My prediction is that we stop pronouncing it 'E'-mail and start calling it 'emmail' because it's quicker to say.
"long" vowels in english aren't actually longer than "short" vowels. Those terms are merely left over from a time in which it was. Phoneticists actually use the respective terms "tense" and "lax" these days instead. If you destress a syllable then it WILL be shorter, but that's not all that relevant.
Also, if you wanted to use the lax vowel corresponding to the sound in email it would be immail, which people do say fairly often, although you have to intercept the sounds before they get turned into english by your brain to notice. (I'd say that people don't say immail instead of email because it's shorter, but because it's easier, which is a more compelling phonological reason anyways.)
As an application developer I still basically need to make sure my code works with windows 95. What, they fixed that bug in win98SE? Or maybe this essential OS feature is provided if you have Internet Explorer v4.0 or higher instaleld! Too bad I can't use any of that!
Well, I'm always hearing about how XFree86 is just a huge kluge; is there a way to start a new project with 100% clean code, aimed towards more modern video card standards? Probably not... lol.
I've railed against this attitude before but here we go again (I think I have something to say this time that I didn't last time)...
The point of writing open source software is not really to solve all the world's software problems. There are several reasons to do it.
To solve a SINGLE user (the programmer's)problem.
To dink around with code, which is fun.
To learn stuff, which is fun.
I'm working on a project which I GPL'd a few days ago*.. I realize that there are probably other apps do something similar to what I am writing. However I get personal gratification out of writing software. It's a creative process, and I feel better when I make stuff that seems cool to me than when I don't.
I also do not feel that I should hide the source code that I developed for fun. If anyone else can have fun with it, that's great too. If anyone else can have fun with AND make it better at the same time, that's even better!
I think this article says that I should not work on stuff if there is already something which I could modify towards my ends. But my goal is not conservation of work, it's to write something cool (note: this is NOT the same as "add a small feature to an existing cool thing" or "fix bugs in something cool"). The only other choice is "only a few hobbyist written programmes should be GPL'd, so there aren't too many", and that's just dumb.
In my opinion, the reason Open Source Software works is because it's not coordinated at all. If I want to write something I can do so without really thinking about bigger projects, without thinking about other people's licenses, their coding conventions, et cetera. I can just dive in. None of these were really written by the community. They're written by invidividuals. That's why it all works.
*It's still pre-alpha, and I'm not linking to it until it works.
It's interesting to notice that audiophiles often focus on vinyl's claimed (but untrue) higher recordable frequencies, but neglect the far more important quantisation errors
Yes, you can exactly reproduce signals with the maximum frequency up to half of the sampling rate. But wait, you say, rate/2 hz square waves get turned into sines! I say: No! A rate/2 hz square wave has [infinitely] many frequency components above it's base frequency. By saying that a 22khz square wave has no frequency components above 22khz is just a lie! (tidbit: This is true of any signal whose value or any of it's derivitives are not continuous)
The reason is that, supposedly, life started in the ocean, which is opaque to UV life. This is one of the strongest reasons many scientists think that oceans are necessary for life, which is why they're so keen on Europa.
Any audio compression works by removing "parts" of the audio that you don't hear. However none of them work by removing "all" of the audio that you don't hear.
I agree to a certain extent. One thing that pisses me off is watching all of the duplication of effort in the Open Source Community
Duplication of effort is what open source software's about though! Well, not quite but:
Developers work on what they want to work on. You can't reassign them as though doing OSS development is their job or something.
Parallel development is a good thing. The way Open Source development coordinates tens of thousands of developers (or however many) is by saying "go do what interests you", and.. well, no two people write the exact same programme. If it's all open source eventually the best ideas get integrated.
In fact, I would say that open source development is a good example of mimetic evolution. Multiple programmes sharing the same niche allows more vectors for improvement. The more journaling filesystems that bring ideas to US the better off we are! (given that we're working with a modular kernal that can support multiple filesystems formats easily).
I percieve that "why are you wasting your time working on similar projects" argument as a whining remark that not every developer in the world is focusing their energy directly on making your life better.
Re:NP Non-deterministic Polynomial
on
Does P = NP?
·
· Score: 1
I should have added "for smallish N". really what I meant though is that current E(N) techniques of solving NP complete problems paralelize well. But the reason I bring it up is that there were some posts earlier talking about people's brains doing NP complete problems 'quickly', and that was my guess as to why.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps not, but a gaming machine was the designers' original conception of it. They weren't even going to put a keyboard on it at first!
But handcuffing it to your dominant hand lets you get a better swing with it.
I think he meant improved startup time. :p
If they made Java a completely Open System, designed by industry consensus
Um. You kind of have to decide how you're going to design something BEFORE you do it, rather than afterwards.
Chernobyl is russian for wormwood. I am fairly certain "mir" has no related mean.
My prediction is that we stop pronouncing it 'E'-mail and start calling it 'emmail' because it's quicker to say.
"long" vowels in english aren't actually longer than "short" vowels. Those terms are merely left over from a time in which it was. Phoneticists actually use the respective terms "tense" and "lax" these days instead. If you destress a syllable then it WILL be shorter, but that's not all that relevant.
Also, if you wanted to use the lax vowel corresponding to the sound in email it would be immail, which people do say fairly often, although you have to intercept the sounds before they get turned into english by your brain to notice. (I'd say that people don't say immail instead of email because it's shorter, but because it's easier, which is a more compelling phonological reason anyways.)
Also, we make almost everything you see in K-mart, so we don't give a shit what the US thinks - they need us more than we need them.
That's not how economics works..
I bet they didn't fully index my random link page.
Who cares about W95, 98 or ME?
As an application developer I still basically need to make sure my code works with windows 95. What, they fixed that bug in win98SE? Or maybe this essential OS feature is provided if you have Internet Explorer v4.0 or higher instaleld! Too bad I can't use any of that!
Yeah, typically, but there was a mix up with Amish Paradise, and he didn't in fact have permission, but Coolio had no legal recourse.
Okay, throw in unicode support and your choices are reduced dramatically.
Look, there are (as we learned yesterday) 148 open source text editors. Look at the bloody source!
I have yet to see a text editor open source or closed, that doesn't suck. Maybe that's why people keep trying to write them.
Well, I'm always hearing about how XFree86 is just a huge kluge; is there a way to start a new project with 100% clean code, aimed towards more modern video card standards? Probably not... lol.
That's what Berlin is all about.
The point of writing open source software is not really to solve all the world's software problems. There are several reasons to do it.
- To solve a SINGLE user (the programmer's)problem.
- To dink around with code, which is fun.
- To learn stuff, which is fun.
I'm working on a project which I GPL'd a few days ago*.. I realize that there are probably other apps do something similar to what I am writing. However I get personal gratification out of writing software. It's a creative process, and I feel better when I make stuff that seems cool to me than when I don't.I also do not feel that I should hide the source code that I developed for fun. If anyone else can have fun with it, that's great too. If anyone else can have fun with AND make it better at the same time, that's even better!
I think this article says that I should not work on stuff if there is already something which I could modify towards my ends. But my goal is not conservation of work, it's to write something cool (note: this is NOT the same as "add a small feature to an existing cool thing" or "fix bugs in something cool"). The only other choice is "only a few hobbyist written programmes should be GPL'd, so there aren't too many", and that's just dumb.
In my opinion, the reason Open Source Software works is because it's not coordinated at all. If I want to write something I can do so without really thinking about bigger projects, without thinking about other people's licenses, their coding conventions, et cetera. I can just dive in. None of these were really written by the community. They're written by invidividuals. That's why it all works.
*It's still pre-alpha, and I'm not linking to it until it works.
As someone who doesn't live in either china or india, I don't find your argument very compelling.
Similarly you should be disallowed from driving while talking with a passenger.
It's interesting to notice that audiophiles often focus on vinyl's claimed (but untrue) higher recordable frequencies, but neglect the far more important quantisation errors
What's the dynamic range of vinyl?
Okay, what everyone's missing here, is:
Yes, you can exactly reproduce signals with the maximum frequency up to half of the sampling rate. But wait, you say, rate/2 hz square waves get turned into sines! I say: No! A rate/2 hz square wave has [infinitely] many frequency components above it's base frequency. By saying that a 22khz square wave has no frequency components above 22khz is just a lie! (tidbit: This is true of any signal whose value or any of it's derivitives are not continuous)
The reason is that, supposedly, life started in the ocean, which is opaque to UV life. This is one of the strongest reasons many scientists think that oceans are necessary for life, which is why they're so keen on Europa.
Any audio compression works by removing "parts" of the audio that you don't hear. However none of them work by removing "all" of the audio that you don't hear.
I don't have any conclusive evidence that this is hogwash, but it does remind me a lot of other audiophile bullshit.
Duplication of effort is what open source software's about though! Well, not quite but:
- Developers work on what they want to work on. You can't reassign them as though doing OSS development is their job or something.
- Parallel development is a good thing. The way Open Source development coordinates tens of thousands of developers (or however many) is by saying "go do what interests you", and
.. well, no two people write the exact same programme. If it's all open source eventually the best ideas get integrated.
I percieve that "why are you wasting your time working on similar projects" argument as a whining remark that not every developer in the world is focusing their energy directly on making your life better.In fact, I would say that open source development is a good example of mimetic evolution. Multiple programmes sharing the same niche allows more vectors for improvement. The more journaling filesystems that bring ideas to US the better off we are! (given that we're working with a modular kernal that can support multiple filesystems formats easily).
I should have added "for smallish N". really what I meant though is that current E(N) techniques of solving NP complete problems paralelize well. But the reason I bring it up is that there were some posts earlier talking about people's brains doing NP complete problems 'quickly', and that was my guess as to why.
I have discovered a solution to the stationary salesman problem that takes polynomial time, however it is too stupid to fit in this post.