If someone consistently uses it's as a possessive and writes "for all intensive purposes", it'll be difficult for that person to suddenly start writing consistently.
Well that right there would identify 90% of Slashdot, Fark, and Digg users as being the same author.
The only way the movie succeeded was if you took it as a parody. Of what I'm not entirely sure, but it was the most ridiculous thing I think I've ever seen in the movies.
Or take Enders Game, its not a movie but you get the same thing. They have Ansibles but then still have human pilots in their fighters and ships. Its lame. They should at least be self consistent.
Yes, because nothing on those kinds of ships could ever break and require human intervention. And surely you could automate absolutely everything that a fighter would need in warfare against a poorly understood foe. Nothing you didn't plan for could possibly come up in the 50+ years it took to send your fleet there.
Humans were there as pilots (and crew) in fighters and ships because they're infinitely more adaptable and easier to command than automation could ever be. Especially in warships - I mean, drones are great and everything, but if the communications get shot up the ship is gone. With a human pilot there you may have a chance to keep fighting and even salvage the unit. Automation (especially in warfare) is a limited scope kind of application.
While I agree that coding an entire program in assembly is generally an exercise in futility, it is incredibly useful in bursts for time critical sections of code. Things like color space conversions or wavelet transforms in image coding or DCT/FFT transforms in audio processing are usually best done as functions written in inline assembly (where you can take advantage of SSE1/2/3 extensions for parallel processing). But the rest of it, especially UI code, is much better off in a high level language. If for no other reason than the extra 200k in executable size and the additional.5 seconds it takes to load are negligible to the human actually using it. But for the hard number crunching you don't really want to hit 100% utilization of an entire processor core just to play back some MP3 audio or MPEG-4 video files.
No, Vista was Windows 95, Vista with SP1 is Windows 98, and Windows 7 is going to be Windows 98SE - that is, Windows 7 is what Vista *should* have been at launch (like many Microsoft products).
That's because XP-64 *is* 2K3-64 with the serverish stuff hacked out. For Pete's sake, the XP-64 service pack is the W2K3-64 service pack. So, yeah, if W2K3-64 supports it XP-64 supports it, but not a lot of, say, bleeding edge video cards bother to support Server OS's because who the hell puts a 1GB graphics card in a server?
Vista/Win7 x64 editions are a different beast. These are actively being marketed to consumers and as such you can expect good driver support (going forward at least) for your devices and upgrades.
The Hiroshima bomb had a yield of about 12.5 kilotons of TNT. Thermonuclear (fusion based) devices start up at 1.2 megatons and go up to 9 megatons (held in stockpiles currently). The USSR built one with a yield of 50 megatons Wiki Link
So, yeah. Those firecrackers we dropped on Japan were really just the tip of the iceberg. We've come a long way since then. About 1,000 of our "average" nukes would yield that much energy, or about 100 of our supersized bombs could do the trick if we brought them back into service.
You have to take a societal view to really understand it. Like, if you saw your best friend shooting heroin every day while his life went down the toilet you'd probably try to get him to stop. Basically, the Christian viewpoint is that society as a whole is screwing itself up with immoral choices and laws and they're trying to do something about it.
I think it's become the wrong tack to take when we're not essentially a Christian society anymore. Realistically there need to be new methods worked out that don't depend on the majority already holding a religion as true and using that to guide societies laws. Christians have done great harm to themselves and their cause by playing by the same old rules (well, that and letting people call themselves Christians and turn out to be hypocrites).
Just an FYI - widescreens (16:9 ratio) are 11% smaller in surface area than the equivalent in diagonal inches standard ratio (4:3) screens. So, a 20" "squarish" monitor is about the equivalent of a 22" "widescreen" monitor in visible area. OTOH, a 17" widescreen monitor is right about a 15" standard monitor. So yes, if he gets a 17" widescreen it will be sucksville, and your 20" widescreen is around about an 18" from before.
In Ender's Game, that Ender keeps going back to over and over.
The moment some kid gets past the giant's drink into the end of the world - well, we really need to shut it down before it becomes a world spanning AI is all I'm saying.
I haven't used undo/redo buttons for years ctrl-Z and ctrl-Y have long been my weapons of choice. And ever since my programming days I'm like a cocaine addicted spastic chipmunk on hitting ctrl-S every few sentences as I type.
Anybody remember the old days of visual studio 6.0 where you could hold down ctrl-Z practically down to a blank page if you wanted to? And how pissed off you got if you went too far back and accidentally hit space before you could ctrl-Y it back? Ahh...memories.
There is no SP3 for XP-64 because XP-64 is a re-branded Server 2003 x64. In actuality, when you install "XP-64 SP2" you are installing the Server 2003 SP2 binaries.
Furthermore, updated service packs definitely come with updated driver packs. These are usually found in SP?.cab where ? is 1, 2, 3. At least on XP and Server 2003 for sure. I work with both daily.
I think he meant 16-bit applications because they dropped that from x64. OTOH, if you really really need to run DOS-based stuff you can either a) get an x86 system, or b) hack something together using DosBox or c) using Virtual PC. And if you can't/won't figure out how to do one of those three, then you didn't really need to be running a DOS application.
EQ's big flaw is complete lack of a solo game (beyond a handful of classes and those tend to be painfully slow anyway). With WoW at least pretty much any class can solo non-instances at level appropriate times. Thus, the low levels can be gone through in WoW without *needing* a group and without substantially increasing the time required to level. If you are a warrior in EQ just starting out you are pretty well boned.
And the average height went up by one and one half inch for men and one inch for women. Weight does not increase quadratically with height, as BMI would require to work right. A healthy, 24 inch long baby weighing 10 pounds would be child-neglect skinny if it grew to be a 40 pound 4-ft. tall 8 year old. Or more pointedly, a 90 pound 6ft. tall adult. Plus, when BMI was invented, the average height was something like 6 inches shorter than now?
I realize that the progression is not quite cubic (10lbs. at 24 inches would then be 270lbs. at 72 inches), but there has to be some kind of inbetween that's a better approximation than BMI's quadratic scaling. Can we please, for once, get something that's not obviously biased against tall people?
BMI fails for tall/short people. To have any sort of validity at all you have to throw out every man outside of about 5'4"-5'8" and every woman outside of 5'2"-5'6", then we'll talk.
BMI utterly breaks for anyone outside of "normal" height range (+/- about 1 stdev for men and women or about 5'4"-5'9" for men and maybe 5'2"-5'7" for women). If you look at the formula, it goes up as a square of height. That makes the "normal" BMI of anyone 6' or taller something around 170ish pounds. It tells me, that at 6'2" I should be 180 pounds max. This is insane. At 200 pounds I start to feel ribs poking through, and I feel like I'm starving all the time.
No, BMI should not be used as any kind of "magic indicator". Using it for studies like this will naturally show a bias for "slightly overweight" being healthier, because for maybe 20% of your *entire population* normal BMI is horridly underweight and unhealthy. Find a better system.
That's what really boggles me about this. I mean, I could see getting pissed at the girl in question, but under what warped and twisted view of reality does that equate to being pissed at the father and boycotting his business? Maybe his kid is just a screw-up, it's not something he can necessarily control. Mob justice at its stupidest.
Slashdot Mirror
The script said they couldn't.
Well that right there would identify 90% of Slashdot, Fark, and Digg users as being the same author.
Burning magnesium eh?
*cough* road flare *cough*
The book was infinitely better than the movie.
The only way the movie succeeded was if you took it as a parody. Of what I'm not entirely sure, but it was the most ridiculous thing I think I've ever seen in the movies.
Or take Enders Game, its not a movie but you get the same thing. They have Ansibles but then still have human pilots in their fighters and ships. Its lame. They should at least be self consistent.
Yes, because nothing on those kinds of ships could ever break and require human intervention. And surely you could automate absolutely everything that a fighter would need in warfare against a poorly understood foe. Nothing you didn't plan for could possibly come up in the 50+ years it took to send your fleet there.
Humans were there as pilots (and crew) in fighters and ships because they're infinitely more adaptable and easier to command than automation could ever be. Especially in warships - I mean, drones are great and everything, but if the communications get shot up the ship is gone. With a human pilot there you may have a chance to keep fighting and even salvage the unit. Automation (especially in warfare) is a limited scope kind of application.
While I agree that coding an entire program in assembly is generally an exercise in futility, it is incredibly useful in bursts for time critical sections of code. Things like color space conversions or wavelet transforms in image coding or DCT/FFT transforms in audio processing are usually best done as functions written in inline assembly (where you can take advantage of SSE1/2/3 extensions for parallel processing). But the rest of it, especially UI code, is much better off in a high level language. If for no other reason than the extra 200k in executable size and the additional .5 seconds it takes to load are negligible to the human actually using it. But for the hard number crunching you don't really want to hit 100% utilization of an entire processor core just to play back some MP3 audio or MPEG-4 video files.
People don't just attack random strangers, there is always a reason.
Objection! Assuming rationality not in evidence!
No, Vista was Windows 95, Vista with SP1 is Windows 98, and Windows 7 is going to be Windows 98SE - that is, Windows 7 is what Vista *should* have been at launch (like many Microsoft products).
It doesn't count if you loaded it up in DosBox =P
I had to use a DOS emulator for all my 16-bit games, there simply isn't a 16-bit subsystem in the x64 editions of windows.
YMMV if you're talking about the "run it in windows XP" emulatorish thing it's supposed to have, I didn't mess around with that yet.
That's because XP-64 *is* 2K3-64 with the serverish stuff hacked out. For Pete's sake, the XP-64 service pack is the W2K3-64 service pack. So, yeah, if W2K3-64 supports it XP-64 supports it, but not a lot of, say, bleeding edge video cards bother to support Server OS's because who the hell puts a 1GB graphics card in a server?
Vista/Win7 x64 editions are a different beast. These are actively being marketed to consumers and as such you can expect good driver support (going forward at least) for your devices and upgrades.
Researching gunpowder would have made all existing barracks obsolete.
The Hiroshima bomb had a yield of about 12.5 kilotons of TNT. Thermonuclear (fusion based) devices start up at 1.2 megatons and go up to 9 megatons (held in stockpiles currently). The USSR built one with a yield of 50 megatons Wiki Link
So, yeah. Those firecrackers we dropped on Japan were really just the tip of the iceberg. We've come a long way since then. About 1,000 of our "average" nukes would yield that much energy, or about 100 of our supersized bombs could do the trick if we brought them back into service.
You have to take a societal view to really understand it. Like, if you saw your best friend shooting heroin every day while his life went down the toilet you'd probably try to get him to stop. Basically, the Christian viewpoint is that society as a whole is screwing itself up with immoral choices and laws and they're trying to do something about it.
I think it's become the wrong tack to take when we're not essentially a Christian society anymore. Realistically there need to be new methods worked out that don't depend on the majority already holding a religion as true and using that to guide societies laws. Christians have done great harm to themselves and their cause by playing by the same old rules (well, that and letting people call themselves Christians and turn out to be hypocrites).
Doesn't seem to have been an effective treatment then, does it =P
Just an FYI - widescreens (16:9 ratio) are 11% smaller in surface area than the equivalent in diagonal inches standard ratio (4:3) screens. So, a 20" "squarish" monitor is about the equivalent of a 22" "widescreen" monitor in visible area. OTOH, a 17" widescreen monitor is right about a 15" standard monitor. So yes, if he gets a 17" widescreen it will be sucksville, and your 20" widescreen is around about an 18" from before.
In Ender's Game, that Ender keeps going back to over and over.
The moment some kid gets past the giant's drink into the end of the world - well, we really need to shut it down before it becomes a world spanning AI is all I'm saying.
But, like many ugly things, put it under enough pressure and it can become quite beautiful.
I haven't used undo/redo buttons for years ctrl-Z and ctrl-Y have long been my weapons of choice. And ever since my programming days I'm like a cocaine addicted spastic chipmunk on hitting ctrl-S every few sentences as I type.
Anybody remember the old days of visual studio 6.0 where you could hold down ctrl-Z practically down to a blank page if you wanted to? And how pissed off you got if you went too far back and accidentally hit space before you could ctrl-Y it back? Ahh...memories.
There is no SP3 for XP-64 because XP-64 is a re-branded Server 2003 x64. In actuality, when you install "XP-64 SP2" you are installing the Server 2003 SP2 binaries.
Furthermore, updated service packs definitely come with updated driver packs. These are usually found in SP?.cab where ? is 1, 2, 3. At least on XP and Server 2003 for sure. I work with both daily.
I think he meant 16-bit applications because they dropped that from x64. OTOH, if you really really need to run DOS-based stuff you can either a) get an x86 system, or b) hack something together using DosBox or c) using Virtual PC. And if you can't/won't figure out how to do one of those three, then you didn't really need to be running a DOS application.
EQ's big flaw is complete lack of a solo game (beyond a handful of classes and those tend to be painfully slow anyway). With WoW at least pretty much any class can solo non-instances at level appropriate times. Thus, the low levels can be gone through in WoW without *needing* a group and without substantially increasing the time required to level. If you are a warrior in EQ just starting out you are pretty well boned.
And the average height went up by one and one half inch for men and one inch for women. Weight does not increase quadratically with height, as BMI would require to work right. A healthy, 24 inch long baby weighing 10 pounds would be child-neglect skinny if it grew to be a 40 pound 4-ft. tall 8 year old. Or more pointedly, a 90 pound 6ft. tall adult. Plus, when BMI was invented, the average height was something like 6 inches shorter than now?
I realize that the progression is not quite cubic (10lbs. at 24 inches would then be 270lbs. at 72 inches), but there has to be some kind of inbetween that's a better approximation than BMI's quadratic scaling. Can we please, for once, get something that's not obviously biased against tall people?
BMI fails for tall/short people. To have any sort of validity at all you have to throw out every man outside of about 5'4"-5'8" and every woman outside of 5'2"-5'6", then we'll talk.
BMI utterly breaks for anyone outside of "normal" height range (+/- about 1 stdev for men and women or about 5'4"-5'9" for men and maybe 5'2"-5'7" for women). If you look at the formula, it goes up as a square of height. That makes the "normal" BMI of anyone 6' or taller something around 170ish pounds. It tells me, that at 6'2" I should be 180 pounds max. This is insane. At 200 pounds I start to feel ribs poking through, and I feel like I'm starving all the time.
No, BMI should not be used as any kind of "magic indicator". Using it for studies like this will naturally show a bias for "slightly overweight" being healthier, because for maybe 20% of your *entire population* normal BMI is horridly underweight and unhealthy. Find a better system.
That's what really boggles me about this. I mean, I could see getting pissed at the girl in question, but under what warped and twisted view of reality does that equate to being pissed at the father and boycotting his business? Maybe his kid is just a screw-up, it's not something he can necessarily control. Mob justice at its stupidest.