That would actually be a bad thing for open source, because it would set bad precedent. It would be much better to wait for the case to be resolved. If and only if it turns out SCO code really is in the kernel should the offending code be replaced. I'd be much more interested in seeing the CVS history of the lines in question -- who put them in and when -- than I'd be in seeing a new "SCO-free" kernel.
The way I read it, Godel's theorem simply means that any math system which could contain the statement "This statement is false" is simply incomplete, because it is impossible to prove or disprove that statement using the axioms of that system. But that's no big deal; Godels' theorem basically says that all math systems are incomplete anyway -- the bag can't hold itself, so to speak.
So, you have two choices -- discard the Liar's Paradox as inapplicable/irrelevant to your system of symbolic logic due to the fact that it cannot be proved or disproved, or extend your system to allow a way to resolve it.
The first quiz is broken. It says I didn't give answers to two questions (3 and 5) when I gave the correct answers. Looks like it was thrown together in a hurry to begin with. Some of the multiple-guess questions use radio buttons and others just use check boxes. Maybe it's cause I'm using a non-IE browser?
That statement is not a paradox. Yes, it's easy to fall into the trap: If the statement is false, then it cannot be true. But if it's not true, then it's not true that it's false, so in fact it is true... Yada yada yada. What you have done is made an assumption about the statement's truth value and then evaluated the statement in terms of that value. In truth, the statement is simply impossible to evaluate and therefore it has no truth value at all. It is very much like how you cannot assign a numeric result to division by zero, or how
results in you having to kill the process (i.e. step outside the bounds of the envionment the code is running in) because you've written an infinite loop. The function can never return and so it has no value, even though you declared it bool.
So, the printer refuses to print something that has a certain pattern of dots/circles/whatevers in it.
So what is to prevent you from simply printing the pattern in two passes, so that each print run bypasses the filter but the end result is the same? The biggest hurdle there would be making sure the second pass properly lines up with the first, so everything is printed in the correct place.
I wasn't aware that my post implied favoritism towards a particular software engineering process model, or that design and programming should be done by separate people. I rather thought I was saying was that (no matter what process you use), you don't necessarily want a crackerjack who can find the optimal solution to any problem and at the same time program in a kitchen sink. What you want is an engineer who can gather, implement, and verify a set of requirements given to him by a customer ("customer" in the sense of whoever he's working for -- manager, other engineer, paying client), while also creating maintainable, documented, and resonably bug-free code.
Oftentimes, both are the same person. But a hotshot programmer who is extremely skilled but can't be bothered to follow the process is probably a liability.
I've found that the key difference between mediocre and excellent programmers is whether or not they know assembly language.
So, the question is, does learning assembly make you a better programmer, or do better programmers tend to learn assembly?
I submit that the latter is the case. In this day and age, "programming" is rapidly giving way to "software engineering". Software engineering is about your development process, which includes requirements gathering, prototyping, technical design, implementation, peer review, and finalization. What you want out of a good programmer is the ability to write standards-compliant code that meets the specified requirements. The good programmer needs to know his libraries and be able to apply the correct algorithm for each particular situation (i.e. use the STL instead of re-inventing the wheel constantly).
I also say that cross-platform software engineering is becoming more important. Assembly is not nearly so cross-platform as practically any high level language you care to mention. Assembly is also not object-oriented.
A good programmer picks up new languages easily, because programming is all about breaking a task down into steps and implementing each step. The process -- the required understanding of logic and math, the ability to translate a requirement into the steps software must execute in order to meet that requirement -- is what the programmer needs. By all means, include assembly language in the curriculum. But educate them top-down, not bottom-up.
No, the article stated that typewriters are still used for that. With respect to dot matrix printing, the article stated they are still used by organizations where low cost and speed are desirable. It said today's dot matrix printers can spit out 2,000 lines per minute at $0.002 per page.
I'd be willing to bet the majority (if not the vast majority) of Slashdot readers simply RTFA, maybe follow the links, and then move along. They have neither the time nor the inclination to read, much less post on, these forums.
Ok, I'm straying totally off topic now. Mod me down, whatever.
You might be surprised. The book was written and first published in "younger" and more "innocent" times, and it caused quite a controversy. Not quite so much as Stranger in a Strange Land, but Starship Troopers wasn't an easily ignored thing. It portrayed women in combat roles as pilots of spaceships. It portrayed non-white and/or non-American characters in most (if not all) of the key roles. It portrayed a society in which the right to vote or hold office was gained only through military service. It contained public flogging and public hanging. It described "police action" that closely parallelled U.S. activities in Korea and later Vietnam -- some of these were acts we would consider terrorism today!
Aside from being controversial, the novel was also hugely inventive. The MI piloted what amounts to Robotech battle mechs.
Now go look up the first publish date and realize that all that was written probably before you were born.
People who have not read the books tend to see them each once at the theater, and come out saying "a pretty good action flick, but kinda slow at times."
The movie Starship Troopers actually spurred sales of the original novel Starship Troopers. Despite the movie being a horrible rendition of the book (emphasis on the "rend"). I may be mistaken but I think the movie actually launched the book back into the bestseller lists (the first time would be when it was first published and won a Hugo award).
No. I used to get confused about lots of words when I was a kid too. I really chewed up the word "annihilate", for example. I read too much and talked too little. And look at me now, still a full-on geek.
I remember having a pocket calculater in the early 80's that played a very simple and addictive little game. It worked using a numeric LCD display. A string of numbers and the occasional letter "n" would march from the right of the display toward the left. On the left was your number. Your goal was to use one button to increment your number and another to fire when it matched some of the numbers marching towards you. When you fired, all of that number were killed, causing the advancing line to retract. If you scored an "n" then the entire advancing numeric army would be wiped out, giving you a breather. The pace would slowly pick up until you simply couldn't keep up any more. There was elementary strategy involved -- do you shoot off this 8 right now, or save it and roll over to the 3 because you can hit three at once?
Throughout human history, technological advancement has been driven primarily by military need. Considering that military force is the ultimate expression of religion, politics, and economics, that should be no surprise.
The Earth is either orbiting the Sun's actual position, or it's orbiting a point that would be about eight minutes in front of the Sun's extrapolated path based on its position and momentum at that given instant.
What I meant to say here is "or it's orbiting a point that would be the Sun's extrapolated position based on constant motion from its position, direction, and velocity about eight minutes ago." That point won't be exactly where the Sun is now but it will be pretty close.
That's what I get for trying to discuss something I'm familiar with but not extremely knowledgeable of at 3:30 in the morning.
When calculating the orbits of celestial bodies, it is necessary to assume that gravity is instantaneous. When an object moves, its gravity appears to move with it instantly. The earth appears to orbit the Sun's present position rather than where the sun appears to be due to speed-of-light delay.
As I understand it, though, there are two ways to look at it. The Earth is approximately 8 light-minutes from the Sun. The Earth is either orbiting the Sun's actual position, or it's orbiting a point that would be about eight minutes in front of the Sun's extrapolated path based on its position and momentum at that given instant.
It comes down to a question of whether or not gravity is a field or a particle. If it's a particle, then it must travel at some unimaginable speed. If it's a field then it would share some of the properties (like velocity and direction) of the object that generates it, and changes to the field would propagate outward from the object at the speed of light. These changes to an object's field of gravity are thought to produce "gravity waves" that have yet to be detected.
I could very well be muddled on this subject but I have done some reading on it. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Sounds a bit like Orson Scott Card's "ansible". Realistically, I doubt quantum entanglement actually implies that changing the state of one particle has any effect on the other particle other than to break the entanglement. As I understand it, entanglement is more of a philosophical link between quantum particles. For example, if you have two photons whose polarization is entangled such that they are opposites, then all that means is if you determine the polarization of one then you know the polarization of the other. However, measuring the polarization of one of them by necessity changes that photon's state, so the entanglement is broken. You are left with no entanglement but knowledge of a quantum particle's state gained without changing that state.
At least that's my layman's understanding of it. One of you slashdotting quantum physicists please correct me if I'm wrong.
Not only that, but it captures the digital data stream directly from the satellite. So, all DirecTiVos have 100% recording quality -- watching something prerecorded looks and sounds exactly as if you're watching the channel live. DirecTiVo is love!
Yeah, and then two of of these married couples who are not married could have a bastard son and name him Michael. Then, when the mission falls apart and everybody winds up dead, the boy will be raised by Martians and eventually return to Earth to bring us back to God, Martian style.
I've withdrawn from both fairly recently. My advice to you is, just deal with it for three or four days, then no more problem. That even applies to going cold turkey off cigarettes.
I experienced headaches from the caffeine withdrawal, so I took ibuprofen. Drinking lots of water helps. Like, one to two gallons a day. You'll urinate a lot, but there are worse things that can happen.
Nicotine withdrawal was...interesting. First you have to be serious about wanting to quit. You are going to feel like crap. But, truth be told, having a common cold feels worse. So just be prepared to deal with it. I went cold turkey. I couldn't sleep on the third night, so I felt extra crappy on the fourth day. But by the fifth day there were no more symptoms AT ALL. For this reason, and because every single other person I know who quit smoking did it by going cold turkey, I strongly advize not buying any nicotine gum or patches. Just show the guts it takes to freaking quit, and do it.
I feel that most addiction withdrawal pains are psychological. I still think about lighting up every now and again. But it's not a craving -- it's just a little part of my years-long habit poking its head up out of the hole I buried it in to say "hi" every now and again.
Slashdot Mirror
That would actually be a bad thing for open source, because it would set bad precedent. It would be much better to wait for the case to be resolved. If and only if it turns out SCO code really is in the kernel should the offending code be replaced. I'd be much more interested in seeing the CVS history of the lines in question -- who put them in and when -- than I'd be in seeing a new "SCO-free" kernel.
The way I read it, Godel's theorem simply means that any math system which could contain the statement "This statement is false" is simply incomplete, because it is impossible to prove or disprove that statement using the axioms of that system. But that's no big deal; Godels' theorem basically says that all math systems are incomplete anyway -- the bag can't hold itself, so to speak.
So, you have two choices -- discard the Liar's Paradox as inapplicable/irrelevant to your system of symbolic logic due to the fact that it cannot be proved or disproved, or extend your system to allow a way to resolve it.
The first quiz is broken. It says I didn't give answers to two questions (3 and 5) when I gave the correct answers. Looks like it was thrown together in a hurry to begin with. Some of the multiple-guess questions use radio buttons and others just use check boxes. Maybe it's cause I'm using a non-IE browser?
So, the printer refuses to print something that has a certain pattern of dots/circles/whatevers in it.
So what is to prevent you from simply printing the pattern in two passes, so that each print run bypasses the filter but the end result is the same? The biggest hurdle there would be making sure the second pass properly lines up with the first, so everything is printed in the correct place.
I wasn't aware that my post implied favoritism towards a particular software engineering process model, or that design and programming should be done by separate people. I rather thought I was saying was that (no matter what process you use), you don't necessarily want a crackerjack who can find the optimal solution to any problem and at the same time program in a kitchen sink. What you want is an engineer who can gather, implement, and verify a set of requirements given to him by a customer ("customer" in the sense of whoever he's working for -- manager, other engineer, paying client), while also creating maintainable, documented, and resonably bug-free code.
Oftentimes, both are the same person. But a hotshot programmer who is extremely skilled but can't be bothered to follow the process is probably a liability.
I submit that the latter is the case. In this day and age, "programming" is rapidly giving way to "software engineering". Software engineering is about your development process, which includes requirements gathering, prototyping, technical design, implementation, peer review, and finalization. What you want out of a good programmer is the ability to write standards-compliant code that meets the specified requirements. The good programmer needs to know his libraries and be able to apply the correct algorithm for each particular situation (i.e. use the STL instead of re-inventing the wheel constantly).
I also say that cross-platform software engineering is becoming more important. Assembly is not nearly so cross-platform as practically any high level language you care to mention. Assembly is also not object-oriented.
A good programmer picks up new languages easily, because programming is all about breaking a task down into steps and implementing each step. The process -- the required understanding of logic and math, the ability to translate a requirement into the steps software must execute in order to meet that requirement -- is what the programmer needs. By all means, include assembly language in the curriculum. But educate them top-down, not bottom-up.
No, the article stated that typewriters are still used for that. With respect to dot matrix printing, the article stated they are still used by organizations where low cost and speed are desirable. It said today's dot matrix printers can spit out 2,000 lines per minute at $0.002 per page.
I'd be willing to bet the majority (if not the vast majority) of Slashdot readers simply RTFA, maybe follow the links, and then move along. They have neither the time nor the inclination to read, much less post on, these forums.
Ok, I'm straying totally off topic now. Mod me down, whatever.
You might be surprised. The book was written and first published in "younger" and more "innocent" times, and it caused quite a controversy. Not quite so much as Stranger in a Strange Land, but Starship Troopers wasn't an easily ignored thing. It portrayed women in combat roles as pilots of spaceships. It portrayed non-white and/or non-American characters in most (if not all) of the key roles. It portrayed a society in which the right to vote or hold office was gained only through military service. It contained public flogging and public hanging. It described "police action" that closely parallelled U.S. activities in Korea and later Vietnam -- some of these were acts we would consider terrorism today!
Aside from being controversial, the novel was also hugely inventive. The MI piloted what amounts to Robotech battle mechs.
Now go look up the first publish date and realize that all that was written probably before you were born.
The movie Starship Troopers actually spurred sales of the original novel Starship Troopers. Despite the movie being a horrible rendition of the book (emphasis on the "rend"). I may be mistaken but I think the movie actually launched the book back into the bestseller lists (the first time would be when it was first published and won a Hugo award).
Someone wasted a mod point on this. Hey, anybody else want to be a complete ass hat? Hint: This post should get: -1, Troll. Fucker.
No. I used to get confused about lots of words when I was a kid too. I really chewed up the word "annihilate", for example. I read too much and talked too little. And look at me now, still a full-on geek.
I remember having a pocket calculater in the early 80's that played a very simple and addictive little game. It worked using a numeric LCD display. A string of numbers and the occasional letter "n" would march from the right of the display toward the left. On the left was your number. Your goal was to use one button to increment your number and another to fire when it matched some of the numbers marching towards you. When you fired, all of that number were killed, causing the advancing line to retract. If you scored an "n" then the entire advancing numeric army would be wiped out, giving you a breather. The pace would slowly pick up until you simply couldn't keep up any more. There was elementary strategy involved -- do you shoot off this 8 right now, or save it and roll over to the 3 because you can hit three at once?
Good times.
SCO: Australian for fraud.
Throughout human history, technological advancement has been driven primarily by military need. Considering that military force is the ultimate expression of religion, politics, and economics, that should be no surprise.
The word you are looking for is "oxymoron".
That's what I get for trying to discuss something I'm familiar with but not extremely knowledgeable of at 3:30 in the morning.
When calculating the orbits of celestial bodies, it is necessary to assume that gravity is instantaneous. When an object moves, its gravity appears to move with it instantly. The earth appears to orbit the Sun's present position rather than where the sun appears to be due to speed-of-light delay.
As I understand it, though, there are two ways to look at it. The Earth is approximately 8 light-minutes from the Sun. The Earth is either orbiting the Sun's actual position, or it's orbiting a point that would be about eight minutes in front of the Sun's extrapolated path based on its position and momentum at that given instant.
It comes down to a question of whether or not gravity is a field or a particle. If it's a particle, then it must travel at some unimaginable speed. If it's a field then it would share some of the properties (like velocity and direction) of the object that generates it, and changes to the field would propagate outward from the object at the speed of light. These changes to an object's field of gravity are thought to produce "gravity waves" that have yet to be detected.
I could very well be muddled on this subject but I have done some reading on it. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Sounds a bit like Orson Scott Card's "ansible". Realistically, I doubt quantum entanglement actually implies that changing the state of one particle has any effect on the other particle other than to break the entanglement. As I understand it, entanglement is more of a philosophical link between quantum particles. For example, if you have two photons whose polarization is entangled such that they are opposites, then all that means is if you determine the polarization of one then you know the polarization of the other. However, measuring the polarization of one of them by necessity changes that photon's state, so the entanglement is broken. You are left with no entanglement but knowledge of a quantum particle's state gained without changing that state.
At least that's my layman's understanding of it. One of you slashdotting quantum physicists please correct me if I'm wrong.
Not only that, but it captures the digital data stream directly from the satellite. So, all DirecTiVos have 100% recording quality -- watching something prerecorded looks and sounds exactly as if you're watching the channel live. DirecTiVo is love!
Yeah, and then two of of these married couples who are not married could have a bastard son and name him Michael. Then, when the mission falls apart and everybody winds up dead, the boy will be raised by Martians and eventually return to Earth to bring us back to God, Martian style.
If only we could pick the moderations we meta-moderate.
I've withdrawn from both fairly recently. My advice to you is, just deal with it for three or four days, then no more problem. That even applies to going cold turkey off cigarettes.
I experienced headaches from the caffeine withdrawal, so I took ibuprofen. Drinking lots of water helps. Like, one to two gallons a day. You'll urinate a lot, but there are worse things that can happen.
Nicotine withdrawal was...interesting. First you have to be serious about wanting to quit. You are going to feel like crap. But, truth be told, having a common cold feels worse. So just be prepared to deal with it. I went cold turkey. I couldn't sleep on the third night, so I felt extra crappy on the fourth day. But by the fifth day there were no more symptoms AT ALL. For this reason, and because every single other person I know who quit smoking did it by going cold turkey, I strongly advize not buying any nicotine gum or patches. Just show the guts it takes to freaking quit, and do it.
I feel that most addiction withdrawal pains are psychological. I still think about lighting up every now and again. But it's not a craving -- it's just a little part of my years-long habit poking its head up out of the hole I buried it in to say "hi" every now and again.