This isn't about picking the data structure or algorithm that has the lowest complexity. In real world applications, the bottleneck is most often either the volume of disk or network operations, the kinds of problems that often cannot be solved by adding more hardware.
Why would it take a meteor to resolve this question? Wouldn't a lightning strike, which is far more common, be the same scenario (Act of God, resulting in a fire)?
Unless the moderators are wrong, and you were just going for humor. In which case, I chuckled.
Typically, the solar panels on each rover produce about 700 watt-hours of electricity per day -- enough to light a 100-watt bulb for seven hours, according to NASA.
It's relevant when talking about the subsidies for the corn industry. It's also relevant because the corn was most likely not fertilized with manure, but with nitrates that were produced using oil energy.
It seems that he is confusing Trademark law with Copyright law. It is my understanding that if a company does not use a trademark, they can lose the rights to it.
Regarding copyright, this is from wikipedia, so it may not do much to address your skepticism.
Rarely has any abandonware case gone to court. In November 2006 the Library of Congress approved an exemption to US copyright law that permits the cracking of copy protection on software no longer being sold or supported by its copyright holder so that they can be archived and preserved without fear of ramification. It is still unlawful to distribute the old software and games, free or otherwise in any Berne Convention signatory country.
I shouldn't have to make a server round trip just to change the presentation of the data on the page.
Re:Artists should make the most money, not the lab
on
Must a CD Cost $15.99?
·
· Score: 1
Forget "should." That word has no place in capitalism. You have it backwards. Production does not determine profit, profit is how you figure out who produced what proportion.
The person who adds the most value to an item is the person who makes the most. By definition.
If that is your claim, then the anecdote is irrelevant outside of being mildly amusing. NEWS FLASH, there are pretentious morons in Manhattan therefore modern art is rubbish, Q.E.D
Don't insult me by linking to a wikipedia article about a well known story.
So modern art is bollocks because there are people who don't understand it? Would you say the same about Jazz, or Computer Science? Because there are pretentious (in the truest sense of the word) fools who like to appear as if they understand?
I'm not saying moder art is not rubbish. Perhaps it is. But on news site for nerds, especially when commenting on an article about engineering education, you have to be a little bit more rigorous with your logic.
I agree that the lowest bidder cannot be trusted, which is why you have to make a value judgment. I don't see what's wrong with having some sort knowledge before hand of what service the company plans on offering and at what price. Maybe you also factor in the amount of money they're willing to pay.
The original poster's main point was that by awarding to the highest bidder, you are pretty much ensuring that the service will be as expensive as possible and all you get in return is extra money in the federal budget which they will probably waste anyway. I don't see what is wrong about knowing more up front about what the companies are proposing. I think it is nearly as foolish to give the spectrum to the company willing to pay the most as it is to give it to the company proposing the lowest pricing structure.
I don't know what will happen with the spectrum. Maybe it will drive down broadband prices, but my guess it will simply be a faster cell phone data network that is not an adequate replacement for cable or dsl to the home, at a price that will make it a luxury that most people could not justify. If we didn't simply give it to the highest bidder, we could have heard what Google was proposing and perhaps pressured our representatives to award it to Google at the price they were willing to pay, instead of forking it over to AT&T for in exchange for the giant sums they were willing to fork out.
Why wouldn't this work? He's not trying to get companies to voluntarily reduce prices. It's essentially the same thing as an auction...He just wants the gov't to say "We will give the rights to this spectrum to the company who's proposal is best." instead of "We will give the rights to this spectrum to the company who gives us the most money."
It's really simple actually, break it down by state. Then you collect the proposals, draw up some contracts. Maybe you could even have a vote (gasp!) about which service gets selected. I think it's brilliant, and it is a better use of a public resource.
You don't need an old WRT54G. You can buy a new WRT54GL.
The DDWRT firmware is awesome. Make sure you install the micro first, then you can upgrade to one of the other more feature-full versions from there. Although "micro" is a huge misnomer considering the amount of functionality it has compared to the default firmware. Also you will want to adjust the maxium ports and TCP/UDP timeout settings if you use P2P. Out of the box, torrents will kill your internet connection.
I think his point was that with a high-density disc you could store a standard-def movie in a portable form factor. I don't think this will happen though. It's already been tried, and failed as a movie format (UMD)
Evolution provides a pretty good explanation as well. It also covers the case of Deism, the theory that God created the Universe and then left it alone. It is the only mechanism that can give rise to more-complicated life forms that on first glance appear to be designed. See Dawkins, The God Delusion, chapter "Ultimate Boeing 747"
Solution: Let everyone read anyone's email
on
Ethics In IT
·
· Score: 1
At my employer anybody can read anybody else's email. It logs who reads whose but otherwise imposes no restrictions. With no assumption of privacy, it also cuts down on gossip and generally increases the level of professionalism in the emails. I think it's a great solution.
I always thought the 5th amendment served two main purposes:
1. Prevent the government from compelling individuals to confess (through torture, or other means).
2. Give weight to confessions by ensuring that they were not obtained through torture.
Perhaps it will be illustrative to take the computer out of it, since we tend to get distracted by the technology. To me it seems pretty clear that if someone is arrested carrying a letter that was encoded with a cipher with information that may or may not be relevant to the case, that the person could not be compelled under law to explain how to decrypt the letter, whether to law enforcement or in court. Of course that couldn't stop the officials from attempting to break the cipher. But just because modern encryption is more difficult to crack than a hand cipher, I don't believe that changes the nature of the situation.
That's true, but it's also possible that the whole story is that the person who posted the code in fact stole it from someone else.
It's the same reason why a comedian shouldn't use a joke he heard from a friend, even if the friend gives him permission to use the joke in his act. It's possible that the friend didn't invent the joke in the first place.
In what sense does these phrase "next-gen" require major design changes? The PS3 and 360 are evolutionary improvements; they are, by definition, the next generation of their respective product lines.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't about picking the data structure or algorithm that has the lowest complexity. In real world applications, the bottleneck is most often either the volume of disk or network operations, the kinds of problems that often cannot be solved by adding more hardware.
Why would it take a meteor to resolve this question? Wouldn't a lightning strike, which is far more common, be the same scenario (Act of God, resulting in a fire)?
Unless the moderators are wrong, and you were just going for humor. In which case, I chuckled.
I read the first line of your post and then stopped because I couldn't find the close parentheses. I think my brain was trying to compile your post.
Do you want to figure out which is the useful stuff? Better just to store it all; you don't know what is useful into you need it.
Don't confuse him more...
1/0.009 = 111
111 Libraries of Congress = 1 Petabyte
I was attempting to show, by analogy, that your statement taken at face value was negligent to the utility of metadata.
Exactly, why do databases have indexes? All the information you need can be obtained by analyzing the data.
But I like your reference better.
According to NASA, 21 months is very nearly two years.
It's relevant when talking about the subsidies for the corn industry. It's also relevant because the corn was most likely not fertilized with manure, but with nitrates that were produced using oil energy.
Regarding copyright, this is from wikipedia, so it may not do much to address your skepticism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abandonware
Perhaps the XP issue will finally get us a ruling on the legal status of abandonware.
I shouldn't have to make a server round trip just to change the presentation of the data on the page.
Forget "should." That word has no place in capitalism. You have it backwards. Production does not determine profit, profit is how you figure out who produced what proportion.
The person who adds the most value to an item is the person who makes the most. By definition.
If that is your claim, then the anecdote is irrelevant outside of being mildly amusing. NEWS FLASH, there are pretentious morons in Manhattan therefore modern art is rubbish, Q.E.D
Don't insult me by linking to a wikipedia article about a well known story.
So modern art is bollocks because there are people who don't understand it? Would you say the same about Jazz, or Computer Science? Because there are pretentious (in the truest sense of the word) fools who like to appear as if they understand?
I'm not saying moder art is not rubbish. Perhaps it is. But on news site for nerds, especially when commenting on an article about engineering education, you have to be a little bit more rigorous with your logic.
I agree that the lowest bidder cannot be trusted, which is why you have to make a value judgment. I don't see what's wrong with having some sort knowledge before hand of what service the company plans on offering and at what price. Maybe you also factor in the amount of money they're willing to pay.
The original poster's main point was that by awarding to the highest bidder, you are pretty much ensuring that the service will be as expensive as possible and all you get in return is extra money in the federal budget which they will probably waste anyway. I don't see what is wrong about knowing more up front about what the companies are proposing. I think it is nearly as foolish to give the spectrum to the company willing to pay the most as it is to give it to the company proposing the lowest pricing structure.
I don't know what will happen with the spectrum. Maybe it will drive down broadband prices, but my guess it will simply be a faster cell phone data network that is not an adequate replacement for cable or dsl to the home, at a price that will make it a luxury that most people could not justify. If we didn't simply give it to the highest bidder, we could have heard what Google was proposing and perhaps pressured our representatives to award it to Google at the price they were willing to pay, instead of forking it over to AT&T for in exchange for the giant sums they were willing to fork out.
Why wouldn't this work? He's not trying to get companies to voluntarily reduce prices. It's essentially the same thing as an auction...He just wants the gov't to say "We will give the rights to this spectrum to the company who's proposal is best." instead of "We will give the rights to this spectrum to the company who gives us the most money."
It's really simple actually, break it down by state. Then you collect the proposals, draw up some contracts. Maybe you could even have a vote (gasp!) about which service gets selected. I think it's brilliant, and it is a better use of a public resource.
You don't need an old WRT54G. You can buy a new WRT54GL.
The DDWRT firmware is awesome. Make sure you install the micro first, then you can upgrade to one of the other more feature-full versions from there. Although "micro" is a huge misnomer considering the amount of functionality it has compared to the default firmware. Also you will want to adjust the maxium ports and TCP/UDP timeout settings if you use P2P. Out of the box, torrents will kill your internet connection.
I think his point was that with a high-density disc you could store a standard-def movie in a portable form factor. I don't think this will happen though. It's already been tried, and failed as a movie format (UMD)
Evolution provides a pretty good explanation as well. It also covers the case of Deism, the theory that God created the Universe and then left it alone. It is the only mechanism that can give rise to more-complicated life forms that on first glance appear to be designed. See Dawkins, The God Delusion, chapter "Ultimate Boeing 747"
At my employer anybody can read anybody else's email. It logs who reads whose but otherwise imposes no restrictions. With no assumption of privacy, it also cuts down on gossip and generally increases the level of professionalism in the emails. I think it's a great solution.
I always thought the 5th amendment served two main purposes:
1. Prevent the government from compelling individuals to confess (through torture, or other means).
2. Give weight to confessions by ensuring that they were not obtained through torture.
Perhaps it will be illustrative to take the computer out of it, since we tend to get distracted by the technology. To me it seems pretty clear that if someone is arrested carrying a letter that was encoded with a cipher with information that may or may not be relevant to the case, that the person could not be compelled under law to explain how to decrypt the letter, whether to law enforcement or in court. Of course that couldn't stop the officials from attempting to break the cipher. But just because modern encryption is more difficult to crack than a hand cipher, I don't believe that changes the nature of the situation.
That's true, but it's also possible that the whole story is that the person who posted the code in fact stole it from someone else.
It's the same reason why a comedian shouldn't use a joke he heard from a friend, even if the friend gives him permission to use the joke in his act. It's possible that the friend didn't invent the joke in the first place.
In what sense does these phrase "next-gen" require major design changes? The PS3 and 360 are evolutionary improvements; they are, by definition, the next generation of their respective product lines.
Searched outlook recently? Search is usually slow.