The late Sir Martin Roth, a leading UK psychiatrist, always used to insist: "Alzheimers is NOT a disease of cognition". It has two separate components: the loss of personhood, and the loss of memory/cognition. In the questionnaire, one of the questions that best correlates with the onset of the disease is "... and for how long have you been depressed?"
The newest Word (2008) has significantly better typesetting of mathematical equations than latex. (I attended several presentations by the designers). Notably, it gets kerning right for glyphs that don't occupy their full space up to their corners, and fonts are the same as your document because it's all unicode. Word 2008 uses a markup language that's similar to tex -- \frac, \over, \rightarrow, \Longrightarrow and so on. You can toggle between markup and display, similar to that latex/emacs integrated package.
What Word2008 lacks is marcos with arguments. It only uses autocorrect, which amounts to argumentless macros. Which makes Word2008 fine for conventional maths, but awkward for computer science where we always like to define our own funky notation.
Catholic teaching is that, if there are aliens, he died for all of their sins as well. It's not any different from the long-ago-answered question of whether Jesus died for the sins of natives in the new world.
Seriously? This many books? It'd cost a fortune. I got by with two books for my undergraduate degree (of which one proved useless) and one for my phd -- though this was in computer science so maybe it's different for physics.
The word "custom", in legal terms, is an established usage which by LONG CONTINUANCE has acquired the force of law or right.
Your phrase "customary now" is an oxymoron.
That doesn't make sense. All dynamic memory is allocated in the context of the process (i.e. the EXE) whether it was allocated by code in the EXE or in a DLL.
It used to be done by corporate gunboat diplomacy, from the earliest days of corporations -- the East India company and the West India Company basically shaped the slave trade and British consumer tastes, and taxes, and the UK government was swept up along by the company to safeguard it. The naval blockade of China to force it to allow british companies to trade opium? again, driving by corporations. Forcing Japan to open up? again, for corporations.
If we go back even earlier, the middle ages equivalent of corporations would be the guilds. And yes they too shaped their cities and held their rulers under their thumbs.
Each TCP packet has a "ECN bit", Explicit Congestion Notification, which routers will set if the packet encounters congestion on its way. If TCP stacks started taking note of these bits to slow down then the internet would (provably) run faster. One way is to charge for each packet that gets this ECN bit, maybe in real money if you're a big player, or maybe in virtual money, so long as the computers at each end of the TCP connection both feel the pinch.
Lossless formats are a stupidly inefficient way of using up their bit quota. If we're allowed the same number of bits as a CD (or a lossless AAC) but instead we use it in some lossy format, then we can get much higher fidelity.
"Lossless" is a pointless criteria. The CD has already thrown away information (e.g. cut out frequencies above 22khz, cut out dynamic range to squash it to 16 bits, cut out anything more than 2 channels). It's silly to get enthusiastic about a "lossless" storage of this already-lossy data.
Well, yes, humans do suffer psychologically if there's too much choice. As the number of girls to choose from increases, we get only marginal increase in happiness from the choice we've made, but we get progressively larger increase in unhappiness from regrets and second-guessing and worrying that our choice was sub-optimal.
There's a good summary of the research in the article "The Tyranny of Choice" by Barry Schwartz, Scientific American, April 2004, pp. 70--75.
F# is an implementation of ocaml on.net, so it benefits from microsoft's fast multithreaded garbage collector. Also you get lots of libraries and documentation for free. I've switched most of my preliminary programming to F#, to be reimplemneted in C# or C++ depending on what's needed. The reimplementation's always between 4 and 10 times as big (in terms of lines of code).
It's because in the "free market" of nation-states, the successful ones were those that invested in science. The ones which didn't invest were left behind. It's straightforward free market economics and survival of the fittest (nation).
True first-year university exam question at Cambridge, about 1990, for computer-science undergraduate:
"[...] Here is three-paragraph extract from the Customs and Excise law governing the alcohol and tobacco you're allowed to bring into the country. Rewrite it in PROLOG."
It doesn't show CPU *power*. It shows total *energy* required to complete given a rendering task. Total energy is roughly similar to power/performance. So for computers that are on all day, you just look for a CPU that's low on the y-axis for this graph.
You think the fonts can be replaced? By anything other than mathpazo or the commercial Lucida fonts from Y&Y? Then you've obviously either never done it yourself or you have terrible typesetting sense (in which case I'm sure Knuth wouldn't appreciate you using his program).
As for being able to control things manually -- well, you can convert Office equations into MathML "manually" too! The topic is about the features and omissions of two pieces of software.
TeX doesn't do four-corner whitespace kerning for maths. It only looks at left+right kerning. That's why, in the TeX logo itself, the kerning between "T" and "e" has to be controlled manually. In the new Office, this kind of kerning happens automatically.
It's true that TeX does inline equations. However, it uses an entirely unrelated font family for the equations as compared to the body text. So if you want any formatting in the text to carry over to the maths it's a big effort. And if you switch font family for the text it's a bigger effort to switch font family for the maths. So anything other than Computer Modern is difficult. e.g. you'll use palatino for body text and SlantedEuler for maths, or palatino for body text and Pazo for maths. There aren't many choices and each one requires lots of effort by the maths-font package author.
The new Office2007 equation editor has a "linear syntax" that's very similar to the latex syntax. I guess it's more like the "Display-Latex" project that's integrated into emacs, where you type some normal latex maths and press a key and it instantly renders into the graphical version. Office2007 does the same. So the complaint that "MS Equation Editor is painful" no longer applies.
It's worth checking out the new Office2007 equation editor (which is also built into Wordpad in Vista). It typesets maths more elegantly than TeX thanks to kerning that's aware of the whitespace in each corner of a glyph or compound glyph. Also it's unicode through and through which allows for more uniformity between body text and equations. Apart from those things, it uses the standard tex-style algorithms for equations. The new equation editor itself is rock solid.
The comments I like best are correctness invariants or induction hypotheses. Like the ones you'd use to prove that your algorithm is correct. For example:
// Invariant: if an object is ReadOnly, then everything that points to it is ReadOnly // Invariant: if an object is writeable, then everything it points to is writeable // Invariant: when you call CopyOnWrite(), you get back a writeable object // Invariant: The ReadOnly flag starts false, and will change to true during the object's lifetime, but can never change back to false.
The correctness invariants for a data structure can also be embodied in a "sanity_check()" function for that data structure, and also in test cases. But the correctness invariants for an algorithm are rarely embodied in any code anywhere. But they're the ones that give you the programmer an assurance that your code is correct. That's why they're so important.
Slashdot Mirror
The late Sir Martin Roth, a leading UK psychiatrist, always used to insist: "Alzheimers is NOT a disease of cognition". It has two separate components: the loss of personhood, and the loss of memory/cognition. In the questionnaire, one of the questions that best correlates with the onset of the disease is "... and for how long have you been depressed?"
No, the page layout stuff remains more or less as you found it. It's the typesetting specifically of maths that has improved.
The newest Word (2008) has significantly better typesetting of mathematical equations than latex. (I attended several presentations by the designers). Notably, it gets kerning right for glyphs that don't occupy their full space up to their corners, and fonts are the same as your document because it's all unicode. Word 2008 uses a markup language that's similar to tex -- \frac, \over, \rightarrow, \Longrightarrow and so on. You can toggle between markup and display, similar to that latex/emacs integrated package.
What Word2008 lacks is marcos with arguments. It only uses autocorrect, which amounts to argumentless macros. Which makes Word2008 fine for conventional maths, but awkward for computer science where we always like to define our own funky notation.
Catholic teaching is that, if there are aliens, he died for all of their sins as well. It's not any different from the long-ago-answered question of whether Jesus died for the sins of natives in the new world.
Seriously? This many books? It'd cost a fortune. I got by with two books for my undergraduate degree (of which one proved useless) and one for my phd -- though this was in computer science so maybe it's different for physics.
The word "custom", in legal terms, is an established usage which by LONG CONTINUANCE has acquired the force of law or right. Your phrase "customary now" is an oxymoron.
Simple. Use the wayback-machine to see how the wayback-machine used to display your page before it instituted its robots.txt policy.
Windows Server 2008 looks, feels and runs like the improved version of XP that you want.
It's true that correlation doesn't imply causation. But correlation is CORRELATED with causation.
That doesn't make sense. All dynamic memory is allocated in the context of the process (i.e. the EXE) whether it was allocated by code in the EXE or in a DLL.
It used to be done by corporate gunboat diplomacy, from the earliest days of corporations -- the East India company and the West India Company basically shaped the slave trade and British consumer tastes, and taxes, and the UK government was swept up along by the company to safeguard it. The naval blockade of China to force it to allow british companies to trade opium? again, driving by corporations. Forcing Japan to open up? again, for corporations. If we go back even earlier, the middle ages equivalent of corporations would be the guilds. And yes they too shaped their cities and held their rulers under their thumbs.
Each TCP packet has a "ECN bit", Explicit Congestion Notification, which routers will set if the packet encounters congestion on its way. If TCP stacks started taking note of these bits to slow down then the internet would (provably) run faster. One way is to charge for each packet that gets this ECN bit, maybe in real money if you're a big player, or maybe in virtual money, so long as the computers at each end of the TCP connection both feel the pinch.
Lossless formats are a stupidly inefficient way of using up their bit quota. If we're allowed the same number of bits as a CD (or a lossless AAC) but instead we use it in some lossy format, then we can get much higher fidelity.
"Lossless" is a pointless criteria. The CD has already thrown away information (e.g. cut out frequencies above 22khz, cut out dynamic range to squash it to 16 bits, cut out anything more than 2 channels). It's silly to get enthusiastic about a "lossless" storage of this already-lossy data.
Well, yes, humans do suffer psychologically if there's too much choice. As the number of girls to choose from increases, we get only marginal increase in happiness from the choice we've made, but we get progressively larger increase in unhappiness from regrets and second-guessing and worrying that our choice was sub-optimal.
There's a good summary of the research in the article "The Tyranny of Choice" by Barry Schwartz, Scientific American, April 2004, pp. 70--75.
F# is an implementation of ocaml on .net, so it benefits from microsoft's fast multithreaded garbage collector. Also you get lots of libraries and documentation for free. I've switched most of my preliminary programming to F#, to be reimplemneted in C# or C++ depending on what's needed. The reimplementation's always between 4 and 10 times as big (in terms of lines of code).
It's because in the "free market" of nation-states, the successful ones were those that invested in science. The ones which didn't invest were left behind. It's straightforward free market economics and survival of the fittest (nation).
True first-year university exam question at Cambridge, about 1990, for computer-science undergraduate:
"[...] Here is three-paragraph extract from the Customs and Excise law governing the alcohol and tobacco you're allowed to bring into the country. Rewrite it in PROLOG."
It doesn't show CPU *power*. It shows total *energy* required to complete given a rendering task. Total energy is roughly similar to power/performance. So for computers that are on all day, you just look for a CPU that's low on the y-axis for this graph.
You think the fonts can be replaced? By anything other than mathpazo or the commercial Lucida fonts from Y&Y? Then you've obviously either never done it yourself or you have terrible typesetting sense (in which case I'm sure Knuth wouldn't appreciate you using his program).
As for being able to control things manually -- well, you can convert Office equations into MathML "manually" too! The topic is about the features and omissions of two pieces of software.
TeX doesn't do four-corner whitespace kerning for maths. It only looks at left+right kerning. That's why, in the TeX logo itself, the kerning between "T" and "e" has to be controlled manually. In the new Office, this kind of kerning happens automatically.
It's true that TeX does inline equations. However, it uses an entirely unrelated font family for the equations as compared to the body text. So if you want any formatting in the text to carry over to the maths it's a big effort. And if you switch font family for the text it's a bigger effort to switch font family for the maths. So anything other than Computer Modern is difficult. e.g. you'll use palatino for body text and SlantedEuler for maths, or palatino for body text and Pazo for maths. There aren't many choices and each one requires lots of effort by the maths-font package author.
I went to talks by the developers and spoke with them a lot. Yes, TeX was at the forefront of thir minds.
The new Office2007 equation editor has a "linear syntax" that's very similar to the latex syntax. I guess it's more like the "Display-Latex" project that's integrated into emacs, where you type some normal latex maths and press a key and it instantly renders into the graphical version. Office2007 does the same. So the complaint that "MS Equation Editor is painful" no longer applies.
It's worth checking out the new Office2007 equation editor (which is also built into Wordpad in Vista). It typesets maths more elegantly than TeX thanks to kerning that's aware of the whitespace in each corner of a glyph or compound glyph. Also it's unicode through and through which allows for more uniformity between body text and equations. Apart from those things, it uses the standard tex-style algorithms for equations. The new equation editor itself is rock solid.
The comments I like best are correctness invariants or induction hypotheses. Like the ones you'd use to prove that your algorithm is correct. For example:
// Invariant: if an object is ReadOnly, then everything that points to it is ReadOnly
// Invariant: if an object is writeable, then everything it points to is writeable
// Invariant: when you call CopyOnWrite(), you get back a writeable object
// Invariant: The ReadOnly flag starts false, and will change to true during the object's lifetime, but can never change back to false.
The correctness invariants for a data structure can also be embodied in a "sanity_check()" function for that data structure, and also in test cases. But the correctness invariants for an algorithm are rarely embodied in any code anywhere. But they're the ones that give you the programmer an assurance that your code is correct. That's why they're so important.
CD is already lossy. It truncates the audio to just 44khz 8bit stereo.