I really hope the price of gas keeps climbing up to $2- $3 dollars a gallon here in the U.S. Maybe that will dissuade people from buying gas-guzzeling SUV's.
Sure, us piss-poor college students stuck with the only 30 year old gas-guzzling car they can afford will really appreciate that. So will the logistics industry.
I was also present at the contest and did problem F. I heard this rumor as well, so I feel very lucky. I implemented the problem in a way that paths with "infinite" distances simply weren't counted when I obtained the average.
I've often wondered how these sorts of things should be resolved, and I don't really have any answer. I'd certainly be very angry if that were the case and I'd had to spend hours on the problem. I got lucky. (I just hope I do better next year).
Too bad they couldn't all be that simple. The problem is that you could be allowed to travel in any direction when you enter a node, so there could be multiple paths through the maze. The wording of the problem implied that only the shortest path would be accepted. Your algorithm (a depth first search, starting from the destination rather than the entrance) isn't guaranteed to do that. I think they were referring to it taking Knuth 30 minutes to actually walk through the maze. It's certainly a lot different when you can't actually see the entire maze at once.:P
This experiment apparently didn't find every solution, from what I understand. There are 94 possible solutions out of 512. The experiment came up with 43 answers, only one of which was not a valid solution. So while obviously non-solutions were weeded out, the solution space was not as exhaustively represented as one might wish. Still, pretty impressive.
MOST people are simply NOT emotionally mature before 18.
Most aren't afterwards, either. Your point?
Tell you what, eliminate the YOA laws then >I say that we then will (and MUST) place children on the police forces AND in the front-line military. If they are "mature" enough to buy porn or alcohol or vote, then, by damn, their old enough to quit playing at the playground, playing with toys and can pick up a gun and fight as necessary or make arrests or even make important policy decisions that everyone gets to suffer thru, they are "mature" enough to break up domestic violence situations as cops, and all the rest.
Well, in the US at least, an 18 year old is consider "mature" enough to become war fodder. Take a look at the draft. Yet an 18 year old isn't old enough to buy alcohol (and I was under the impression that some localities require one to be 21 before being allowed to purchase porn). I think you're a hypocrite just like most everyone else (with bad spelling, grammar and typing skills to boot).
They intend to have a preview version of 1.3 for Linux available by first quarter 2000 (see http://www.ibm.com/java/jdk/oth er/portingplans.html). Whether or not that means anything, I don't know, but I'm hopeful.
Granted, it's only 1.1, not 1.2, but that's all I need. It works exceptionally well. Jikes + IBM's jdk will be the future of open source java development in Linux. Perhaps this is why Sun feels the need to desperately claim they are supporting Linux, when so far I've yet to see any real evidence of such support. This is my favorite attribute of non-proprietary solutions. When the vendor is lazy, other people can step in. I don't think Sun's learned that lesson yet, but they're bound to soon enough. Now off to http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com.
It's the classic cautionary tale about the pitfalls of doing business in foreign countries that can be found in hundreds (if not thousands) of books about marketing: General Motors introduced their Chevrolet Nova model of automobile into a Spanish-speaking market, then scratched their heads in puzzlement when it sold poorly. GM executives were baffled until someone finally pointed out to them that "nova" translates as "doesn't go" in Spanish. The embarrassed automobile giant changed the model name to the Caribe, and sales of the car took off.
This anecdote is frequently used to illustrate the perils of failing to do adequate preparation and research before introducing a product into the international marketplace...
Does it matter? Are we not allowed to indulge in hypothetical examples? I chose the best metaphor that I could think of with which to illustrate my point. I simply made a reference, I didn't state that it was fact.:P
Reading this article it struck me how closely all this parallels the state of the architecture industry in The Fountainhead. In the story, the concept of architecture is touted at every level, from those that teach it to those that make their living by it, as simply putting together preexisting architectural ideas. They would constantly state that all the good ideas had already been thought up, so there was no point in being original, and that an architect's job is to simply implement preexisting architectural styles. Their job wasn't to create something useful and appealing to their clients, they're job was to create something that looked like the standard notion of good architecture.
So here you have all these naming firms. Apparently all the good (English) words have been taken already. Their task, as they see it, is to simply merge existing words (note how everyone seems to think of Greek and Latin as the penultimate source of style -- I guess English or Italian or Russian or Chinese or Swahili isn't established well enough to be allowed in corporate naming circles). It doesn't matter whether or not the client likes the new word or if the word fits the client, the word simply has to adhere to a certain set of rules and taste. Thus the end results are as ugly monstrosities, quite similar to the dominant architecture "style" in the book.
I guess I have no point to all this, it just seemed interesting. It'd be interesting to know where all these supposed rules for naming things come from. Also, if the goal is brand name recognition, a good brand name isn't going to create recognition. Only a good and seemingly omnipresent product will (though a bad brand name could damage that, I suppose). The best these names can do is offer some vague ideas of what the business's attributes may be. People fear blunders like trying to sell a car named "Nova" in a Spanish speaking country, when a name is only going to cause problems when it's very blatantly bad. I guess if it only brings to mind vague ideas then it's safe. Vagueness also suits these companies very well. God forbid they actually state what they do in their name! People might actually remember their company, and then they'd get business, which means more work for them. We certainly don't want that happening!
Planetary orbits are actually elliptical. The earth's distance from the sun varies throughout the year. Surface temperature depends more upon length of exposure to the sun (and angle?) than distance. It's cold in the winter because the days are shorter and the sun is closer to the horizon all day. Distance certainly does matter, but the scale on which it matters is surely orders of magnitude greater than one foot. I wonder what sort of effect "lunar" eclipses would play, though.
I don't know where you get your information, but ANY reproduction of copywritten media is illegal in the US. You are not even legally allowed to make a copy of a CD to tape so that you can listen to it in your car, you are supposed to by in on Tape as well.
Well, I don't know where you get your information, but it is perfectly legal for an individual to make copies of digital recordings for personal, non-commercial use (assuming the original recording was obtained legally). http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/100 8.html even indicates this ("... or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."). The obvious difference in this case is that, in the case of some DJs, this is a commercial use. Thus the recording industry's magnanimous offer.
Not so. If every single discussion on the newsgroup was entirely dependent upon the presence of this single offensive individual, as you are assuming, then you will destroy the entire group anyways by banning said individual.
Of course, I've never really seen the need for crybabies to use killfiles anyway. It makes sense for spammers and such, but most people I see use it simply as a way to flaunt their supposed intelligence over others, by announcing "You've just earned a spot in my illustrious killfile" everytime they disagree with someone. Then again, I'm sure there are people that intelligently use killfiles and have no need to announce their usage, so of course I'd never hear from them.:P
I've never had the need to use such software myself, so I can only guess. Certainly it's quite possible to easily block all posts in any subthread that branches off a blocked post, right?
Unfortunately this article was rather unclear on how the supposed offenses occurred. Was it the orignal flamewar that was brought to court and discussed, or was it the flamewar that followed Mr. Waldron's post passing on Detective Shirey's original admonishments? I'd certainly like to see all the posts in question and decide for myself whether serious threats of harm were involved or if it was just simple, ordinary, everyday Usenet posturing. Since both sides claim that threats of physical violence were made by the other side, I'd like to see this "Two Buddha" fellow file the exact same charges against Mr. Waldron.
Frankly, what could you expect from a group of people immature enough to get into a flamewar over skiing in the first place? It was inevitable at some point that someone this immature would seek legal assistance to protect their fragile overblown egos from popping from the heat of flamewars that they themselves have caused. While it deeply saddens me to see our rights further limited due to the immaturity and ignorance of the few, I'm surprised it took as long as it did. I do have to commend the participators in the "discussion" for their response to Waldron's post in Shirey's name, though. I'd like to send a big hearty thanks to Mr. Waldron and Detective Shirey, for ensuring my safety on Usenet for years to come. I no longer have to worry about people that disagree with me! Now I only have to worry about not disagreeing with anyone else.
And to drive somebody away who *was* a frequent patron of a group is also not exactly kosher. That's still denial of service.
The so-called victim only has to ignore the offensive poster or posters (either through his supposedly mature mental faculties or through the assistance of common software). I doubt you could argue that preventing the victim from seeing these offensive posts is denial of service when the restraining order has quite the same effect, though with the added side effect of rights violations, unconstitutional legal precedents, etc.
This isn't quite an accurate analogy. It's quite a simple task to ignore all postings from any specific user. The victim, so to speak, would not have to throw away his right to discuss in the given newsgroup just to avoid one specific poster. All he has to do is ignore him (either mentally or with software assistance). This would be no different from excluding the offensive poster legally, as the victim would no longer have to see posts from the offender. This effectively ends with the same result (from the victim's perspective) as a restraining order, only this method doesn't involve any violation of rights. People really should exhaust their technological options before calling in the police, especially in a high-tech situation such as this. Ah, life in today's litigous world.
Should the consumers have to PAY (to get new applications, or do what Microsoft says) because MS decides to abuse their monopoly status (which is against the law)?
An interesting statement. So you believe that all software developers have a legal obligation to improve their existing products indefinitely and distribute these improvements free of charge? Or does the label of "monopoly" basically strip a business of all rights?
It's not about being dependent on Microsoft, it's about being able to continue to be productive, using applications that we've already spent good money for.
You sound very dependent, actually. First, you purchase a product that, apparently, isn't quite up to par. Basically, you didn't get your money's worth. So what do you do? Well, apparently you dish out even more money in the blind hope that you will eventually get your money's worth. And this is not dependent? This is the sort of behavior you see from drug addicts. Perhaps your money would be better spent on less foolish purchases. Perhaps your money would be better spent on solid purchases rather than throwing more money at attempting to justify your previous poor judgments. You obviously think Microsoft isn't cutting it for you. Why do you continue giving them your business? Why do you insist they give away their business to you?
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, us piss-poor college students stuck with the only 30 year old gas-guzzling car they can afford will really appreciate that. So will the logistics industry.
logan
I've often wondered how these sorts of things should be resolved, and I don't really have any answer. I'd certainly be very angry if that were the case and I'd had to spend hours on the problem. I got lucky. (I just hope I do better next year).
logan
logan
logan
Debian rocks.
logan
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
int i, j;
for(i = j = 0; i < 0x200; i++)
if(((!(i & 0x080) && !(i & 0x020)) || !(i & 0x001)) &&
((!(i & 0x040) && !(i & 0x100)) || !(i & 0x002)) &&
((!(i & 0x008) && !(i & 0x080)) || !(i & 0x004)) &&
((!(i & 0x004) && !(i & 0x100)) || !(i & 0x008)) &&
((!(i & 0x001) && !(i & 0x040)) || !(i & 0x020)))
printf("%02d: %c%c%c\n%c%c%c\n %c%c%c\n\n", ++j,
(i & 0x001) ? '*' : '.', (i & 0x002) ? '*' : '.',
(i & 0x004) ? '*' : '.', (i & 0x008) ? '*' : '.',
(i & 0x010) ? '*' : '.', (i & 0x020) ? '*' : '.',
(i & 0x040) ? '*' : '.', (i & 0x080) ? '*' : '.',
(i & 0x100) ? '*' : '.');
}
logan
logan
static int count;
int placeknights(int board, int mask, int start)
{
int i;
printf("%02d: %c%c%c\n %c%c%c\n %c%c%c\n\n", ++count,
  (board & 1) ? '*' : '.', (board & 2) ? '*' : '.',
  (board & 4) ? '*' : '.', (board & 8) ? '*' : '.',
  (board & 16) ? '*' : '.', (board & 32) ? '*' : '.',
  (board & 64) ? '*' : '.', (board & 128) ? '*' : '.',
  (board & 256) ? '*' : '.');
for(i = start; i < 9; i++)
 if(!(mask & (1 << i)))
  placeknights(board | (1 << i), mask | masks[i], i + 1);
}
int main(void)
{
placeknights(0, 0, 0);
}
logan
logan
Most aren't afterwards, either. Your point?
Well, in the US at least, an 18 year old is consider "mature" enough to become war fodder. Take a look at the draft. Yet an 18 year old isn't old enough to buy alcohol (and I was under the impression that some localities require one to be 21 before being allowed to purchase porn). I think you're a hypocrite just like most everyone else (with bad spelling, grammar and typing skills to boot).
logan
logan
I could start any of the binaries that came with the jdk until I made that change.
logan
logan
logan
Does it matter? Are we not allowed to indulge in hypothetical examples? I chose the best metaphor that I could think of with which to illustrate my point. I simply made a reference, I didn't state that it was fact. :P
logan
So here you have all these naming firms. Apparently all the good (English) words have been taken already. Their task, as they see it, is to simply merge existing words (note how everyone seems to think of Greek and Latin as the penultimate source of style -- I guess English or Italian or Russian or Chinese or Swahili isn't established well enough to be allowed in corporate naming circles). It doesn't matter whether or not the client likes the new word or if the word fits the client, the word simply has to adhere to a certain set of rules and taste. Thus the end results are as ugly monstrosities, quite similar to the dominant architecture "style" in the book.
I guess I have no point to all this, it just seemed interesting. It'd be interesting to know where all these supposed rules for naming things come from. Also, if the goal is brand name recognition, a good brand name isn't going to create recognition. Only a good and seemingly omnipresent product will (though a bad brand name could damage that, I suppose). The best these names can do is offer some vague ideas of what the business's attributes may be. People fear blunders like trying to sell a car named "Nova" in a Spanish speaking country, when a name is only going to cause problems when it's very blatantly bad. I guess if it only brings to mind vague ideas then it's safe. Vagueness also suits these companies very well. God forbid they actually state what they do in their name! People might actually remember their company, and then they'd get business, which means more work for them. We certainly don't want that happening!
logan
logan
With two states per button, there are 2^3 permutations.
logan
(moderation is masturbation)
Well, I don't know where you get your information, but it is perfectly legal for an individual to make copies of digital recordings for personal, non-commercial use (assuming the original recording was obtained legally). http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/100 8.html even indicates this ("... or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."). The obvious difference in this case is that, in the case of some DJs, this is a commercial use. Thus the recording industry's magnanimous offer.
logan
Of course, I've never really seen the need for crybabies to use killfiles anyway. It makes sense for spammers and such, but most people I see use it simply as a way to flaunt their supposed intelligence over others, by announcing "You've just earned a spot in my illustrious killfile" everytime they disagree with someone. Then again, I'm sure there are people that intelligently use killfiles and have no need to announce their usage, so of course I'd never hear from them. :P
logan
logan
Frankly, what could you expect from a group of people immature enough to get into a flamewar over skiing in the first place? It was inevitable at some point that someone this immature would seek legal assistance to protect their fragile overblown egos from popping from the heat of flamewars that they themselves have caused. While it deeply saddens me to see our rights further limited due to the immaturity and ignorance of the few, I'm surprised it took as long as it did. I do have to commend the participators in the "discussion" for their response to Waldron's post in Shirey's name, though. I'd like to send a big hearty thanks to Mr. Waldron and Detective Shirey, for ensuring my safety on Usenet for years to come. I no longer have to worry about people that disagree with me! Now I only have to worry about not disagreeing with anyone else.
logan
The so-called victim only has to ignore the offensive poster or posters (either through his supposedly mature mental faculties or through the assistance of common software). I doubt you could argue that preventing the victim from seeing these offensive posts is denial of service when the restraining order has quite the same effect, though with the added side effect of rights violations, unconstitutional legal precedents, etc.
logan
logan
An interesting statement. So you believe that all software developers have a legal obligation to improve their existing products indefinitely and distribute these improvements free of charge? Or does the label of "monopoly" basically strip a business of all rights?
It's not about being dependent on Microsoft, it's about being able to continue to be productive, using applications that we've already spent good money for.
You sound very dependent, actually. First, you purchase a product that, apparently, isn't quite up to par. Basically, you didn't get your money's worth. So what do you do? Well, apparently you dish out even more money in the blind hope that you will eventually get your money's worth. And this is not dependent? This is the sort of behavior you see from drug addicts. Perhaps your money would be better spent on less foolish purchases. Perhaps your money would be better spent on solid purchases rather than throwing more money at attempting to justify your previous poor judgments. You obviously think Microsoft isn't cutting it for you. Why do you continue giving them your business? Why do you insist they give away their business to you?
logan