I remember reading that argument before. It explained why the only way we'd get to the moon was on a rocket powered by nuclear fission. Written in 1950. Fortunately, it explained, nuclear power would make power too cheap to meter.
C# and Java are inherently easier to code in. This is not due the the framework. It is due to things like the more difficult memory management in C/C++, the more difficult-to-use container classes and the arcane nature of C++ template syntax.
I'm no Java bigot. Quite the opposite. I've been doing C/C++ for twenty years and have only a year and a half of C# and Java combined. My experience with C# was that I could code four times faster and ended with a program that used four times the memory and ran at a quarter the speed. But you have to give those languages their due...they *are* easier to code in which is, unfortunately, why colleges use them to teach instead of C++.
For example, if they found five gallons of her blood in his car, this would lead on to infer that he had her body in that car. This, it is circumstantial evidence that he killed her, not direct evidence that he killed her.
You certainly don't understand circumstantial evidence. It works exactly as I described. Even if yes, indeed, they find the victim's blood on the guy and even if the witness heard the arrestee say "I'm a gonna kill you, you bastard!?", it is STILL circumstantial. "Circumstantial" merely means that there is no DIRECT evidence, that is, no one saw the actual murder. See here and here and here and here. Unfortunately, people tend to confuse "circumstantial" with "weak" in the way you are.
You don't "refute" evidence by saying it is "circumstantial". "Circumstantial" is a class of evidence, as opposed to "direct". Most evidence is circumstantial and most people are convicted on purely circumstantial evidence. DNA evidence is always circumstantial evidence, as is the someone possessing a gun matching the bullet embedded in the victim, someone possessing a knife covered with the victim's blood, and all manner of conviction-worthy things. For instance, Jeffrey Dahmer was convicted on purely circumstantial evidence. (As having the hacked up victim's body in your freezer is ALSO "circumstantial evidence".)
You can convict on "circumstantial" evidence if it points to guild "beyond a reasonable doubt".
As an example: you see two men enter a building. You see one of them leave with a shirt stained with something red. You enter the building to find the other man lying dead in a bloody heap on the ground.
You only have "circumstantial" evidence that the one guy killed the other.
"circumstantial" means that there were no witnesses, and no forensic evidence. It does not mean "weak".
In this case, it does not mean that if the only evidence is circumstantial, you acquit. What the jury is supposed to do is look at all the evidence, circumstantial and otherwise, and decide if any other theories as to where this woman is are ridiculous enough to be "beyond a reasonable doubt". Yes, there are lots of reasons you can come up with for why someone might remove the front seat of their car. The question is, do those reasons make sense. Are they reasonable. *That* is not what is important, not whether the evidence is "circumstantial".
Yes. I spent many, many hours playing Duke single player, then playing online over the now long dead TEN network. I played it pretty constantly for around a year. Hell, when I played it, I'd already been playing video games for ten years. I have been playing since the days of Castle Wolfenstein. (And no, I do not mean the game from id that was the first fps.) The first console I ever had was a pong set my parents bought new when I was twelve. That was thirty years ago.
Last night, I spent an hour playing Pixel Junk Monsters, than a couple running through Half-life 2. (I played the original on the PC, but figured I'd make another run to get used to console controls.)
Not that I am at all holding my breath for this. In 1998 I might have been interested. Now there's too many other games that are actually sitting on my desk to worry about vaporware. (The nice thing about being a 40+ year old gamer is that I have the disposable income to get pretty much whatever I want.)
No, the result would *not* be the clone of the mother. The resulting offspring would have two copies of many alleles of which the mother only had one. A few of those would likely be the rare deadly recessives that most people have.
To describe it simply, for each gene, the mother's makeup would be X1X2. Any clone would have this exact makeup, X1X2. Any egg would be either X1 or X2. Any sperm generated in this fashion would be X1 or X2. Combining any random sperm and egg gives you the following possible results: X1X2, X1X1 or X2X2. Over the set of all genes, the chance of getting a true clone would be exceedingly low.
I've let my kid play videogames with me, or watch me play since he was three. He's now five. But as with TV, we restrict it quite a bit. He should be spending most of his time coloring, constructing, reading, etc.
I personally think that games are better than TV, but that both are bad if that's all the kid ever does. Five ours sitting in front of the tube is bad, regardless of whether the kid has a controller in his hands.
The other rule is that he plays games with us, not alone. (Well, me...my wife doesn't game.) Videogames aren't there to babysit the kid. They're a father-son bonding experience.
You mean, they're charging people differently based on their religion? Their race? Their social class? Are they not charging people regardless of who they are?
Charging people more for things in higher demand is called "capitalism". Perhaps that is anti-egalitarian, but this particular instance is no more anti-egalitarian then, say, charging people more for higher quality health care, or charging people more for better quality food.
I suspect it has to do with the label on the first version of OS/2 I used: "Microsoft OS/2 version 1.0".
I know they purged most of the original Microsoft code, but it wouldn't surprise me if there are little bits running about, or if they have some contractual restriction from the original days when this started as a joint project with Microsoft.
Before we had progress bars, we had spinners. You displayed the following characters in rapid succession: \|/-
You did it because it made users report that your program was faster even when it wasn't. Any movement on the screen makes users think that the machine is "doing something".
I can only presume whatever "journalist" who wrote that didn't understand what he was told.
Darwinian natural selection has an element of randomness in that "natural selection" promotes those randomly produced mutations that increase the animal's likelihood of survival. Every other theory I've heard of assumes a *more* deterministic process.
The key to understanding evolution by natural selection is understanding how the process of natural selection creates an ordered progression of animals better adapted to their environment using random mutation as the engine.
The trouble isn't the OS. The trouble is application code written to assume that time is a 32 bit value. I've no doubt that there is code like that around still. (Though I highly doubt much will be in operation in 30 years.)
"Lunar Lander" on a high-end HP calculator in '75. This was the version where the only UI was a changing number on the display. (My uncle worked for HP.)
Slashdot Mirror
You can boycott Microsoft. I do.
You'll half to pass up that glittery XBox that all the slashbots like, though.
Attention moderators! That's not a funny post. It is both insightful and incredibly sad.
Maybe it didn't make me smarter, but it sure improved my Team Fortress 2 ability.
I remember reading that argument before. It explained why the only way we'd get to the moon was on a rocket powered by nuclear fission. Written in 1950. Fortunately, it explained, nuclear power would make power too cheap to meter.
C# and Java are inherently easier to code in. This is not due the the framework. It is due to things like the more difficult memory management in C/C++, the more difficult-to-use container classes and the arcane nature of C++ template syntax.
I'm no Java bigot. Quite the opposite. I've been doing C/C++ for twenty years and have only a year and a half of C# and Java combined. My experience with C# was that I could code four times faster and ended with a program that used four times the memory and ran at a quarter the speed. But you have to give those languages their due...they *are* easier to code in which is, unfortunately, why colleges use them to teach instead of C++.
Forensic evidence IS circumstantial evidence.
For example, if they found five gallons of her blood in his car, this would lead on to infer that he had her body in that car. This, it is circumstantial evidence that he killed her, not direct evidence that he killed her.
Circumstantial does not mean "weak".
You don't "refute" evidence by saying it is "circumstantial". "Circumstantial" is a class of evidence, as opposed to "direct". Most evidence is circumstantial and most people are convicted on purely circumstantial evidence. DNA evidence is always circumstantial evidence, as is the someone possessing a gun matching the bullet embedded in the victim, someone possessing a knife covered with the victim's blood, and all manner of conviction-worthy things. For instance, Jeffrey Dahmer was convicted on purely circumstantial evidence. (As having the hacked up victim's body in your freezer is ALSO "circumstantial evidence".)
As an example: you see two men enter a building. You see one of them leave with a shirt stained with something red. You enter the building to find the other man lying dead in a bloody heap on the ground.
You only have "circumstantial" evidence that the one guy killed the other.
"circumstantial" means that there were no witnesses, and no forensic evidence. It does not mean "weak".
In this case, it does not mean that if the only evidence is circumstantial, you acquit. What the jury is supposed to do is look at all the evidence, circumstantial and otherwise, and decide if any other theories as to where this woman is are ridiculous enough to be "beyond a reasonable doubt". Yes, there are lots of reasons you can come up with for why someone might remove the front seat of their car. The question is, do those reasons make sense. Are they reasonable. *That* is not what is important, not whether the evidence is "circumstantial".
Well, if you'd read the article summary, you'd see that their second free title was a hugo nomimated work...
Yes. I spent many, many hours playing Duke single player, then playing online over the now long dead TEN network. I played it pretty constantly for around a year. Hell, when I played it, I'd already been playing video games for ten years. I have been playing since the days of Castle Wolfenstein. (And no, I do not mean the game from id that was the first fps.) The first console I ever had was a pong set my parents bought new when I was twelve. That was thirty years ago.
Last night, I spent an hour playing Pixel Junk Monsters, than a couple running through Half-life 2. (I played the original on the PC, but figured I'd make another run to get used to console controls.)
Not that I am at all holding my breath for this. In 1998 I might have been interested. Now there's too many other games that are actually sitting on my desk to worry about vaporware. (The nice thing about being a 40+ year old gamer is that I have the disposable income to get pretty much whatever I want.)
So how do I, as a voter, know that the machine I am voting on is running binaries based on the source code that it purports to be using?
Whether the source code is open source or not doesn't change this.
To describe it simply, for each gene, the mother's makeup would be X1X2. Any clone would have this exact makeup, X1X2. Any egg would be either X1 or X2. Any sperm generated in this fashion would be X1 or X2. Combining any random sperm and egg gives you the following possible results: X1X2, X1X1 or X2X2. Over the set of all genes, the chance of getting a true clone would be exceedingly low.
It would also still be in its cage if the zoo had built a wall of the recommended height.
The first serious program I ever wrote was a game for the Apple ][+.
Want to buy my betamax player? It comes with ten free movies!
I've let my kid play videogames with me, or watch me play since he was three. He's now five. But as with TV, we restrict it quite a bit. He should be spending most of his time coloring, constructing, reading, etc.
I personally think that games are better than TV, but that both are bad if that's all the kid ever does. Five ours sitting in front of the tube is bad, regardless of whether the kid has a controller in his hands.
The other rule is that he plays games with us, not alone. (Well, me...my wife doesn't game.) Videogames aren't there to babysit the kid. They're a father-son bonding experience.
By that argument, buying gasoline at the service station is also anti-egalitarian.
You mean, they're charging people differently based on their religion? Their race? Their social class? Are they not charging people regardless of who they are?
Charging people more for things in higher demand is called "capitalism". Perhaps that is anti-egalitarian, but this particular instance is no more anti-egalitarian then, say, charging people more for higher quality health care, or charging people more for better quality food.
I suspect it has to do with the label on the first version of OS/2 I used: "Microsoft OS/2 version 1.0".
I know they purged most of the original Microsoft code, but it wouldn't surprise me if there are little bits running about, or if they have some contractual restriction from the original days when this started as a joint project with Microsoft.
Before we had progress bars, we had spinners. You displayed the following characters in rapid succession: \|/-
You did it because it made users report that your program was faster even when it wasn't. Any movement on the screen makes users think that the machine is "doing something".
Darwinian natural selection has an element of randomness in that "natural selection" promotes those randomly produced mutations that increase the animal's likelihood of survival. Every other theory I've heard of assumes a *more* deterministic process.
The key to understanding evolution by natural selection is understanding how the process of natural selection creates an ordered progression of animals better adapted to their environment using random mutation as the engine.
Breaking news: replacement batteries are $129 with free install.
The trouble isn't the OS. The trouble is application code written to assume that time is a 32 bit value. I've no doubt that there is code like that around still. (Though I highly doubt much will be in operation in 30 years.)
I plan on making a mint using my mad C skillz in 2036 and 2037, just like all those Cobol guys who came out of retirement in 1998.
"Lunar Lander" on a high-end HP calculator in '75. This was the version where the only UI was a changing number on the display. (My uncle worked for HP.)