They used to, in the first two seasons. Since then they've slipped, however, and focus more on the soap opera. This site has in-depth reviews of House episodes by a (real, actual) physician. Look at an early episode, then look at a Season 4 episode.
Thanks, that's exactly what I'm saying. This guy seems to think I'm some anti-religion nutjob. As long as your beliefs coincide with reality, believe what you will. If your average person believes something stupid (like "intelligent design", for example), it probably won't affect me. If a politician believes something the same thing, they have the power to force those beliefs on me or my metaphorical children. That scares me.
Right because you're progressive enough to think that people who believe something other than you should be shut out of the government..
This has nothing to do with believing what I do. Evolution is not a "belief". An old earth is not a "belief". They are scientific theories, and extremely well supported ones too. Unless you're going to present arguments equally compelling against them, saying they aren't true is, well, stupid.
Obviously you do have a problem with people who believe in God well, that would be any God that does not fit into what can be weighed, measured, or categorized.. I'm sure if I said 'I believe in some superior force, or heck maybe just 'the force' you would be able to vote for me as a dog catcher or something. But because I believe in a God who does not fit with evolution I'm basically, in your eyes, just someone who should be stuck into the worker caste until I pass away and rot.
I said specifically that I don't care what you believe as long as it does not conflict with physical evidence. That is all I said. What you believe beyond what can be, as you said, "weighed, measured, or categorized", is none of my business. Believe in a God, or even "the force", for all I care but don't you dare tell me that evolution doesn't happen.
Not really, I don't have to reconcile anything with my belief system. Be the earth 10 thousand or 4.5 Billion years old hold no bearing on my ability in 2007 to administrate a company or protect peoples basic rights. Rights which you seem to have little respect for.
As an atheist (and moreover, a rational human being), I believe that people who deny evidence presented before their very eyes should never be allowed influence over anything bigger than a Tonka truck.
I have no problem with you, or anyone else, believing in a God. What I have a problem with is people committing the scientific equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "lalala I'm not listening". The earth is not young. Evolution happens. It's your problem to reconcile this with your religion.
You could have a uniform white backlight for a CMYK LCD, too. The only differences are that the colour elements would be "in series" (to use an electrical analogy), rather than "in parallel" like an RGB, and that they would darken to the colours rather than to black (except for the "K", obviously). They would need to vary between transparent and cyan (or magenta or yellow) rather than transparent and black.
It would be cool, but I don't know nearly enough about electrochemistry to pull it off.
This has to do with the light receptors in the eye: we have receptors for red, green and blue - all three of them together are interpreted by our brain as white
Close, but it's not quite that simple. Here is a diagram showing the response curves of the photoreceptors in the eye. Coloured ones are cones, dotted one is the rods.
Ink colour blending works different. There you need cyan, magenta and yellow to create all the colours, and black to make it darker.
Ink is subtractive, light is additive. That's the difference. If you wanted to create an LCD for the CMYK colour model, you would have to first develop electrode elements that darken to cyan, magenta and yellow instead of the normal grey-black. I'm no chemist, so I have no idea if this is even possible (the fact that no such display exists tells me that no, this is not possible). If you developed these, then you could create a display where the pixels have layers that selectively filter out each of those colours, plus a grey-black one for the "K".
No, it is dissolved before the election; it is the dissolution of parliament (i.e, the House of Commons) that causes the election to occur.
If you're wondering about what happens in the meantime, I believe the old parliament can be reconvened temporarily if a sudden emergency arises before a new one can be elected. I'm not sure the details though.
My understanding, from watching Bjarne Stroustrup's lecture before about the standardization process for C++ (also through the ISO), was that you need to attend a certain number of meetings (3?) before you can vote.
True, it'd be straightforward for a process to poll the bus every few seconds to find drives to mount in/mnt, and some distributions already do this. But what about unmounting? Or are you requesting that the implementation of FAT32 keep the file system in a consistent state even when the user yanks the USB data cable in the middle of an operation? Is this even possible? Even Windows has the "safely remove hardware" icon in the taskbar notification area.
That's actually possible in Linux, with any filesystem, if you supply the "sync" mount option. You'll notice a significant performance drop when you use it, because programs will freeze when they access it when otherwise they wouldn't. Once they finish, though, the data will be on the device.
You'd have a pad, yes, but for it to be cryptographically secure it has to only be used once then destroyed. If you're using some sort of pre-programmed constant, then it will be re-used. It will also be buried in the executable file somewhere waiting to be discovered.
A pad also needs to be random. A novel, being natural language text, has all sorts of patterns in it. You would have to transform it somehow to destroy these patterns. A cryptographic hash, such as SHA-1, would work.
While the two parties could agree beforehand how to generate the pad, for example that they will both download some RSS feed at some pre-arranged time and use the SHA-1 hash of the results as the one-time-pad, that information in itself is a key, and a simple one at that.
Once you have resolution below Planck's constant, any more digits are meaningless. Practically, anything below the diameter of a silicon atom would be good enough. I don't want to do the math right now, but neither require ridiculous (by today's standards) numbers of digits of Pi.
I don't understand... "atheist", "agnostic", and "theist" all have well-defined meanings. If you're sure there is no supreme being, you're an atheist. If you're sure you can never know if there is or isn't, you're an agnostic. If you're sure there is, you're a theist. If you're not really sure either way, you're undecided.
Just because this is not feasable now, doesn't mean it won't be feasable in the future. Mr. Graham's point is that Microsoft is becoming increasingly irrelevant, and that this shows no signs of reversing itself in the future.
What good is research to those not involved in academia if it provides no benifit[sic] to them?
How about a base for potential future research that may have practical applications?
Applied or pure, research is research. Even if our collective short-sightedness doesn't let us see applications of pure research, we're still better off for having done it, because it may lead to future applied research that will have practical applications.
Sorry, I should have been more precise. You (and other people who have responded to my post) are far too literal in your interpretation. What I meant was, "Many of their creations still exist today, after thousands of years. Will ours do the same?"
Slashdot Mirror
If we would be build for 3D we wouldn't get dizzy when playing Descent, but quite frankly, most do.
When you develop a version of Descent that stimulates the inner ear to match the ship's motion, and people still get disoriented, then get back to me.
They used to, in the first two seasons. Since then they've slipped, however, and focus more on the soap opera. This site has in-depth reviews of House episodes by a (real, actual) physician. Look at an early episode, then look at a Season 4 episode.
No cargo capacity?!? (SFW) :)
There's a name for this: it's called "Sousveillance".
Thanks, that's exactly what I'm saying. This guy seems to think I'm some anti-religion nutjob. As long as your beliefs coincide with reality, believe what you will. If your average person believes something stupid (like "intelligent design", for example), it probably won't affect me. If a politician believes something the same thing, they have the power to force those beliefs on me or my metaphorical children. That scares me.
Right because you're progressive enough to think that people who believe something other than you should be shut out of the government..
This has nothing to do with believing what I do. Evolution is not a "belief". An old earth is not a "belief". They are scientific theories, and extremely well supported ones too. Unless you're going to present arguments equally compelling against them, saying they aren't true is, well, stupid.
Obviously you do have a problem with people who believe in God well, that would be any God that does not fit into what can be weighed, measured, or categorized.. I'm sure if I said 'I believe in some superior force, or heck maybe just 'the force' you would be able to vote for me as a dog catcher or something. But because I believe in a God who does not fit with evolution I'm basically, in your eyes, just someone who should be stuck into the worker caste until I pass away and rot.
I said specifically that I don't care what you believe as long as it does not conflict with physical evidence. That is all I said. What you believe beyond what can be, as you said, "weighed, measured, or categorized", is none of my business. Believe in a God, or even "the force", for all I care but don't you dare tell me that evolution doesn't happen.
Not really, I don't have to reconcile anything with my belief system. Be the earth 10 thousand or 4.5 Billion years old hold no bearing on my ability in 2007 to administrate a company or protect peoples basic rights. Rights which you seem to have little respect for.
Personal attacks don't help your cause one bit.
As an atheist (and moreover, a rational human being), I believe that people who deny evidence presented before their very eyes should never be allowed influence over anything bigger than a Tonka truck.
I have no problem with you, or anyone else, believing in a God. What I have a problem with is people committing the scientific equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "lalala I'm not listening". The earth is not young. Evolution happens. It's your problem to reconcile this with your religion.
You could have a uniform white backlight for a CMYK LCD, too. The only differences are that the colour elements would be "in series" (to use an electrical analogy), rather than "in parallel" like an RGB, and that they would darken to the colours rather than to black (except for the "K", obviously). They would need to vary between transparent and cyan (or magenta or yellow) rather than transparent and black.
It would be cool, but I don't know nearly enough about electrochemistry to pull it off.
This has to do with the light receptors in the eye: we have receptors for red, green and blue - all three of them together are interpreted by our brain as white
Close, but it's not quite that simple. Here is a diagram showing the response curves of the photoreceptors in the eye. Coloured ones are cones, dotted one is the rods.
Ink colour blending works different. There you need cyan, magenta and yellow to create all the colours, and black to make it darker.
Ink is subtractive, light is additive. That's the difference. If you wanted to create an LCD for the CMYK colour model, you would have to first develop electrode elements that darken to cyan, magenta and yellow instead of the normal grey-black. I'm no chemist, so I have no idea if this is even possible (the fact that no such display exists tells me that no, this is not possible). If you developed these, then you could create a display where the pixels have layers that selectively filter out each of those colours, plus a grey-black one for the "K".
To get fired they had to have done something incompetent or evil or both
Not necessarily. They may have refused to do something evil, illegal, unethical, or all of the above.
No, it is dissolved before the election; it is the dissolution of parliament (i.e, the House of Commons) that causes the election to occur.
If you're wondering about what happens in the meantime, I believe the old parliament can be reconvened temporarily if a sudden emergency arises before a new one can be elected. I'm not sure the details though.
"That's a very fine bag you have there... it says 'Circuit City', eh? That looks suspicious to me!"
My understanding, from watching Bjarne Stroustrup's lecture before about the standardization process for C++ (also through the ISO), was that you need to attend a certain number of meetings (3?) before you can vote.
Why wasn't this the case here?
True, it'd be straightforward for a process to poll the bus every few seconds to find drives to mount in /mnt, and some distributions already do this. But what about unmounting? Or are you requesting that the implementation of FAT32 keep the file system in a consistent state even when the user yanks the USB data cable in the middle of an operation? Is this even possible? Even Windows has the "safely remove hardware" icon in the taskbar notification area.
That's actually possible in Linux, with any filesystem, if you supply the "sync" mount option. You'll notice a significant performance drop when you use it, because programs will freeze when they access it when otherwise they wouldn't. Once they finish, though, the data will be on the device.
You'd have a pad, yes, but for it to be cryptographically secure it has to only be used once then destroyed. If you're using some sort of pre-programmed constant, then it will be re-used. It will also be buried in the executable file somewhere waiting to be discovered.
A pad also needs to be random. A novel, being natural language text, has all sorts of patterns in it. You would have to transform it somehow to destroy these patterns. A cryptographic hash, such as SHA-1, would work.
While the two parties could agree beforehand how to generate the pad, for example that they will both download some RSS feed at some pre-arranged time and use the SHA-1 hash of the results as the one-time-pad, that information in itself is a key, and a simple one at that.
There is no 100% certanty in law, especially not with eye witnesses, no matter how many or how independent they may be.
Once you have resolution below Planck's constant, any more digits are meaningless. Practically, anything below the diameter of a silicon atom would be good enough. I don't want to do the math right now, but neither require ridiculous (by today's standards) numbers of digits of Pi.
I don't understand... "atheist", "agnostic", and "theist" all have well-defined meanings. If you're sure there is no supreme being, you're an atheist. If you're sure you can never know if there is or isn't, you're an agnostic. If you're sure there is, you're a theist. If you're not really sure either way, you're undecided.
Bad analogy. Even if you car was speeding, you were going the same speed as the car and were therefore speeding also.
I don't have Asperger's, yet I've used Dvorak for maybe 4 years now, I'm a programmer by day and a big geek by night.
Just because this is not feasable now, doesn't mean it won't be feasable in the future. Mr. Graham's point is that Microsoft is becoming increasingly irrelevant, and that this shows no signs of reversing itself in the future.
http://www.rockbox.org/
What good is research to those not involved in academia if it provides no benifit[sic] to them?
How about a base for potential future research that may have practical applications?
Applied or pure, research is research. Even if our collective short-sightedness doesn't let us see applications of pure research, we're still better off for having done it, because it may lead to future applied research that will have practical applications.
Insightful???
Yes. No. No.
Sorry, I should have been more precise. You (and other people who have responded to my post) are far too literal in your interpretation. What I meant was, "Many of their creations still exist today, after thousands of years. Will ours do the same?"