You may onto something. Perhaps the well-docmumented cases of people falling sideways are due to antimatter build-up within them. We should investigate.
Hentai artists can just say that their characters are over 16 (age of concent here in the UK), and it magically becomes legal.
Nope. According to the Register article on the same topic:
Section 45 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 extended the definition of "child", for porn purposes, to anyone aged 16 or 17. For the first time, it became illegal to possess images of perfectly legal sexual activity.
As seen on bash.org:
<Ben174> : If they only realized 90% of the overtime they pay me is only cause i like staying here playing with Kazaa when the bandwidth picks up after hours.
<ChrisLMB> : If any of my employees did that they'd be fired instantly.
<Ben174> : Where u work?
<ChrisLMB> : I'm the CTO at LowerMyBills.com
*** Ben174 (BenWright@TeraPro33-41.LowerMyBills.com) Quit (Leaving)
Yeah, that was my initial thought too. But on further reflection, what exactly do you think will happen in that case? My money's on:
Customs agent: Darn, I don't know how to use this.
You: *snicker*
Customs agent: I am confiscating this device. Would you mind stepping this way, please, sir. You are detained for further questioning.
All this would do is ensure that people stick with their current distros. After all, if they all come out on the same date, you're going to grab the one you're currently using, and upgrade. Then you won't have as much incentive to try another one that came out on the same date, since you just finished the upgrade
Err... I don't know about you specifically but I think in general you'll find that people tend to stick to their distro regardless of the update cycles unless there is a major reason to switch. Can you imagine what a mess it would be to constantly switch to whatever distro has the latest release?
Me, I switched once - from debian to Ubuntu (Breezy at the time). And I didn't really consider that a switch because I just saw (and to some extent still do) Ubuntu as a " version of debian which works better straight out of the box".
and they'll all most likely have the same features.
Not true. For instance, Fedora will have rpm, Ubuntu will have apt. And if at some point you decide that rpm suits your needs better than apt (just an example), you will switch regardless of the release cycle.
They still have the "I need a small protable laptop for basic work while travelling and I am so not gonna spend stupid money on a macbook air or thinkpad x300" buyers though.
In fact, they're now more likely to get those since the screen has become more usable.
Less vertical space = less lines of code in the screen = more scrolling = less productivity
I used to think the same, so when I first got a chance to actually specify what monitor I'd like for work, I got myself a stupid-resolution monster screen (2048x1536@100Hz I think it was). And yes, it does improve the coding experience over a 1280x800 resolution on a laptop. But that's not the resolution you'd buy if you use the machine for programming, is it now? You'd buy a 1900x1200 or something along those lines - and I would say that 1200 lines are plenty for coding. If you still need to do a lot of scrolling, you probably either need a new editor or should rethink your code design principles.
I interview people to work for my tech company and I don't care if you're from MIT or middle of nowhere college, it all depends on what comes out of your mouth during the interview. And I haven't met a company that's any different.
But would he even be selected for the interview if he's from middle-of-nowhere-college while most of the other candidates come from MIT, CALTECH or similar?
the point of the program is ostensibly to find other inhabitable planets--that is, potential sites for future human expansion
What's the point of that? I mean, yeah, sure, eventually we will need such sites, whether it's out of necessity or just because we can. However, I'm pretty sure that once we actually have the technology to travel to such planets within a reasonable timeframe, we will also have the technology to find them much more quickly, reliably and easily than at the moment. So - what's the point of looking for inhabitable planets in a time where technology barely allows us to reach neighbouring planets within our own solar system? What is the advantage/gain here? Inhabited planets, on the other hand, I could understand.
teachers should be allowed to teach what they please
I disagree...
Teachers need to stick to a standardized curriculum
...but so do you, so that's alright:)
A curriculum is not a collection of state-approved beliefs the teacher is required to uphold in class, it is a list of topics the teacher is required to teach - he can thus either stick to a curriculum or teach what he pleases, but not both.
It probably has to do with reaction time. If the robots maintain perfect velocity synchronicity with the car in front, you'd probably not see the wave propagation. On the other hand, if the robots were configured to have a response "delay" ( on the order of, say, half a second or so ) and minor errors in estimated velocity correction you'd probably see something just like you'd get with humans.
Doesn't work that way. Response delays are a given, you don't have to configure them in explicitly. Signal comes in from the sensors, has to travel a certain length of wire - this takes time. Signal has to be processed, response computed - takes time. Response has to be communicated to whatever reaction mechanisms you have (throttle, brakes...) - takes time. Mechanism has to be activated - takes time. etc. Granted, everything is on the millisecond scale, but there is no such thing as a zero-delay response and thus no such thing as perfect velocity synchronicity.
Ditto with "estimating" velocity correction or even just velocity and the velocity of the guy ahead - you don't have to explicitly introduce errors, they're already part of the system (we wouldn't call it an estimate otherwise). Heck, even making sure that you're actually travelling at the velocity you think you're travelling at is not all that easy - there are a lot of mechanical parts between you and the wheels on the road, they'll introduce fluctuations (including the wheels and the road themselves) - so just because you figured that injecting 5mg more petrol for the next 62.54235ms will make you reach your optimal speed of exactly 30km/h, that don't make it so; there will always be a small error.
Point being, there is no such thing as perfection in the real world and I would advise you never to expect that of a robot or other device. Errors may be small and therefore neglectable, but they exist.
The original error must be documented, and the deletion must be approved by a supervisor after "pertinent facts supporting reinstatement" are available in the system.
I guess the supposedely deceased being present when the request for reinstatement is handed in won't count as a "pertinent fact" until he has been stabbed with a wooden stake and shot with a silver bullet?
This court's job is to rule on the legality of laws
Just nitpicking... this court's job is to rule on the constitutionality of laws. A law is not legal or illegal, it is constitutional or unconstitutional.
You joke, but consider if the universe were a simulation -- quantum mechanics makes a lot more sense in term of a simulation. Things like spooky action at a distance become lazy evaluation. Quanta become memory locations, variables. And so on. Quantum mechanics is easy to simulate.
But how does one simulate gravity? It has to propagate in every direction at the something like speed of light or else -- god forbid -- information could travel faster than light. The whole concept of gravity, that every individual particle affects however slightly every other particle, is not possible to compute directly.
Now suppose the universe were simulated as a sparse matrix. Each cell could contain a gravity component that stored the aggregate gravity force from each of a certain number of directions (perhaps expressed as several point masses). Depending on the number of directions this would give highly accurate simulation at a small scale, where error is absorbed as noise, while being computable for the overall universe as a whole. However the error would magnify over great distances due to 'floating point' type errors accumulating.
What if what these people are seeing as dark matter is not matter at all, but simulation error. Perhaps even dark matter is related to a sparse simulation of the universe where intervening space is approximated by invisible masses that gravity affects but nothing else does. These mass would act to consolidate cells in the matrix to reduce the overall memory requirements.
That always gets me. People assume the universe is a simulation (unprovable in my opinion) and then proceed to explain a very small subset of physical phenomena in terms of computations they understand. Where does this idea that the Universe simulator would work anything like our computers come from? Consequently, how does the assumption that the Universe is a simulation help in any way given that it is unknown what computations give rise to it?
Another way to look at it: Every time a physicist describes a new effect with a formula, he has in fact given you a (mathematical) simulation of this effect. But that does not mean that this effect is a result from a simulation in the first place. And just because it is possible to think of a computational implementation that might behave similarly to an observed effect (which is a crude way of describing it mathematically if you can't do the maths) doesn't mean it is the result of a computational implementation in the first place. Assuming the Universe is a simulation does not add any insights, so why bother?
Also kinda reminded me of that old joke...
An engineer thinks his equations are an approximation of reality but a Physiscist thinks reality is an approximation of his equations (meanwhile, the mathematician doesn't care....).
Naw he doesn't. If he did, he could just do what everyone and their mum seems to be doing these days and sue every author of every clone for copyright infringement. If he doesn't have the copyright or perhaps a patent for the game, then he hasn't got a point besides being greedy and miserable.
Another one of those top-10 articles broken up into 7 web pages with 3 paragraphs each and flooded with useless advertisements & buzzwords like SOA on demand, Oracle Fusion Middleware and "Storage Utopias"
Printer friendly view is your friend too, even if you're not a printer. It's certainly more informative than just throwing section titles at me (which is not a summary, it's a TOC). How should I guess what e.g. "excessive hibernation" means in this context until I read TFA, at which point I find out that it's spending more time in the office than talking to IT people.
Slashdot Mirror
You may onto something. Perhaps the well-docmumented cases of people falling sideways are due to antimatter build-up within them. We should investigate.
As seen on bash.org:
<Ben174> : If they only realized 90% of the overtime they pay me is only cause i like staying here playing with Kazaa when the bandwidth picks up after hours.
<ChrisLMB> : If any of my employees did that they'd be fired instantly.
<Ben174> : Where u work?
<ChrisLMB> : I'm the CTO at LowerMyBills.com
*** Ben174 (BenWright@TeraPro33-41.LowerMyBills.com) Quit (Leaving)
Windows 2000 (NT 5.0) -> Windows XP (NT 5.1) -> Windows Vista (NT 6.0) -> Windows 7 (NT 6.1)
Yeah, that was my initial thought too. But on further reflection, what exactly do you think will happen in that case? My money's on:
Customs agent: Darn, I don't know how to use this.
You: *snicker*
Customs agent: I am confiscating this device. Would you mind stepping this way, please, sir. You are detained for further questioning.
Me, I switched once - from debian to Ubuntu (Breezy at the time). And I didn't really consider that a switch because I just saw (and to some extent still do) Ubuntu as a " version of debian which works better straight out of the box".Not true. For instance, Fedora will have rpm, Ubuntu will have apt. And if at some point you decide that rpm suits your needs better than apt (just an example), you will switch regardless of the release cycle.
But it's not an improvement. The difference was not statistically significant, so for all we know, it might simply have been due to chance.
And from this alone I now know your nationality. Stëmmt et oder hun ech Recht?
A curriculum is not a collection of state-approved beliefs the teacher is required to uphold in class, it is a list of topics the teacher is required to teach - he can thus either stick to a curriculum or teach what he pleases, but not both.
Ditto with "estimating" velocity correction or even just velocity and the velocity of the guy ahead - you don't have to explicitly introduce errors, they're already part of the system (we wouldn't call it an estimate otherwise). Heck, even making sure that you're actually travelling at the velocity you think you're travelling at is not all that easy - there are a lot of mechanical parts between you and the wheels on the road, they'll introduce fluctuations (including the wheels and the road themselves) - so just because you figured that injecting 5mg more petrol for the next 62.54235ms will make you reach your optimal speed of exactly 30km/h, that don't make it so; there will always be a small error.
Point being, there is no such thing as perfection in the real world and I would advise you never to expect that of a robot or other device. Errors may be small and therefore neglectable, but they exist.
Another way to look at it: Every time a physicist describes a new effect with a formula, he has in fact given you a (mathematical) simulation of this effect. But that does not mean that this effect is a result from a simulation in the first place. And just because it is possible to think of a computational implementation that might behave similarly to an observed effect (which is a crude way of describing it mathematically if you can't do the maths) doesn't mean it is the result of a computational implementation in the first place. Assuming the Universe is a simulation does not add any insights, so why bother?
Also kinda reminded me of that old joke... An engineer thinks his equations are an approximation of reality but a Physiscist thinks reality is an approximation of his equations (meanwhile, the mathematician doesn't care....).
Naw he doesn't. If he did, he could just do what everyone and their mum seems to be doing these days and sue every author of every clone for copyright infringement. If he doesn't have the copyright or perhaps a patent for the game, then he hasn't got a point besides being greedy and miserable.