So, you're implying that Microsoft wrote Linux? Meh.
The point you are missing is that "bare-metal code" is assembler, regardless of how much effort is involved. Go ahead and write a real time driver in C, let me know how it works for you.
Probably not measuring the times per sampling, but measuring the time the focus mechanism is moving. To keep costs down, I suspect the mechanism has no feedback mechanism, so to focus you move one way for a set amount of time (guaranteed to hit a mechanical stop). Then the software might keep track of focus position by how long it's driven the lens in one direction or the other starting at that known position (oops, I moved "out" 100 ms, but overshoot, so now I'll move "in" 50 ms). Or it might be that the bug makes it so the lens never gets properly reset to it's starting position.
Which "cases?" He must have been going over the speed limit. What's the other case?
I can understand why the parents contested this is really the police officers word verses the GPS/motorist.
Uh, the officer was using RADAR, so unless you're implying that he lied about what it indicated, it's not a matter of his "word."
Furthermore, the calculations above, which show an average speed of 46.4 MPH, use the interpretation which is most favorable to the driver.
According to the articles, the GPS accurately records a position and speed every 30 seconds. The calculation assumes that he left the stop immediately after the first reading was recorded, and so had the full 30 seconds to travel the reported distance. He could have taken off from the stop 10 seconds after that reading was taken, and covered the given distance in 20 seconds, which would significantly increase his actual speed. In fact, it is very likely that he covered that distance in something less than 30 seconds.
Average speed is easily calculated, based on the statement from this article:
"It recorded Malone sitting at a stoplight at Frates Road and 30 seconds later going 45 mph 2,040 feet farther down the road,"
That would be 2040 ft / 30 sec === 0.386 mi / 0.0833 hr = 46.4 MPH
I personally think this article does not have enough info to make any meaningful decisions from.
No, but it does provide "related links" to other articles which do provide sufficient detail. He started at 0 MPH, ended at 45 MPH, and averaged 46.4 MPH. That can't be done without exceeding the speed limit of 45 MPH.
No one has to read them, if they don't want to. It's a choice. If you have a problem with this, just ignore the books. One might as well complain about all the modern interpretations of Grimm fairy tales.
Uh, those would do nothing in this case, where it appears the entire DB has been lost. You need a regular full backup, or diffs and incrementals are just cruft. It appears they don't even have that, since there's no talk of restoring to month (or ?) old data.
I suspect there are patents related to USB which are licensed to USB users based on compliance with USB-IF rules. So, if Palm breaks the rules (as it appears, deliberately and with advance notice), they may be in legal trouble.
(I did a quick look at usb.org, which doesn't have a good search, so the above is just an assumption)
... in 1979 10base5 cost $thousands per node. In the mid-90's, a 100Mb switch port cost a thousand. In the early '90's, 1000baseT switch ports cost ~$300 each.
Today, 1000baseT is included on $500 laptops, and you can get a 5 port 1000baseT switch for $25. If you think similar things won't happen with 10G, you're wrong.
and 10 gigabit Ethernet is an existing standard, also handles "multiple protocols simultaneously," and depending on the PHY, can go much farther than 100 meters.
It's entirely arbitrary. If you would take the time to understand what is written, you'd see that he's not claiming that 2^10=1024 is arbitrary, but that choosing to inappropriately apply an SI prefix to that value is. It could have been called 1 kibibyte from the start, or the choice could have been made to base multiples on some power which makes more sense in a binary system, such as calling 2^8=256 by some suitably created name (bioct?) and the next multiple (2^16=65536) by some other (bihexd?), etc.
The SI prefixes have well defined meanings, based on powers of 10, and these existed long before computers. This discussion wouldn't exist if those prefixes hadn't been inappropriately usurped for a different purpose.
that this is the first planet found with such an orbit. Would it not require a lengthy sequence of "just right" nudges to produce that outcome? Statistically, wouldn't the second planet be just as likely to pull the first back toward an equatorial orbit on each encounter? Are the orbital mechanics such that retrograde planets coexisting with prograde planets is more stable than, say, having planets end up in polar or high inclination orbits?
Finally, the article explains how they can tell which direction the planet crosses the star, but how do you tell which way the star is rotating?
Slashdot Mirror
...and a correlation between the sunrise and the morning paper.
One guess as to why the most desirable cut of beef is called "tenderloin," and why it is what it is.
So, you're implying that Microsoft wrote Linux? Meh.
The point you are missing is that "bare-metal code" is assembler, regardless of how much effort is involved. Go ahead and write a real time driver in C, let me know how it works for you.
let me know when they start writing "writing tight, bare-metal code" (i.e. assembler). C isn't that.
How are they going to get the fork lift up there in 3 years to do an upgrade?
It was a single line comment. No terminator necessary.
Probably not measuring the times per sampling, but measuring the time the focus mechanism is moving. To keep costs down, I suspect the mechanism has no feedback mechanism, so to focus you move one way for a set amount of time (guaranteed to hit a mechanical stop). Then the software might keep track of focus position by how long it's driven the lens in one direction or the other starting at that known position (oops, I moved "out" 100 ms, but overshoot, so now I'll move "in" 50 ms). Or it might be that the bug makes it so the lens never gets properly reset to it's starting position.
Which "cases?" He must have been going over the speed limit. What's the other case?
Uh, the officer was using RADAR, so unless you're implying that he lied about what it indicated, it's not a matter of his "word."
Furthermore, the calculations above, which show an average speed of 46.4 MPH, use the interpretation which is most favorable to the driver.
According to the articles, the GPS accurately records a position and speed every 30 seconds. The calculation assumes that he left the stop immediately after the first reading was recorded, and so had the full 30 seconds to travel the reported distance. He could have taken off from the stop 10 seconds after that reading was taken, and covered the given distance in 20 seconds, which would significantly increase his actual speed. In fact, it is very likely that he covered that distance in something less than 30 seconds.
Average speed is easily calculated, based on the statement from this article:
That would be 2040 ft / 30 sec === 0.386 mi / 0.0833 hr = 46.4 MPH
No, but it does provide "related links" to other articles which do provide sufficient detail. He started at 0 MPH, ended at 45 MPH, and averaged 46.4 MPH. That can't be done without exceeding the speed limit of 45 MPH.
mod parent up.
No one has to read them, if they don't want to. It's a choice. If you have a problem with this, just ignore the books. One might as well complain about all the modern interpretations of Grimm fairy tales.
"incremental..."weekly binary difference"
Uh, those would do nothing in this case, where it appears the entire DB has been lost. You need a regular full backup, or diffs and incrementals are just cruft. It appears they don't even have that, since there's no talk of restoring to month (or ?) old data.
I suspect there are patents related to USB which are licensed to USB users based on compliance with USB-IF rules. So, if Palm breaks the rules (as it appears, deliberately and with advance notice), they may be in legal trouble.
(I did a quick look at usb.org, which doesn't have a good search, so the above is just an assumption)
This is the government. It's not about "openness" or "accessability," it's all about the appearance of openness and accessability.
...and if he didn't "buy" them, then he's not "selling" them, either, just getting money in exchange for them [sic], same as Autodesk did.
Polls show that 78.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
10G supports optical PHY.
... in 1979 10base5 cost $thousands per node. In the mid-90's, a 100Mb switch port cost a thousand. In the early '90's, 1000baseT switch ports cost ~$300 each.
Today, 1000baseT is included on $500 laptops, and you can get a 5 port 1000baseT switch for $25. If you think similar things won't happen with 10G, you're wrong.
What you describe is similar to the old 10base5 (thicknet) Ethernet. Structured cabling uses a star topology.
and 10 gigabit Ethernet is an existing standard, also handles "multiple protocols simultaneously," and depending on the PHY, can go much farther than 100 meters.
Depends. Did they make and then fail to release any changes to the source?
It's up to the state to protect the secrecy of such information.
Once they're out, then it's free speech.
Not just my opinion. Read up on "prior restraint."
but that thought, or words on a page, are very simply not munitions, disingenuous government definitions be damned.
It's entirely arbitrary. If you would take the time to understand what is written, you'd see that he's not claiming that 2^10=1024 is arbitrary, but that choosing to inappropriately apply an SI prefix to that value is. It could have been called 1 kibibyte from the start, or the choice could have been made to base multiples on some power which makes more sense in a binary system, such as calling 2^8=256 by some suitably created name (bioct?) and the next multiple (2^16=65536) by some other (bihexd?), etc.
The SI prefixes have well defined meanings, based on powers of 10, and these existed long before computers. This discussion wouldn't exist if those prefixes hadn't been inappropriately usurped for a different purpose.
kernel developers are smarter than that, and know that would be impossible to support. The real flag is PSEUDO_RANDOMLY_DISCHARGE_BATTERY.
that this is the first planet found with such an orbit. Would it not require a lengthy sequence of "just right" nudges to produce that outcome? Statistically, wouldn't the second planet be just as likely to pull the first back toward an equatorial orbit on each encounter? Are the orbital mechanics such that retrograde planets coexisting with prograde planets is more stable than, say, having planets end up in polar or high inclination orbits?
Finally, the article explains how they can tell which direction the planet crosses the star, but how do you tell which way the star is rotating?