good out of love of the community? And how does an outside observer accurately know the difference?
Assuming you know someone's motivations is usually a mistake, and certainly arrogant and prejudiced.
Amazon did the right thing. "Why" is ultimately irrelevant.
I don't think that'll happen. I think Larry wants you to buy Oracle (the database) running on Oracle (the OS) on Oracle (the hardware) and support contracts for the entire stack. There's a lot of PHB love for being able to call one phone number for anything that breaks because the same company is responsible for every component. IBM currently offers this, and now Oracle can, too.
True. But none of the above requires Oracle to manufacture one screw, chip, or board of hardware. OEM servers from Fujitsu (or Dell, or anyone they can trust and wangle a good price out of), slap on some Oracle name plates, et voila, the complete Oracle stack. Shoot, go nuts and do careful integration engineering so that the software is well-tuned and thoroughly optimized to the selected hardware. Subcontract HW and OS support out of the OEM vendor. Put them on-site with your Oracle weasels and make 'em wear Oracle name badges. Who'd know the difference?
It was inevitable. Sun has relaxed and turned its back to Oracle, and the long knives are slipping out of the sheaths.
The 4.77 Mhz 8088 was faster than the 1-2Mhz processors found in most (all?) other desktop computers at the time and could address up to 640K memory,
4 MHz Zilog Z-80 was the standard "business" system CPU. Running CP/M 2.2 or 3.0. With a 64K physical memory space. CP/M 3.0 would do bank-switched memory management, so 512K CP/M 3.0 machines did exist, but not very common in my recollection.
I think the point has already been made, upthread. The 8088 was Intel's cut at the 16-bit CPU running in what would otherwise have been an 8-bit physical architecture (compatible with 8085 support chips and RAM). I'd guess IBM bought into the 8088 because it was cheaper and easier to build a system around than the 8086. (I recall that full-16-bit MCS-86 support silicon was pretty expensive.)
I was always an MC68000 partisan, but I believe it was a much harder and more expensive architecture, and completely broke with the Intel/Zilog heritage of CP/M. That was a significant point, when an 8080-to-8086 translator program could theoretically permit you to run your old CP/M-80 software on a CP/M-86 (or perhaps, PC-DOS) 8088 system. Also, a few machines in that era (such as the Heath/Zenith Z-100 family) had both 8- and 16-bit CPUs onboard and could boot into either CP/M or PC-DOS. That would have been a much harder motherboard design if the CPUs weren't in the same family.
The IBM PC was a pretty realistic solution to a lot of different problems. I think the lack of prominence of the 68000 comes from the "serious computer market" lack of prominence of any of Motorola's 8-bit processors; there was too much legacy-system market pressure from all the Intel and Zilog systems. If only the Radio Shack Color Computer and its Motorola 6809 had become the dominant platform in the 4 years before the introduction of the IBM PC... 8)
(2) The Canada (blame Canada!) geese that were ingested into the engine were just passing through the area on their migration route. So any sort of habitat destruction on the ground would have zero effect on them anyway. Good luck changing their migration routes too.
So, these geese were illegal immigrants, crossing our sovereign national border without permission, invitation, or documentation, stealing food from decent hard-working American duck flocks, fouling American land and water with their unregulated duckish emissions, and ultimately causing mayhem and near-total disaster on American transportation systems.
We definitely need a better security fence. I hope our Homeland Security Department jumps on this.
Can I harvest it and fix my liver from a night of overdrinking?
Perhaps. I can't address the value or therapeutic effectiveness of stem cells based on your liver, but I can tell you a couple of other factors to consider.
Liver biopsies probably don't feel good. Especially that "sticking a long needle into your belly and sucking out a bit of liver." DIY may not be your best approach here.
I think it'd work best if you had some stem cells from before you started to degrade your poor liver (i.e., before you started drinking hard). Not just before one specific binge, but before you took up binge drinking entirely. So, I think it's already too late.
Well, early on, I thought that the DMCA interoperability exception was pretty much an ironclad safeguard to reasonable "circumvention". I've come to think considerably less of it, since it never seems to stop or prevent litigation. Over and over, cases keep coming before the courts that are clearly legitimate exercises in interoperability engineering, and it's just a matter of time before some dumbass court decides interoperability isn't so important after all.
It's not a settled issue, and it never will be, as long as there exists the chance that one court can be persuaded to set aside precedent and the word of the law in favor of a copyright holder.
2) I'm pretty sure Apple sill not sue. What legality is there around USB identifiers? Nothing.
Yet. Apple has sufficient confidence in its litigation tactics to bet a little on the chance of creating by judicial action a new legally-protected pseudo-category of the ever-nebulous legal entity called "Intellectual Property" for Apple-distinctive technical identification data. Especially if they can paint Palm's methods as a circumvention device (irrespective of which copyrights are having their protection "circumvented").
Why bother with the expense of a suit.
At the minimum, it tosses hurdles and delays in Palm's way, especially if they can finesse injunctions or an entire appeals sequence out of this. At maximum, they can extend some kind of binding IP protection to technical interface data distinctive to Apple hardware and software, sealing their hegemony. Apple has a good legal team, and those are like swords: once drawn, they become rusty unless used.
On some level, then, their operating practices and capacity (ER beds, staff, etc.) have been optimized to provide the service levels enabled by (relatively) low-friction electronic records access. One they fall back to paper records, apparently that becomes the friction point in their processes and their service delivery falls back to levels comparable to pre-EMR days. To a hospital administrator, that means wasted capacity (fewer patients seen, more idle ER facilities). To the staff, that means frustration because the switch-down from primary to backup records-keeping didn't come with an automatic switch-down from EMR-enabled service levels to paper-based service levels. During that ramp-down, the staff must have struggled to try to meet EMR-enabled service levels, because it sucks that paperwork is the only obstacle to seeing everyone. (Of course, if you give a rat's ass, it would suck to have to divert inbound cases because you ran out of any resource, but running short on administrative resources must really bite.)
While all these things are certainly true, and diverting inbounds because of any other resource shortage is no less necessary and no less likely, the phrase keeps going through my head: "The patient isn't getting better stuck on the ambulance in cross-town traffic."
In a real emergency they could still have treated patients
"Turning away ambulances" (used both in TFA and its source article) tells me they were diverting even truly emergent cases. Perhaps not. Hard to tell, without knowing the operation policies regarding their declaration of "diversion". But if they were truly overcommitment with their current caseload, I'd bet their policy would lean heavily towards "Even critical cases are better off diverted". (Correspondingly, reducing the risk of act-of-commision liability in really sub-optimal circumstances.)
ObDisclaimer: I am not a lawyer, so I'm talking out my ass about liability. I am not a hospital administrator, medical professional, or health system IT guy, so I'm just speculating about how things really happen behind the desks in the Emergency Department. I live nowhere near Indianapolis, so I don't even know the local rumors. I am not an operational analyst, and even if I were there's not enough detail here to make an informed analysis of the environment and the event.
Alas, these particular men had to leave those balls on the bottom of the trench in order to surface again:
Nine tons of magnetic iron pellets were taken on the craft as ballast, both to speed the descent and allow ascent, since the extreme water pressures would not have permitted compressed air ballast-expulsion tanks to be utilized at great depths. This additional weight was held actively in place at the throats of two hopper-like ballast silos by electromagnets, so that in case of an electrical failure the bathyscape would automatically rise to the surface.
And 'more dead space between the keys does not require a 'significantly bigger screen,' he achieved this by making the keys triangular instead of square.
So, the upside is, you're less likely to hit a key you didn't mean to. But the downside is, you're less likely* to hit the key you did mean to.
I suppose if you eliminated the keyboard entirely you could claim ultimate victory over wrong-key touch errors and go home.
*Yes, you are less likely to hit the key you intend. It's triangular rather than square, at the same relative key-placement intervals, so it takes up less area. Less area == reduced likelihood to hit. The outcome map goes from "hit right key, hit right key plus hit wrong key, hit wrong key" to "hit right key, hit nothing, hit right key plus wrong key, hit wrong key". (Yes, you can still hit two keys simultaneously--adjacent points of adjacent keys, such as "I" and "O".)
And I suspect that the probabilities shift more towards the "hit nothing" portion of that spectrum. I'd be curious to see some simulation of this.
Slashdot Mirror
Elevons. Easy peasy, and used in dozens of different aircraft of various types (including the very popular delta-wing class).
This page claims the elevon was invented by Northrop specifically for the N1M flying wing demonstrator, so we can assume that the pitch control issue was well and truly solved.
no one has cited this yet. This particular comic strip is the "smug" side of the mathematician mindset, whereas the essay cited in TFA is the "angry" side.
that math is better taught as an art than as a pragmatic problem-solving toolset when you can convince me that Pablo Picasso should have been forced to paint the Golden Gate bridge.
Society needs math as a tool in far greater quantity than math as an art. Socially-funded education serves the greater need of society. QED.
I survived public school mathematics. I still appreciate the beauty of patterns, especially the relatedness of art, music, and math. (Godel, Escher, and Bach really resonated for me. But that didn't make me a mathematical artist, any more than a musical composer or a woodblock printer.)
Lockhart's essay is an interesting read, really, but on some level it boils down to "Those unworthy schlubs treating Mathematics as a tool don't deserve it. It belongs to the artists, the dreamers, the purists!"
It's a pretty common arrogation in the math culture, it seems. I dont' recall sculptors ever being pissed at concrete workers or ironworkers. And I've never heard of any artist painter getting mad at the other kind of painter for not employing good artistic composition principle while painting the side of the barn.
Seriously. Math is both an art and a tool. The best artists find their art by themselves; they're not turned out by artist factories. School mathematics is to turn out the mathematical equivalent of bridge painters and ironworkers, because society needs those more (in greater quantity).
OTOH, once City of Bozeman's HR department looks at Mr. Coward's posting history here (GNAA trolls, tubgirl and goatse, etc.), they won't be able to refuse to hire him fast enough.
If you comply with a common good out of fear of the repercussions of not doing so, is that objectively different than if you comply with a common good out of love of the community? And how does an outside observer accurately know the difference?
Assuming you know someone's motivations is usually a mistake, and certainly arrogant and prejudiced.
Amazon did the right thing. "Why" is ultimately irrelevant.
Airstip One is the "poster Brother" for government vigilance.
FTFY.
Please report to MiniTru for re-education.
come up with an Illudium PU-36 payload for that Atlas?
I hope it's a fairly small charge; I wouldn't want a Moon-shattering KABOOM!
I don't think that'll happen. I think Larry wants you to buy Oracle (the database) running on Oracle (the OS) on Oracle (the hardware) and support contracts for the entire stack. There's a lot of PHB love for being able to call one phone number for anything that breaks because the same company is responsible for every component. IBM currently offers this, and now Oracle can, too.
True. But none of the above requires Oracle to manufacture one screw, chip, or board of hardware. OEM servers from Fujitsu (or Dell, or anyone they can trust and wangle a good price out of), slap on some Oracle name plates, et voila, the complete Oracle stack. Shoot, go nuts and do careful integration engineering so that the software is well-tuned and thoroughly optimized to the selected hardware. Subcontract HW and OS support out of the OEM vendor. Put them on-site with your Oracle weasels and make 'em wear Oracle name badges. Who'd know the difference?
It was inevitable. Sun has relaxed and turned its back to Oracle, and the long knives are slipping out of the sheaths.
The 4.77 Mhz 8088 was faster than the 1-2Mhz processors found in most (all?) other desktop computers at the time and could address up to 640K memory,
4 MHz Zilog Z-80 was the standard "business" system CPU. Running CP/M 2.2 or 3.0. With a 64K physical memory space. CP/M 3.0 would do bank-switched memory management, so 512K CP/M 3.0 machines did exist, but not very common in my recollection.
I think the point has already been made, upthread. The 8088 was Intel's cut at the 16-bit CPU running in what would otherwise have been an 8-bit physical architecture (compatible with 8085 support chips and RAM). I'd guess IBM bought into the 8088 because it was cheaper and easier to build a system around than the 8086. (I recall that full-16-bit MCS-86 support silicon was pretty expensive.)
I was always an MC68000 partisan, but I believe it was a much harder and more expensive architecture, and completely broke with the Intel/Zilog heritage of CP/M. That was a significant point, when an 8080-to-8086 translator program could theoretically permit you to run your old CP/M-80 software on a CP/M-86 (or perhaps, PC-DOS) 8088 system. Also, a few machines in that era (such as the Heath/Zenith Z-100 family) had both 8- and 16-bit CPUs onboard and could boot into either CP/M or PC-DOS. That would have been a much harder motherboard design if the CPUs weren't in the same family.
The IBM PC was a pretty realistic solution to a lot of different problems. I think the lack of prominence of the 68000 comes from the "serious computer market" lack of prominence of any of Motorola's 8-bit processors; there was too much legacy-system market pressure from all the Intel and Zilog systems. If only the Radio Shack Color Computer and its Motorola 6809 had become the dominant platform in the 4 years before the introduction of the IBM PC... 8)
That's a good point. I agree, they should be doing something useful like trying to get first post on slashdot.
threatens to completely change the meaning of "mime" in the context of e-mail.
True. Matter and energy are transient; entropy and stupidity are eternal.
It's called BASIC. I recommend the original Dartmouth dialect. It's got a nice Ivy League blue blood feel to it.
Real men can read Hollerith like Braille.
At 20 cards per second.
(2) The Canada (blame Canada!) geese that were ingested into the engine were just passing through the area on their migration route. So any sort of habitat destruction on the ground would have zero effect on them anyway. Good luck changing their migration routes too.
So, these geese were illegal immigrants, crossing our sovereign national border without permission, invitation, or documentation, stealing food from decent hard-working American duck flocks, fouling American land and water with their unregulated duckish emissions, and ultimately causing mayhem and near-total disaster on American transportation systems.
We definitely need a better security fence. I hope our Homeland Security Department jumps on this.
who Ray Ozzie is - he was the creator of Lotus Notes.
For this crime alone, he should be punished extravagantly. Or at least, regarded with skepticism.
I'm not sayin' Outlook's much better, but still...
signed,
idontgno, current Lotus Notes sufferer^w user
The feds clicked submit.
ENTRAPMENT!
Can I harvest it and fix my liver from a night of overdrinking?
Perhaps. I can't address the value or therapeutic effectiveness of stem cells based on your liver, but I can tell you a couple of other factors to consider.
Oh, yeah, don't forget to ??? and Profit!!
Well, early on, I thought that the DMCA interoperability exception was pretty much an ironclad safeguard to reasonable "circumvention". I've come to think considerably less of it, since it never seems to stop or prevent litigation. Over and over, cases keep coming before the courts that are clearly legitimate exercises in interoperability engineering, and it's just a matter of time before some dumbass court decides interoperability isn't so important after all.
It's not a settled issue, and it never will be, as long as there exists the chance that one court can be persuaded to set aside precedent and the word of the law in favor of a copyright holder.
what is a quid? Is it a type of bird?
Let me wiki that for you.
2) I'm pretty sure Apple sill not sue. What legality is there around USB identifiers? Nothing.
Yet. Apple has sufficient confidence in its litigation tactics to bet a little on the chance of creating by judicial action a new legally-protected pseudo-category of the ever-nebulous legal entity called "Intellectual Property" for Apple-distinctive technical identification data. Especially if they can paint Palm's methods as a circumvention device (irrespective of which copyrights are having their protection "circumvented").
Why bother with the expense of a suit.
At the minimum, it tosses hurdles and delays in Palm's way, especially if they can finesse injunctions or an entire appeals sequence out of this. At maximum, they can extend some kind of binding IP protection to technical interface data distinctive to Apple hardware and software, sealing their hegemony. Apple has a good legal team, and those are like swords: once drawn, they become rusty unless used.
On some level, then, their operating practices and capacity (ER beds, staff, etc.) have been optimized to provide the service levels enabled by (relatively) low-friction electronic records access. One they fall back to paper records, apparently that becomes the friction point in their processes and their service delivery falls back to levels comparable to pre-EMR days. To a hospital administrator, that means wasted capacity (fewer patients seen, more idle ER facilities). To the staff, that means frustration because the switch-down from primary to backup records-keeping didn't come with an automatic switch-down from EMR-enabled service levels to paper-based service levels. During that ramp-down, the staff must have struggled to try to meet EMR-enabled service levels, because it sucks that paperwork is the only obstacle to seeing everyone. (Of course, if you give a rat's ass, it would suck to have to divert inbound cases because you ran out of any resource, but running short on administrative resources must really bite.)
While all these things are certainly true, and diverting inbounds because of any other resource shortage is no less necessary and no less likely, the phrase keeps going through my head: "The patient isn't getting better stuck on the ambulance in cross-town traffic."
In a real emergency they could still have treated patients
"Turning away ambulances" (used both in TFA and its source article) tells me they were diverting even truly emergent cases. Perhaps not. Hard to tell, without knowing the operation policies regarding their declaration of "diversion". But if they were truly overcommitment with their current caseload, I'd bet their policy would lean heavily towards "Even critical cases are better off diverted". (Correspondingly, reducing the risk of act-of-commision liability in really sub-optimal circumstances.)
ObDisclaimer: I am not a lawyer, so I'm talking out my ass about liability. I am not a hospital administrator, medical professional, or health system IT guy, so I'm just speculating about how things really happen behind the desks in the Emergency Department. I live nowhere near Indianapolis, so I don't even know the local rumors. I am not an operational analyst, and even if I were there's not enough detail here to make an informed analysis of the environment and the event.
Alas, these particular men had to leave those balls on the bottom of the trench in order to surface again:
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathyscaphe_Trieste#Design
And 'more dead space between the keys does not require a 'significantly bigger screen,' he achieved this by making the keys triangular instead of square.
So, the upside is, you're less likely to hit a key you didn't mean to. But the downside is, you're less likely* to hit the key you did mean to.
I suppose if you eliminated the keyboard entirely you could claim ultimate victory over wrong-key touch errors and go home.
*Yes, you are less likely to hit the key you intend. It's triangular rather than square, at the same relative key-placement intervals, so it takes up less area. Less area == reduced likelihood to hit. The outcome map goes from "hit right key, hit right key plus hit wrong key, hit wrong key" to "hit right key, hit nothing, hit right key plus wrong key, hit wrong key". (Yes, you can still hit two keys simultaneously--adjacent points of adjacent keys, such as "I" and "O".)
And I suspect that the probabilities shift more towards the "hit nothing" portion of that spectrum. I'd be curious to see some simulation of this.
Think of it as graceful failure.
Hmmmm... That's a helluva marketing slogan... "We fail gracefully!"
Along the lines of "Failure is not an option! It's standard equipment!"