You assume:
1 - both are using CVS
2 - the timestamps haven't been falsified. With opensource you have people who saw the code the day it was released, and thus falsified timestamps might get noticed. But that's not so with closed source.
It's good to know she's taking a stand and refusing to give her kids inedible snacks then! "Hostess Cupcakes are much better for my kids than those cardboard boxes the Henderson kids keep trying to eat!"
(Plus, they're great at thwarting evildoers with their irresistable cream filling.)
nor did they even mention it requires a unique OS and unique software.
It is no more or less unique than,say, Windows XP. Yes, Apple's ads lie a lot. Not mentioning that it uses a different OS than a competitor, however, wasn't an instance of that.
To 90% of the population, a Personal Computer is an x86 box running MS Windows.
It isn't Apple's job to make up for the ignorance of the consumer. In fact, when the general public is wrong, truth in advertising precludes catering to their notions.
Man, I hated Requiem for a Dream. (And Hey, moderator, it's NOT off topic if you understand the movie reference.) I hate it when I leave the theatre feeling dead tired because it was nothing but depression the whole way through and I had to fight to stay conscious.
Until you can concretely define "personal computer" in a way that can be shown to be the generally accepted defintion people hearing the ad would assume, that qualifier is meaningless. I could claim that I have the fastest personal computer, if I define "personal computer" to be "A computer owned by me."
Okay, so let's say there's a hypothetical situation where two products have a suspicious amount of similar code, such that it's extremely likely that one was copied from the other. The question I have, is how do you prove which was the copier and which was the original?
Who's to say Jboss didn't copy Geronimo, (or SCO didn't copy Linux, if they ever get around to producing any actual examples of similar code.)
"CELLPADDING" is a term in HTML, for example: <TD CELLPADDING='3'>data</TD> So any two people both familiar with this could very easily pick that same variable name, just as any two unix C programmers could both use "grep" for a searching function, or decide to name something that destroys threads based on a name "killall". It was already a convention before they used it.
If you need to use both methods, there is no benefit in using electronic voting.
I didn't advocate using both methods on the entire pile of ballots. Just on a representative random sampling of them. And yes, it's also possible for the human count to be wrong, but it's EXTREMELY unlikely for it to be wrong in exactly the same way as the machine counting. Therefore if the machine counts are wrong, they *will* be caught this way. (But some false posatives will also be generated when the machine count is right and the human count is wrong, but that's why you keep trying again and again to verify when that happens. Only after the human count differs from the machine count in a CONSISTENT way again and again do you assume the machine count is wrong.)
We haven't even hit the two-and-a-half century mark yet, especiallly if you want to count the start of democracy (which I would consider to be the use of the constitution) rather than just the date of independance.
I strongly recommend that random precients be manually counted and compared to the machine tallies there, even if the contest is not disputed.
That's a good idea in general, even when machines are not involved. Even if the whole thing was just human-counted papers, I'd still want that to check for rigging on the part of the human counters by randomly recounting a subset of the votes by a different group, and raising a big stink if there's any difference.
If you want to eliminate the wave, it is NOT sufficient to tell people to just leave more space. The solution is to leave exactly the uniform average amount of room in front of you. Too little and a compression in front of you occurs. Too much and a compression BEHIND you occurs. Granted, that's not a problem for YOU but it is for other people. If the road is filled with enough cars that (for example) there is a 5 Kilometer stretch of road, three lanes wide in your direction, with 500 cars total on this stretch of road, then the standing wave is eliminated if everyone's car takes up exactly 30 meters of space (including that car's length itself). If five cars try taking up 20 more meters of space, that's 100 meters of space that has to be compressed behind them (perhaps the next five cars are taking up 20 meters less space than the average.) The 'always leave more space' solution CAN work, but ONLY in those situations where you have practiaclly infinite road length to work with, like on a rural freeway. When getting around in a congested city (where there is congestion everywhere, not just in front of you), leaving more space than everyone else is will cause jams BEHIND you.
I fail to see how "I will pay my lawyer with this big wad of cash" is any less of a biasing factor than "I will pay my lawyer with these stock certificates." Both are cases of monetary interest that make the lawyer biased in favor of his client. It is only a lawyer's duty to find those loopholes, innaccuracies, and ambiguities that HELP his client. He is under no obligation to find the ones that hinder his client's cause. That's the opposing lawyer's job. I fail to see any relevant difference. The stock is just another form of paying the lawyer. If it causes a conflict of interest, then so too would paying your lawyer with cash.
I know. I mentioned that in another post as an annoyance I have at the system (since I commute to work on bicycle). But, if it's during a busy enough time, there will also be a few other cars there to trigger the light for me. It's only a problem when I ride home at 3:00 AM and the lights have gone into their "never switch until someone shows up" mode for the lesser of the two crossing roads. In that case I end up having to go over to the sidewalk and hit the button that pedestrians use for the light.
What you say is true only if you are in a situation where you have practically infinite distance of road to work with, so the traffic can back up into the less populated parts of road behind the jam. It might work on a freeway through the countryside where a jam is a rare event. It doesn't work in a city where the cause of the shorter following distance is the fact that that's the only way to fit all the cars that are trying to use the limited length stretch of road to get from point A to point B. The reason longer distances work is because they force a reduction in carrying capacity of the stretch of road in question, and push that load off onto other parts of the road. If there are no available other parts of the road to push that off onto, then it doesn't work to alevieate the jam.
studies have shown that if everyone left enough distance congestion wouldn't cause traffic jams.
If in a 5 Kilometer stretch of road, there are, say, three lanes going your direction, and there are 750 cars on that stretch of road, then each car takes up an average of 20 meters of space, like it or not. The only way to leave more space somewhere and still have that many cars in that stretch of road is to leave less space somewhere else to compensate. If, on the other hand, there are only 250 cars in that 5 km, 3-lane stretch of road, then each car takes up 60 meters of space on average.
Congrats, the study came to the pointless conclusion that the less cars there are present, the less traffic jams. BFD. That doesn't answer the REAL question of how to avoid traffic jams, which is GIVEN that you have 750 cars trying to use that stretch of road, and each driver is powerless to change that fact, THEN how do you stop the jam? More distance isn't an option once there are that many cars there. The only real reason more distance leads to less jams is that more distance reduces the carrying capcity of the road and less cars can use it.
Interix is not a unix-compatable product, except in the same sense that a telnet client is a unix-compatable product. It's just a tool to run on top of windows, nothing more. Spare me your idiocic conclusions, anonymous coward.
I don't remember where I heard it, but I'd heard that the BSD license changed at some point to drop the requirement that you acknowlege that you took code from them in your own license.
That's not really fear. If someone shows love for someone else, and your empathy makes you go, "ohh, that's so sweet!", that does NOT mean you are feeling that love. If someone else whacks their thumb with a hammer, and you empathize with their pain, that doesn't mean you are feeling pain yourself. And similarly, empathising with someone who is in a fearful position does not mean you are experiencing fear yourself.
How did you learn of the flare? Newspaper? Television? Or a specialized website on the internet that caters to collecting news stories nerds might be interested in? That's the big difference. In the late 1800's we gained the ability to send messages quickly around the world. In the late 1990's we gained the ability to do so in large volume so that the news is there for anyone who cares about it, and not there for those who don't.
There's a simpler explanation - today this stuff gets reported more than it used to. In the 1920's, if there was a solar flare, it certainly wouldn't appear in the newspaper. It's just like the myth that we are a more violent society than before. Nope - we just get to hear about violent news from farther afield than before, so what previously we would have remanined ignorant of we now get on the nightly news even if it's from halfway around the world.
Slashdot Mirror
You assume:
1 - both are using CVS
2 - the timestamps haven't been falsified.
With opensource you have people who saw the code the day it was released, and thus falsified timestamps might get noticed. But that's not so with closed source.
It's good to know she's taking a stand and refusing to give her kids inedible snacks then! "Hostess Cupcakes are much better for my kids than those cardboard boxes the Henderson kids keep trying to eat!"
(Plus, they're great at thwarting evildoers with their irresistable cream filling.)
nor did they even mention it requires a unique OS and unique software.
It is no more or less unique than
To 90% of the population, a Personal Computer is an x86 box running MS Windows.
It isn't Apple's job to make up for the ignorance of the consumer. In fact, when the general public is wrong, truth in advertising precludes catering to their notions.
Man, I hated Requiem for a Dream. (And Hey, moderator, it's NOT off topic if you understand the movie reference.) I hate it when I leave the theatre feeling dead tired because it was nothing but depression the whole way through and I had to fight to stay conscious.
Until you can concretely define "personal computer" in a way that can be shown to be the generally accepted defintion people hearing the ad would assume, that qualifier is meaningless. I could claim that I have the fastest personal computer, if I define "personal computer" to be "A computer owned by me."
Okay, so let's say there's a hypothetical situation where two products have a suspicious amount of similar code, such that it's extremely likely that one was copied from the other. The question I have, is how do you prove which was the copier and which was the original?
Who's to say Jboss didn't copy Geronimo, (or SCO didn't copy Linux, if they ever get around to producing any actual examples of similar code.)
"CELLPADDING" is a term in HTML, for example:
<TD CELLPADDING='3'>data</TD>
So any two people both familiar with this could very easily pick that same variable name, just as any two unix C programmers could both use "grep" for a searching function, or decide to name something that destroys threads based on a name "killall". It was already a convention before they used it.
When the article said they were shaped like red and blue pills, I was picturing a 3-D shape like a pill.
If you need to use both methods, there is no benefit in using electronic voting.
I didn't advocate using both methods on the entire pile of ballots. Just on a representative random sampling of them. And yes, it's also possible for the human count to be wrong, but it's EXTREMELY unlikely for it to be wrong in exactly the same way as the machine counting. Therefore if the machine counts are wrong, they *will* be caught this way. (But some false posatives will also be generated when the machine count is right and the human count is wrong, but that's why you keep trying again and again to verify when that happens. Only after the human count differs from the machine count in a CONSISTENT way again and again do you assume the machine count is wrong.)
USA with their 3 centuries of democracy
We haven't even hit the two-and-a-half century mark yet, especiallly if you want to count the start of democracy (which I would consider to be the use of the constitution) rather than just the date of
independance.
I strongly recommend that random precients be manually counted and compared to the machine tallies there, even if the contest is not disputed.
That's a good idea in general, even when machines are not involved. Even if the whole thing was just human-counted papers, I'd still want that to check for rigging on the part of the human counters by randomly recounting a subset of the votes by a different group, and raising a big stink if there's any difference.
If you want to eliminate the wave, it is NOT sufficient to tell people to just leave more space. The solution is to leave exactly the uniform average amount of room in front of you. Too little and a compression in front of you occurs. Too much and a compression BEHIND you occurs. Granted, that's not a problem for YOU but it is for other people. If the road is filled with enough cars that (for example) there is a 5 Kilometer stretch of road, three lanes wide in your direction, with 500 cars total on this stretch of road, then the standing wave is eliminated if everyone's car takes up exactly 30 meters of space (including that car's length itself). If five cars try taking up 20 more meters of space, that's 100 meters of space that has to be compressed behind them (perhaps the next five cars are taking up 20 meters less space than the average.) The 'always leave more space' solution CAN work, but ONLY in those situations where you have practiaclly infinite road length to work with, like on a rural freeway. When getting around in a congested city (where there is congestion everywhere, not just in front of you), leaving more space than everyone else is will cause jams BEHIND you.
I fail to see how "I will pay my lawyer with this big wad of cash" is any less of a biasing factor than "I will pay my lawyer with these stock certificates." Both are cases of monetary interest that make the lawyer biased in favor of his client. It is only a lawyer's duty to find those loopholes, innaccuracies, and ambiguities that HELP his client. He is under no obligation to find the ones that hinder his client's cause. That's the opposing lawyer's job. I fail to see any relevant difference. The stock is just another form of paying the lawyer. If it causes a conflict of interest, then so too would paying your lawyer with cash.
I know. I mentioned that in another post as an annoyance I have at the system (since I commute to work on bicycle). But, if it's during a busy enough time, there will also be a few other cars there to trigger the light for me. It's only a problem when I ride home at 3:00 AM and the lights have gone into their "never switch until someone shows up" mode for the lesser of the two crossing roads. In that case I end up having to go over to the sidewalk and hit the button that pedestrians use for the light.
What you say is true only if you are in a situation where you have practically infinite distance of road to work with, so the traffic can back up into the less populated parts of road behind the jam. It might work on a freeway through the countryside where a jam is a rare event. It doesn't work in a city where the cause of the shorter following distance is the fact that that's the only way to fit all the cars that are trying to use the limited length stretch of road to get from point A to point B. The reason longer distances work is because they force a reduction in carrying capacity of the stretch of road in question, and push that load off onto other parts of the road. If there are no available other parts of the road to push that off onto, then it doesn't work to alevieate the jam.
studies have shown that if everyone left enough distance congestion wouldn't cause traffic jams.
If in a 5 Kilometer stretch of road, there are, say, three lanes going your direction, and there are 750 cars on that stretch of road, then each car takes up an average of 20 meters of space, like it or not. The only way to leave more space somewhere and still have that many cars in that stretch of road is to leave less space somewhere else to compensate. If, on the other hand, there are only 250 cars in that 5 km, 3-lane stretch of road, then each car takes up 60 meters of space on average.
Congrats, the study came to the pointless conclusion that the less cars there are present, the less traffic jams. BFD. That doesn't answer the REAL question of how to avoid traffic jams, which is GIVEN that you have 750 cars trying to use that stretch of road, and each driver is powerless to change that fact, THEN how do you stop the jam? More distance isn't an option once there are that many cars there. The only real reason more distance leads to less jams is that more distance reduces the carrying capcity of the road and less cars can use it.
Interix is not a unix-compatable product, except in the same sense that a telnet client is a unix-compatable product. It's just a tool to run on top of windows, nothing more. Spare me your idiocic conclusions, anonymous coward.
I don't remember where I heard it, but I'd heard that the BSD license changed at some point to drop the requirement that you acknowlege that you took code from them in your own license.
That's not really fear. If someone shows love for someone else, and your empathy makes you go, "ohh, that's so sweet!", that does NOT mean you are feeling that love. If someone else whacks their thumb with a hammer, and you empathize with their pain, that doesn't mean you are feeling pain yourself. And similarly, empathising with someone who is in a fearful position does not mean you are experiencing fear yourself.
How did you learn of the flare? Newspaper? Television? Or a specialized website on the internet that caters to collecting news stories nerds might be interested in? That's the big difference. In the late 1800's we gained the ability to send messages quickly around the world. In the late 1990's we gained the ability to do so in large volume so that the news is there for anyone who cares about it, and not there for those who don't.
CD-ROMS shaped like a Red Pill or a Blue Pill.
Uhhm. Wouldn't they all have to be pretty much shaped like a flat circular disk to work?
switch to 'other operating systems that have a stronger IP basis than Linux.'
Good luck finding one. FreeBSD is equal to linux in this regard, and everything else is less.
There's a simpler explanation - today this stuff gets reported more than it used to. In the 1920's, if there was a solar flare, it certainly wouldn't appear in the newspaper. It's just like the myth that we are a more violent society than before. Nope - we just get to hear about violent news from farther afield than before, so what previously we would have remanined ignorant of we now get on the nightly news even if it's from halfway around the world.
That could backfire. A competitor could point out what solar flares can do to electronics, and try to draw a parallel.
Thanks for the tip (although if enough people do this, they'll eventually notice and fix that hole.)