But that sounds way too difficult for me. You must be so clever!
Which sums up the impression I get reading your average xkcd strip, if I'm not about to hurl at Munroe's insipid melancholy. It turns out you don't need to be that clever; nevertheless I am in xkcd's presumed target audience, and despite getting many of the gags still don't find them that funny. Moreover, I cannot see what the hell my peers think is so great about it. Seriously, do they need a bunch of mathsier-than-thou stick drawings to reaffirm their abilities? Roughly speaking, xkcd is to geeks what The Mighty Boosh is to trendy undergrads. As far as I can see, they're both guilty of flattering their respective audiences to the point where the latter forgets that anything comic should, at least once in a while, make one laugh.
It's not the shittiness that's xkcd's real problem, it's the general smugness and smart-arsed nature of a lot of it. And this is coming from someone whose day job is research in a numerate science.
Uhhh, which are what, exactly? The mass of the Higgs? Yeah, that's worth 16 billion.
Can anyone name a single discovery in HEP in the last 25 years that has led to a practical improvement of anything whatsoever? The only thing HEP has generated is paper.
Bell. Well, we did it Watson. What an afternoon. We finally perfected the first telephone. Watson. Yeah, uh, hey listen, somebody called me today. Uh, whoever it was, said some very sexual things, very angry, sexual things. Bell. Oh, really? Probably just some teenagers somewhere...
Let's ask a similar question. Suppose that this time, rather than clicking on a button, your cat-controlled actuator pulls the trigger of a firearm aimed at living person's head. One hopes that in this case you'd not only be unable to deny responsibility, but indeed that you'd also be prosecuted for murder.
Slashdot Mirror
You keep your quatloos to yourself. I'll stick to my flushing Western pedestal, thank-you very much.
Now come on, any film with the word "tensor" in the script counts as sci-fi.
So, was this used to drive a very early model of EMH?
Daisy-chaining requires two ports on all but the end switches.
Which sums up the impression I get reading your average xkcd strip, if I'm not about to hurl at Munroe's insipid melancholy. It turns out you don't need to be that clever; nevertheless I am in xkcd's presumed target audience, and despite getting many of the gags still don't find them that funny. Moreover, I cannot see what the hell my peers think is so great about it. Seriously, do they need a bunch of mathsier-than-thou stick drawings to reaffirm their abilities? Roughly speaking, xkcd is to geeks what The Mighty Boosh is to trendy undergrads. As far as I can see, they're both guilty of flattering their respective audiences to the point where the latter forgets that anything comic should, at least once in a while, make one laugh.
It's not the shittiness that's xkcd's real problem, it's the general smugness and smart-arsed nature of a lot of it. And this is coming from someone whose day job is research in a numerate science.
Probably unimplemented DRM. By forming a secure input path, it furnishes printed material content protection --- by stopping you from typing it in.
Of course! There's only little fluffy clouds out there.
Until recently, VxWorks. Newer models (DIG!C 3 onwards?) use something Canon developed in-house.
...piss-take.
Why would anyone make that assumption when designing an IPC mechanism?
Now hang on, you forgot The Sport!
Heh, why not just throw the whole mess that is x86 addressing into the pot?
Price of everything/value of nothing.
And from what I've heard, neither have most AIX users.
[james@rhapsody ~]$ diff /usr/bin/less /bin/more /usr/bin/less and /bin/more differ
Binary files
Ne'er was a more appropriate comment spake on these hallow'd pages.
Oh, come on now, not even Terminators run HP-UX.
You've obviously never tried computing Feynman integrals on Mathematica.
Bell. Well, we did it Watson. What an afternoon. We finally perfected the first telephone.
Watson. Yeah, uh, hey listen, somebody called me today. Uh, whoever it was, said some very sexual things, very angry, sexual things.
Bell. Oh, really? Probably just some teenagers somewhere...
You ask it, "How does time-travel work?"
And what might they call this... this New Technology?
OWAIT
Let's ask a similar question. Suppose that this time, rather than clicking on a button, your cat-controlled actuator pulls the trigger of a firearm aimed at living person's head. One hopes that in this case you'd not only be unable to deny responsibility, but indeed that you'd also be prosecuted for murder.
Dude, Star Trek technology (from TNG onwards) was based on optronics, not photonics.