If this were a straight XML format, any XML compatable program would be able to open the files nad print them (aka render them) properly. However, it's more likely a "word viewer" type program that "reads" the XML/propritary output from word.
From TFA: "users will be able to open Metro files without a special client. In the demonstration, a Metro file was opened and printed from Internet Explorer, Microsoft's Web browser."
I'm having trouble imagining a Dalek having that much dialogue. They barely know words other than "Exterminate!".
He commented on the quantity of the Dalek dialogue, not the quality.
For all we know it could go like this: Rose: Hi. So, uh, you're like a robot Dalek Dalek: EXTERMINATE! Rose: Wot? Why are you being like that? Dalek: EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE! Rose: Um, please stop saying that. Dalek: EXTERMINATE!... etc...
Isn't that a bit of a disparaging name in English as it is spoken in the Olde Country?
Yes.
Linus using it despite/becuase of this is typical of his sense of humour. From TFA: Torvalds recognizes Git isn't flawless: "I'm proud of Git, but let's face it, it definitely has some rough edges.
Learn the difference between "Camel riding robots" and "Camel-riding Robots". The hypen makes quite a difference; in "Camel riding robots" the robots will have to welcome their new camel overlord.
Free markets have their own inefficiencies. There's the cost of having several different competing groups doing the same thing in different ways, costs to those several groups of all bidding for the same contract, which not all will get.
Also, a market incurs a lot of new costs, simply because whenever there is an interface between two commercial organisations, there is a lot of time and effort spent on each side of that interface making sure that your own interests are being served, e.g. contract negotiation and "client liason". To say nothing of when it goes wrong - litigation, etc.
However free markets work better in many, if not most cases. E.g. Telcom deregulation has mostly ben a great sucess.
There some areas where free markets are not better. E.g. The breakup of British Rail is now widely seen as a costly mistake. Can you say with a straight face that the USA's free markets provide better heathcare on average to all people than the European model of state healthcare?
Likewise, democracy isn't free - ballot papers, counting them, and beaurocratic upheavals when the government changes every few years all cost, but we find it worthwhile.
iBATIS looks at first glance like Teh suck. Where's the basic documentation?
ie, From the front page of http://www.ibatis.com/ click on the small "Wiki, FAQ, IRC" link. Near the bottom of that page, locate a tiny "FAQ" link and click it, and go to a page that tells you that "Frequently 20Asked 20Questions This page does not exist yet." And suggests I try "Frequently Asked Questions" instead. Click this, and at long last you get to the FAQ
- The FAQ does not answer the questions "What is iBATIS?", "What does iBATIS do?", "why/when would I want to use iBATIS?" or any closely related question. I get bored and wander off in search of a meaningful interaction.
However, critics of computer-aided proofs say that the proofs are hard to verify due to the large number of steps and hence, may be inherently flawed.
Nonsense. If people can't verify proofs, then what you need to do is to verify them by computer:)
I'm not entirely joking here - so long as the verification program is written independantly of the thoerem-proving program, and it can reliably distinguish between valid and invalid logical inferences, what's the problem? It's simple automated testing methods really.
If the event horizon is a function of gravity, shouldn't it be easy to escape a black hole using a magetic drive?
That's not insightful. It doesn't even make sense. Would you also say that since it is gravity is what pulls aircraft downwards, so therefor magnetic lifting would be more efficient than other forms of opposing gravity's force. I wouldn't, because it's gibberish.
his means there are 2 event horizons, one for gravity and the other for magnetism.
Why stop with just two? For any propusion ssytem, there's a distance at which you are trapped.
I think you'd find that the horizon for light would be the innermost one, and outside of it, craft which are doomed due thier sub-optimal propulsion systems will still be able to communicate by sending light (As they are shredded by tidal forces), and thus are not beyond the real event horizon.
So any legal material that doesn't fit their leftist worldview will be censored... how nice...
No, you idiot, it will just fail to be promoted by this site. There is a big difference. You can do the same kind of thing with your right-wing attack site if you so wish. At the least you can agree that there is a market for news for leftists (whatever "leftist" means - in the USA it apparently means anyone who is not a rabid neocon)
What I want to see is for this to have no biases
So make your own. The existence of this site doesn't stop you doing that, and good luck; you'll need it in heaps. Unbiased news is very difficult, arguably impossible.
I want no political slanting of what gets in, I would far rather it be noted for the fairness of their coverage.
If a piece of code is too big to test exhaustively, it's time to refactor it into bits that can be.
Yeah, I told that to my boss about the product that my predecessors have been working on for years, without any test cases. Internally it's a convoluted entwined mess. I estimated about a man-year to break it down and build it up again, with exhaustive test cases of all the parts. He laughed at the idea, and didn't see the business benefit.
This is just an excuse for badly designed code bases.
So what do you do with them when you are handed them?
P2P is a tool, just like a screwdriver, hammer, knife, or gun. The hands that you put tools in decide how the tool is going to be used.
From reading up on gun control, that's a deeply flawed argument. A hammer is a fairly general purpose tool for bashing things. A screwdriver is designed for screwing in screws. With a little imagination it can be turned to other purposes - opening paint pots, stirring paint, stabbing people. An AK-47 Assault rifle is a tool designed for the purpose of killing people. It is quite difficult to put it to any other purpose, and while doing so, the danger of someone accidentally getting killed anyway is quite high.
Napster 1 went down because the court was convinced that it wasn't a general purpose tool, but specifically a copyright-infringment tool. That's still the issue at stake.
And there are more than thousands of running Linux kernels other there. The point of TFA is that you can build a new program any time. Just copy the executable. The source is a design for that executable.
Imagine describing the F-16 to "anybody", and expecting them to come up with the design for a new fighter jet. That's the equivalent of describing the source, and expecting its techniques to be applied in a new program. You'd have to be some kind of engineering Picasso to do that.
That's a medical database. You haven't specified any search terms. Entering "asthma hearing" as search terms shows such highly relevant matches as "Incidence and outcome of congenital cytomegalovirus infection in selected groups of preterm and full-term neonates" and "mitochondrial DNA mutation and age related maculopathy".
Backtracking now?
Look, I'm open-minded but skeptical. I'd like to see evidence. Really.
Slashdot Mirror
If this were a straight XML format, any XML compatable program would be able to open the files nad print them (aka render them) properly. However, it's more likely a "word viewer" type program that "reads" the XML/propritary output from word.
From TFA: "users will be able to open Metro files without a special client. In the demonstration, a Metro file was opened and printed from Internet Explorer, Microsoft's Web browser."
I'm having trouble imagining a Dalek having that much dialogue. They barely know words other than "Exterminate!".
... etc...
He commented on the quantity of the Dalek dialogue, not the quality.
For all we know it could go like this:
Rose: Hi. So, uh, you're like a robot Dalek
Dalek: EXTERMINATE!
Rose: Wot? Why are you being like that?
Dalek: EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!
Rose: Um, please stop saying that.
Dalek: EXTERMINATE!
The torrents and eMule links usually crop up within 24 hours of the episode airing, which happens at 7pm UK time next Saturday.
Eyeballing the code is one thing, running it and poking at it is another, and a comprehensive automated test suite is yet another thing.
Isn't that a bit of a disparaging name in English as it is spoken in the Olde Country?
Yes.
Linus using it despite/becuase of this is typical of his sense of humour. From TFA:
Torvalds recognizes Git isn't flawless: "I'm proud of Git, but let's face it, it definitely has some rough edges.
2. Elven
Elvish. Or if you want to be technical, Quenya and Sindarin.
Learn the difference between "Camel riding robots" and "Camel-riding Robots". The hypen makes quite a difference; in "Camel riding robots" the robots will have to welcome their new camel overlord.
I'm not diagreeing, just going into details.
Free markets have their own inefficiencies. There's the cost of having several different competing groups doing the same thing in different ways, costs to those several groups of all bidding for the same contract, which not all will get.
Also, a market incurs a lot of new costs, simply because whenever there is an interface between two commercial organisations, there is a lot of time and effort spent on each side of that interface making sure that your own interests are being served, e.g. contract negotiation and "client liason". To say nothing of when it goes wrong - litigation, etc.
However free markets work better in many, if not most cases. E.g. Telcom deregulation has mostly ben a great sucess.
There some areas where free markets are not better. E.g. The breakup of British Rail is now widely seen as a costly mistake. Can you say with a straight face that the USA's free markets provide better heathcare on average to all people than the European model of state healthcare?
Likewise, democracy isn't free - ballot papers, counting them, and beaurocratic upheavals when the government changes every few years all cost, but we find it worthwhile.
"As a libertarian I'm generally against state governments spending tax dollars on services that people would otherwise pay for themselves,"
Why? at times, that's the most efficient way to do it.
iBATIS looks at first glance like Teh suck. Where's the basic documentation?
ie, From the front page of http://www.ibatis.com/ click on the small "Wiki, FAQ, IRC" link. Near the bottom of that page, locate a tiny "FAQ" link and click it, and go to a page that tells you that "Frequently 20Asked 20Questions This page does not exist yet." And suggests I try "Frequently Asked Questions" instead. Click this, and at long last you get to the FAQ
- The FAQ does not answer the questions "What is iBATIS?", "What does iBATIS do?", "why/when would I want to use iBATIS?" or any closely related question. I get bored and wander off in search of a meaningful interaction.
Ha ha. Is finding a fault in a theorem the same as, or even in the same category as, The halting problem?
However, critics of computer-aided proofs say that the proofs are hard to verify due to the large number of steps and hence, may be inherently flawed.
:)
Nonsense. If people can't verify proofs, then what you need to do is to verify them by computer
I'm not entirely joking here - so long as the verification program is written independantly of the thoerem-proving program, and it can reliably distinguish between valid and invalid logical inferences, what's the problem? It's simple automated testing methods really.
can lead to different results than shorter ones, but both are correct.
That to me is an extraordinary claim, and I'd like to see proof of it.
Anyone interested, read my favorite scince fiction author:
Much as I like Greg Egan, fictoin is never a proof of anything. Because it's, you know, not actual.
If the event horizon is a function of gravity, shouldn't it be easy to escape a black hole using a magetic drive?
That's not insightful. It doesn't even make sense. Would you also say that since it is gravity is what pulls aircraft downwards, so therefor magnetic lifting would be more efficient than other forms of opposing gravity's force. I wouldn't, because it's gibberish.
his means there are 2 event horizons, one for gravity and the other for magnetism.
Why stop with just two? For any propusion ssytem, there's a distance at which you are trapped.
I think you'd find that the horizon for light would be the innermost one, and outside of it, craft which are doomed due thier sub-optimal propulsion systems will still be able to communicate by sending light (As they are shredded by tidal forces), and thus are not beyond the real event horizon.
These tiny blackholes will ... slowly grow one quark at a time
Dude, get with the times. Micro black holes evaporate rapidly due to Hawking radiation. That was known in 1976, more than a quarter century ago.
LLVM would provide a clean interface between portions of gcc, and that clean interface could be so abused.
Good design is good design. Couldn't a clean interface also be used?
During the Civil War ... During the Second World War ... horrendous erosions of civil liberties under the guise of the "War on drugs"
Now please answer this: which is the "war on terror" more like: the Civil war and WW2 on one hand, or the "War on drugs" on the other?
So any legal material that doesn't fit their leftist worldview will be censored... how nice...
No, you idiot, it will just fail to be promoted by this site. There is a big difference. You can do the same kind of thing with your right-wing attack site if you so wish. At the least you can agree that there is a market for news for leftists (whatever "leftist" means - in the USA it apparently means anyone who is not a rabid neocon)
What I want to see is for this to have no biases
So make your own. The existence of this site doesn't stop you doing that, and good luck; you'll need it in heaps. Unbiased news is very difficult, arguably impossible.
I want no political slanting of what gets in, I would far rather it be noted for the fairness of their coverage.
Try the BBC, it comes close.
If a piece of code is too big to test exhaustively, it's time to refactor it into bits that can be.
Yeah, I told that to my boss about the product that my predecessors have been working on for years, without any test cases. Internally it's a convoluted entwined mess. I estimated about a man-year to break it down and build it up again, with exhaustive test cases of all the parts. He laughed at the idea, and didn't see the business benefit.
This is just an excuse for badly designed code bases.
So what do you do with them when you are handed them?
The difference is enough to shake things up for a VB-only programmer.
If you can't handle minor differences in saying the same thing like that, then you have no business calling yourself a programmer.
P2P is a tool, just like a screwdriver, hammer, knife, or gun. The hands that you put tools in decide how the tool is going to be used.
From reading up on gun control, that's a deeply flawed argument. A hammer is a fairly general purpose tool for bashing things. A screwdriver is designed for screwing in screws. With a little imagination it can be turned to other purposes - opening paint pots, stirring paint, stabbing people. An AK-47 Assault rifle is a tool designed for the purpose of killing people. It is quite difficult to put it to any other purpose, and while doing so, the danger of someone accidentally getting killed anyway is quite high.
Napster 1 went down because the court was convinced that it wasn't a general purpose tool, but specifically a copyright-infringment tool. That's still the issue at stake.
there are thousands of F-16s out there.
And there are more than thousands of running Linux kernels other there. The point of TFA is that you can build a new program any time. Just copy the executable. The source is a design for that executable.
Imagine describing the F-16 to "anybody", and expecting them to come up with the design for a new fighter jet. That's the equivalent of describing the source, and expecting its techniques to be applied in a new program. You'd have to be some kind of engineering Picasso to do that.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD= Display&DB=pubmed
That's a medical database. You haven't specified any search terms. Entering "asthma hearing" as search terms shows such highly relevant matches as "Incidence and outcome of congenital cytomegalovirus infection in selected groups of preterm and full-term neonates" and "mitochondrial DNA mutation and age related maculopathy".
Backtracking now?
Look, I'm open-minded but skeptical. I'd like to see evidence. Really.
Correction: You were using "resolution" to refer to the signal intensity.
Yes, or more precisely to refer to the ratio between the loudest and softest sound that can be recorded at the same time.
but with the 44 Khz sample rate standard used by CDs, you are pretty much stuck at a max frequency of 22 KHz
So. What. None of us can hear that high-pitched.