I'll second the Sharp calculator. Any of the 500 series will do. I went through engineering undergrad and grad school with just an EL-501. I bought a second one for work.
There is one that even does RPN. I believe they all do some vector math and unit conversion.
We already have many holidays targeted at singles, with extensive marketing. They are called Friday Night, and sponsored by every beer and liquor company, plus Trojan.
I think the Google engineers tried to parse what they were shown and ended up with a buffer overflow. What looks like profanity, "$!@#^$#$", is really injected code. They've been rooted by the NSA spamming The Post with leaks.
I ran a Linux server for my company for most of a decade. I'm not a full time admin, so dealing with maintenance meant learning or relearning something over and over. When the hardware died, we bought a Synology server. Cheaper than buying a desktop. Factor in my time, and it saved quite a bit of money.
It's been much easier to maintain. The extra services you can run are a breeze. For our small office, I'm never going back to building my own systems again.
I've been playing with an alternative cloud server that fixes that. Synology (and probably others) have a cloud service app you can run on your own server. I haven't stored anything critical or confidential on it yet, so I'd be interested in what others think of it.
Benefits: As much storage as you can cram into the box (Ours is 1 TB). No monthly fee Automated scheduled backups to external drive or other server Seems to work with Win, Mac, Android
Problems: bandwidth limited to upload/download speeds we pay for I'm responsible for maintenance No auto-upload of photos from my phone to server (yet?) ? ?
There are a couple other states that would even compete for the business. The one in New Mexico would probably welcome the publicity of people coming from Denmark to launch a prototype.
I'm in favor to barriers to immigration in part because immigrants are a benefit to our country. Those clever, motivated, stubborn, or rich enough to get around the barriers are just what we most need.
To those who oppose all barriers, I ask: Does the world need that many more Americans?
I've begun to think there is a fundamental difference in how people look at solutions to problems that guides them towards liberal or conservative solutions. It's a simplistic theory, but interesting.
Basically, liberals place more emphasis on the primary effects of a solution, conservatives place more emphasis on secondary effects of a solution. Sort of mirrors the "change is good" vs "change is bad" poles. But not entirely.
Example: abortion Problem: unwanted pregnancies are a problem Solution (primary effect): end unwanted pregnancies Secondary effect: potential lives are ended
Liberals see the end of the problem as better than the secondary effect Conservatives see the problem as better than the secondary effect
In all fairness, this theory is pretty arbitrary and what are primary and secondary effects are debatable. But I find it handy for understanding the perspective of two sides of a debate. How each side can be deaf to what the other is saying.
There are lots of people who are healthy and don't see a doctor, nurse, or any other health care provider over the course of a year. They are not participating in the health care system that year, but are being taxed that year.
You might make the argument they could end up going to a doctor at some point in their lives and so are participating. But that's still making an assumption that might not be universally true.
Heck, I was involved in a lawsuit where the plaintiff company obtained confidential information about the defendant company before the lawsuit (industrial espionage, anyone?) and managed to get a judge's order to restrict that knowledge to the lawyers. The result was defendant's lawyers were not allowed to show the defendant their own documents.
How do I know? During a deposition, plaintiffs showed me (on the defendant side) one of defendants documents marked confidential, but also marked as produced by plaintiff in discovery. And STILL defendants' lawyers were not allowed to tell the defendants that plaintiffs confidential information in their possession.
I'm pretty sure it was Billie Ray Valentine and Louis Winthorpe. They did this previously and managed to bankrupt Mortimer and Randolph Duke in the commodities market.
I've got rule of thumb on how long it will take to move completely to 64 bit. Basically every time we double the number of bits, the time to convert takes double the time. I'm sure someone could refine that but it makes a tiny bit of sense.
Rectally extracted numbers: 4 to 8 : 2 years 8 to 16 : 5 years 16 to 32 : 10 years 32 to 64 : 20 years?
Anyone who willingly opts into this is a friggin moron.
No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby. -H. L. Mencken
No, you can't make a stapler. At least not a good one. There is a reason the anvil of a stapler is coined. It needs a very specific surface finish. This surface finish is hindered by step size, particle size, and beam size. Coining gives very good surfaces very cheap. For flexible manufacturing, you could use milling, grinding, and polishing.
I'm not even discussing Makerbot technology. DSLS, the system which makes rocket and car parts today (as opposed to SLS), does cost around a million dollars a machine. And the surface finish is still terrible. For surfaces where this is critical, the parts go through a secondary processes: milling, grinding, and polishing. Those processes have had centuries of development. I don't think rapid prototyping is going to catch up in a decade or two.
I've worked with rapid prototyping for over twenty years. In that time, the price, materials, and quality have improved. But the trajectory is modest. Especially for the last two.
That's quite true. And oddly, that's where there might be patent problems: design patents. Those are patents on, well, the aesthetic shape of something. Sometimes companies file those on knobs and latches. Especially in China, of all places.
But I don't think most companies that sold an oven are going to care if you knock of their knob, per se. Their concern will be more of a safety and liability issue. Same with lot's of stuff.
Hmmm. I could see them trying to limit liability by using patent law. "You want to sue us because the oven caught fire? You were violating our patent. Get lost."
Not all sequestration methods use it. And it's not perfect. But it does change the risks.
Oddly, one version for putting CO2 in the oceans uses it. Reacting CO2 with limestone and water produces bicarbonate, which isn't entirely benign. But evidence from desalination plants shows it can be put in the oceans in rather large quantities with little effect. Definitely less than just letting CO2 dissolve in the oceans. A side effect is that marine animals might make thicker shells, releasing the CO2.
I find that amusing. We put CO2 in the oceans, shells get thinner as calcium bicarbonate produced. We put calcium bicarbonate in, shells get thicker and CO2 is produced. My guess is there is an ideal equilibrium that minimized the impact.
Slashdot Mirror
The codes were changed in 1977. WOPR was installed in 1983.
Growth may be not be that great as your stats also show the population has recently shrunk by 150 million.
The silver lining to global warming: not freezing in the dark.
I'll second the Sharp calculator. Any of the 500 series will do. I went through engineering undergrad and grad school with just an EL-501. I bought a second one for work.
There is one that even does RPN. I believe they all do some vector math and unit conversion.
We already have many holidays targeted at singles, with extensive marketing. They are called Friday Night, and sponsored by every beer and liquor company, plus Trojan.
We're going to need some sort of special police force to deal with runaway farm robots. And catch Gene Simmons.
Try doing it in first gear.
I think the Google engineers tried to parse what they were shown and ended up with a buffer overflow. What looks like profanity, "$!@#^$#$", is really injected code. They've been rooted by the NSA spamming The Post with leaks.
Good luck finding 9mm or .22 rounds.
I ran a Linux server for my company for most of a decade. I'm not a full time admin, so dealing with maintenance meant learning or relearning something over and over. When the hardware died, we bought a Synology server. Cheaper than buying a desktop. Factor in my time, and it saved quite a bit of money.
It's been much easier to maintain. The extra services you can run are a breeze. For our small office, I'm never going back to building my own systems again.
I've been playing with an alternative cloud server that fixes that. Synology (and probably others) have a cloud service app you can run on your own server. I haven't stored anything critical or confidential on it yet, so I'd be interested in what others think of it.
Benefits:
As much storage as you can cram into the box (Ours is 1 TB).
No monthly fee
Automated scheduled backups to external drive or other server
Seems to work with Win, Mac, Android
Problems:
bandwidth limited to upload/download speeds we pay for
I'm responsible for maintenance
No auto-upload of photos from my phone to server (yet?)
?
?
There are a couple other states that would even compete for the business. The one in New Mexico would probably welcome the publicity of people coming from Denmark to launch a prototype.
Next time use a Python script.
I'm in favor to barriers to immigration in part because immigrants are a benefit to our country. Those clever, motivated, stubborn, or rich enough to get around the barriers are just what we most need.
To those who oppose all barriers, I ask: Does the world need that many more Americans?
I've begun to think there is a fundamental difference in how people look at solutions to problems that guides them towards liberal or conservative solutions. It's a simplistic theory, but interesting.
Basically, liberals place more emphasis on the primary effects of a solution, conservatives place more emphasis on secondary effects of a solution. Sort of mirrors the "change is good" vs "change is bad" poles. But not entirely.
Example: abortion
Problem: unwanted pregnancies are a problem
Solution (primary effect): end unwanted pregnancies
Secondary effect: potential lives are ended
Liberals see the end of the problem as better than the secondary effect
Conservatives see the problem as better than the secondary effect
In all fairness, this theory is pretty arbitrary and what are primary and secondary effects are debatable. But I find it handy for understanding the perspective of two sides of a debate. How each side can be deaf to what the other is saying.
There are lots of people who are healthy and don't see a doctor, nurse, or any other health care provider over the course of a year. They are not participating in the health care system that year, but are being taxed that year.
You might make the argument they could end up going to a doctor at some point in their lives and so are participating. But that's still making an assumption that might not be universally true.
Heck, I was involved in a lawsuit where the plaintiff company obtained confidential information about the defendant company before the lawsuit (industrial espionage, anyone?) and managed to get a judge's order to restrict that knowledge to the lawyers. The result was defendant's lawyers were not allowed to show the defendant their own documents.
How do I know? During a deposition, plaintiffs showed me (on the defendant side) one of defendants documents marked confidential, but also marked as produced by plaintiff in discovery. And STILL defendants' lawyers were not allowed to tell the defendants that plaintiffs confidential information in their possession.
I'm pretty sure it was Billie Ray Valentine and Louis Winthorpe. They did this previously and managed to bankrupt Mortimer and Randolph Duke in the commodities market.
I've got rule of thumb on how long it will take to move completely to 64 bit. Basically every time we double the number of bits, the time to convert takes double the time. I'm sure someone could refine that but it makes a tiny bit of sense.
Rectally extracted numbers:
4 to 8 : 2 years
8 to 16 : 5 years
16 to 32 : 10 years
32 to 64 : 20 years?
No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.
-H. L. Mencken
FTFY
No, you can't make a stapler. At least not a good one. There is a reason the anvil of a stapler is coined. It needs a very specific surface finish. This surface finish is hindered by step size, particle size, and beam size. Coining gives very good surfaces very cheap. For flexible manufacturing, you could use milling, grinding, and polishing.
I'm not even discussing Makerbot technology. DSLS, the system which makes rocket and car parts today (as opposed to SLS), does cost around a million dollars a machine. And the surface finish is still terrible. For surfaces where this is critical, the parts go through a secondary processes: milling, grinding, and polishing. Those processes have had centuries of development. I don't think rapid prototyping is going to catch up in a decade or two.
I've worked with rapid prototyping for over twenty years. In that time, the price, materials, and quality have improved. But the trajectory is modest. Especially for the last two.
The difference being that people are pretty well aware of that. This is intended to bring about the same level of knowing-but-ignoring.
That's quite true. And oddly, that's where there might be patent problems: design patents. Those are patents on, well, the aesthetic shape of something. Sometimes companies file those on knobs and latches. Especially in China, of all places.
But I don't think most companies that sold an oven are going to care if you knock of their knob, per se. Their concern will be more of a safety and liability issue. Same with lot's of stuff.
Hmmm. I could see them trying to limit liability by using patent law. "You want to sue us because the oven caught fire? You were violating our patent. Get lost."
Not all sequestration methods use it. And it's not perfect. But it does change the risks.
Oddly, one version for putting CO2 in the oceans uses it. Reacting CO2 with limestone and water produces bicarbonate, which isn't entirely benign. But evidence from desalination plants shows it can be put in the oceans in rather large quantities with little effect. Definitely less than just letting CO2 dissolve in the oceans. A side effect is that marine animals might make thicker shells, releasing the CO2.
I find that amusing. We put CO2 in the oceans, shells get thinner as calcium bicarbonate produced. We put calcium bicarbonate in, shells get thicker and CO2 is produced. My guess is there is an ideal equilibrium that minimized the impact.