This is why the greenhouses are going to be relatively "sealed" - so that you can create an incubator environment with enough oxygen in it for the plants to grow. What I'm curious about is whether or not they believe the local concentration of O2 for relatively dense vegetation will make the greenhouses unnecessary; a sort of "critical mass", so to speak.
It would be interesting to have an environment where the local concentration of O2 is high enough for humans to breathe, but they would asphyxiate if they ventured too far away from the garden. I'd be willing to bet that it's unlikely, though, considering that Mars's atmosphere is primarily CO2, which is more dense than O2. The lighter O2 would get dissipated into the Martian atmosphere relatively quickly without some sort of containment to keep it nearby. Although it's (probably) not quite possible on Mars, it would make for a sci-fi setting that I don't believe I've ever seen before.
Another interesting thing to consider about Mars is its lack of the vast oceans that Earth has. You could cover far more of the Martian terrain (conceivably, if you're considering terraforming) than you could on Earth to make up for the difference in solar intensity. Although it does present an interesting challenge for keeping all these plants hydrated.
Microsoft is abusing their monopolistic privileges by using anti-competetive tactics with the SMB protocol, and the parent is a perfect example of how this relates using a tangible example.
Good thing you're not an editor. First, www.dictionary.com shows that the malicious definition of 'hacker' is deprecated. Next, www.webster.com shows both meanings, as you say, but (as with most lexicons) the more common or more proper definitions are listed first. Notice that the malicious definition is listed last. Furthermore, in the context of the offending article, the term 'hacker' is jargon, and is therefore subject to definition by the particular field to which the jargon term belongs: computer technology. Therefore, Webster, OED, and any other general-knowledge dictionaries' definitions of said term are superseded by the generally-understood meaning within the field of computer technology.
A respectful computer expert (that is, a computer expert that respects the skills, opinions, and decisions of other computer experts) would understand the distinction between the usual news article's use of the term 'hacker' and the more correct term as I have described it. However, the average lay-person will not understand the distinction, and will be left with a negative connotation whenever encountering the word 'hacker'. Therefore, as a hacker (in the non-malicious sense), it is my duty to defend myself, and others like me, by communicating to insensitive publications the inherent offensiveness of careless use of the term 'hacker'. If a publication receives a request like mine (see GP), and chooses to respond to it as you have, it is an indication of the publication's insensitivity and intentional alienation of a significant non-malicious worldwide subculture. Therefore, if I do receive a response from either of the publications I've contacted today, and it's similar to yours, I will do whatever is in my power to spread the word about their discriminatory practices. Not that I want to do that - I hope that my letters will incite changes in the treatment of the term 'hacker'. In any case, I'm doing my part to ensure that 'hacker' loses its negative connotation, since the correct definition of it describes me, and others like me, much better than 'computer expert', 'computer enthusiast', 'geek', 'nerd', 'programmer' (et. al.). If ethnic groups can be defensive about what they wish to be called, then subcultures should have the same right.
Everyone, please send emails to this address of a similar nature:
Dear editor,
I am a computer hacker. By this, I mean that I enjoy learning and exploring computer technology. I have a degree in computer science, and am involved in many not-for-profit computer-technology endeavors. I am not a criminal. I do not violate computer security, I do not write malicious software, and I do not intentionally cause harm to the computer systems that I have access to. Any computer system access that I have has been given to me through legitimate means. It has come to my attention that you have used the term 'hacker' in the article linked below to indicate a person who intentionally violates computer security systems:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/191647 14?source=Evening%20Standard&ct=5
The proper term for such a person is 'cracker' or 'security breaker', i.e. one that "cracks" computer security. By using the term 'hacker' in the way that your publication has done, you spread misinformation about me, and people like me. You are demeaning and destroying a culture that, above all, values learning, knowledge, and wisdom. Please stop insulting hackers by equating them with criminals. For more information, see here:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/appendixc.htm l
Please issue a correction, and please make sure that a clear distinction is made in the future.
That means that they know about my 1ll3g4l h4x0r1n9 correspondence! I thought it was all secret!
This really isn't a scary thing to me, since I don't use gmail (or google, for that matter) for anything illegal. That doesn't mean that I'm keen on spilling my email-archive guts to the entire world, but if it must happen, it'd be embarrassing at worst. More than likely, my email will elicit the same reaction we see when we try to post too quickly to a late-breaking/. story: Nothing to see here, please move along.
The rule of thumb here (or rule of wrist, if you're a fan of The Boondock Saints) is: Don't do stupid/illegal/dangerous stuff online - someone's always watching!
That'd work wonderfully, if phishers didn't do silly things like purchase things online with their stolen credit cards and obfuscate the physical trail with things like PayPal and p.o. boxes.
I think that making the motors sprung would add a trivial amount of complexity to the mechanical workings of a vehicle, especially since most mechanics are familiar with CV shafts & joints. It would also make for the possibility of creating retrofit kits for FWD vehicles. It would probably make service on the motor(s) simpler, since they're in the same general area of the vehicle. If I was performing service, I would definitely appreciate the two front motors being accessible from the same place (under the hood, say).
As a footnote, I prefer using the term motor, since I usually think of an engine as a machine that consumes fuel directly)
Wanna bet? I've been putting post-its on my co-workers' screens when they're not at their desk, then sending them emails telling them to update their pop-up blockers.
...and (since I wrote the parent) I'm hoping that I might get a job offer in Scotland if they think I'm bright enough to make the vapourware into reality.
Consider how much computing resources (for multiprogramming systems) are spent now in context switching. How much more of that would be spent not only dumping and reloading the contents of the registers, like in current systems, but the instruction set architecture (ISA)?
Unless there's some way to dynamically optimize and/or compromise between different running processes (which would inevitably include the OS kernel), this technology has a great potential to be much slower than the usual set-up (this may be a moot point in this particular case, considering that there are 64 different processing units). However, there will need to be some consideration for where the programming of the FPGAs ultimately comes (and how much can be done) from if this technology goes anywhere beyond just supercomputing.
IMNSHO, it should probably be governed with a set-up similar to how operating systems resource management is handled - the kernel has its portion of the ISA that it never allows anyone to mess with (probably not much more than what would make a FPGA as turing-complete as a finite-memory machine could be), and processes, as they have a need for a custom instruction, they will request it from the kernel. However, a process should not block when it fails to acquire a part of the FPGA for its custom instruction(s), it should use a composition of primitive operations (from the set that is kernel-reserved) to perform its operations until the kernel frees up a portion of the ISA to service its request (or until the process finishes).
When you really consider this, it's basically an architecture that allows you to encode subroutines into hardware. The wisest approach (IMO) would be for programmers/compilers to attempt, as much as possible, to use 'library' configurations of the FPGA, so that two or more concurrent processes would have the possibility of at least some overlap between the ISAs of concurrent processes, rather than everybody re-inventing the wheel for every task and making it (essentially) impossible for any processes to share the programmable portion of the FPGA.
McVoy will stop the give-away, saying it has been costing him nearly $500,000 per year to support Torvalds and his programmers.
Open source advocates have pushed McVoy to "open source" his product--that is, to publish the program's source code, or basic instructions, and let the world use it for free. But McVoy says it is simply not possible for an innovative software company to sustain itself using an open source business model.
I really don't see how this is about McVoy losing faith in open source becuase he believes it's not possible to make money - this is about McVoy wanting an extra $0.5 mil/year.
I was wondering the same thing. The only thing that comes to mind is that it may introduce some level of abstraction via a new primitive data type. I do, however, think that most of it is over-patented.
The concept, however, I agree with. The fact that most aesthetics of video games are generated solely by artists does lead to a rather disappointing world. I would like to be able to generate a forest-full of trees that is exactly the same every time, with every tree different, and not have every frickin' tree generated by an artist.
(as necessary, s/tree/house/, s/tree/planets/, s/tree/asteroids/, et. al.)
This type of concept ought to give a whole lot more control (and value) back to the programmers, and away from the artists. How wonderful would it be to have a function that would generate a tree based on 8 bytes of input (essentially making 2^64 different trees) possible?
I don't want the differently weighted keys! I write code, and when I write code, since it tends to require a large amount of special chars. Because of that, quite often, the whole "home row typing" ideal goes right out the window, meaning that i have a keyboard with a seemingly random weight depending on which of my different "home row for right now" configurations i'm using.
There are two things that many/.ers here are missing when they knee-jerk "blablabla India blablabla $5 bux an hour bla no benefits."
Pretty soon companies that are flocking to the third world will run out of qualified IT workers there too. Then the salaries will start rising. How long before they reach equilibrium? I'll bet not very long.
But it's definitely long enough for an American IT worker to run out of money, default on a couple of loans, and declare bankruptcy.
Who needs wages if you get food, housing, education, and your kids have a safe place to play?
I do - otherwise, there's nothing to motivate me to get a degree in higher education, so that I can actually benefit from having invested more time into being fit for my profession. If you try to implement communism, innovation grinds to a standstill. Do you know the average age of an automobile in Cuba?
Slashdot Mirror
That's one of the problems with wi-fi - lots of dropped ackets
A quick tutorial on what "tremolo" means in guitar terminology:
Tremolo
Locking Tremolo
and operations | and & (meaning bitwise OR and AND, respectively)
output = (X & Y) | (X & Z) | (Y & Z);
I certainly hope that this company:
I think that we technical people are also misunderestimating the danger posed by this junk to our own machines.
I think we technical people are "misunderestimating" our own grasp of the English language.
I honestly get modded up 90% of the time.
Not according to your recent posts.
This is why the greenhouses are going to be relatively "sealed" - so that you can create an incubator environment with enough oxygen in it for the plants to grow. What I'm curious about is whether or not they believe the local concentration of O2 for relatively dense vegetation will make the greenhouses unnecessary; a sort of "critical mass", so to speak.
It would be interesting to have an environment where the local concentration of O2 is high enough for humans to breathe, but they would asphyxiate if they ventured too far away from the garden. I'd be willing to bet that it's unlikely, though, considering that Mars's atmosphere is primarily CO2, which is more dense than O2. The lighter O2 would get dissipated into the Martian atmosphere relatively quickly without some sort of containment to keep it nearby. Although it's (probably) not quite possible on Mars, it would make for a sci-fi setting that I don't believe I've ever seen before.
Another interesting thing to consider about Mars is its lack of the vast oceans that Earth has. You could cover far more of the Martian terrain (conceivably, if you're considering terraforming) than you could on Earth to make up for the difference in solar intensity. Although it does present an interesting challenge for keeping all these plants hydrated.
Microsoft is abusing their monopolistic privileges by using anti-competetive tactics with the SMB protocol, and the parent is a perfect example of how this relates using a tangible example.
See here for a transcript of my endeavors with MSNBC.com.
Good thing you're not an editor. First, www.dictionary.com shows that the malicious definition of 'hacker' is deprecated. Next, www.webster.com shows both meanings, as you say, but (as with most lexicons) the more common or more proper definitions are listed first. Notice that the malicious definition is listed last. Furthermore, in the context of the offending article, the term 'hacker' is jargon, and is therefore subject to definition by the particular field to which the jargon term belongs: computer technology. Therefore, Webster, OED, and any other general-knowledge dictionaries' definitions of said term are superseded by the generally-understood meaning within the field of computer technology.
A respectful computer expert (that is, a computer expert that respects the skills, opinions, and decisions of other computer experts) would understand the distinction between the usual news article's use of the term 'hacker' and the more correct term as I have described it. However, the average lay-person will not understand the distinction, and will be left with a negative connotation whenever encountering the word 'hacker'. Therefore, as a hacker (in the non-malicious sense), it is my duty to defend myself, and others like me, by communicating to insensitive publications the inherent offensiveness of careless use of the term 'hacker'. If a publication receives a request like mine (see GP), and chooses to respond to it as you have, it is an indication of the publication's insensitivity and intentional alienation of a significant non-malicious worldwide subculture. Therefore, if I do receive a response from either of the publications I've contacted today, and it's similar to yours, I will do whatever is in my power to spread the word about their discriminatory practices. Not that I want to do that - I hope that my letters will incite changes in the treatment of the term 'hacker'. In any case, I'm doing my part to ensure that 'hacker' loses its negative connotation, since the correct definition of it describes me, and others like me, much better than 'computer expert', 'computer enthusiast', 'geek', 'nerd', 'programmer' (et. al.). If ethnic groups can be defensive about what they wish to be called, then subcultures should have the same right.
Apparently, MSNBC has a similar story. Mail your letters here.
Everyone, please send emails to this address of a similar nature:
7 14?source=Evening%20Standard&ct=5
m l
Dear editor,
I am a computer hacker. By this, I mean that I enjoy learning and exploring computer technology. I have a degree in computer science, and am involved in many not-for-profit computer-technology endeavors. I am not a criminal. I do not violate computer security, I do not write malicious software, and I do not intentionally cause harm to the computer systems that I have access to. Any computer system access that I have has been given to me through legitimate means. It has come to my attention that you have used the term 'hacker' in the article linked below to indicate a person who intentionally violates computer security systems: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/19164
The proper term for such a person is 'cracker' or 'security breaker', i.e. one that "cracks" computer security. By using the term 'hacker' in the way that your publication has done, you spread misinformation about me, and people like me. You are demeaning and destroying a culture that, above all, values learning, knowledge, and wisdom. Please stop insulting hackers by equating them with criminals. For more information, see here: http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/appendixc.ht
Please issue a correction, and please make sure that a clear distinction is made in the future.
(your name here)
A Proud Hacker
That means that they know about my 1ll3g4l h4x0r1n9 correspondence! I thought it was all secret!
/. story:
This really isn't a scary thing to me, since I don't use gmail (or google, for that matter) for anything illegal. That doesn't mean that I'm keen on spilling my email-archive guts to the entire world, but if it must happen, it'd be embarrassing at worst. More than likely, my email will elicit the same reaction we see when we try to post too quickly to a late-breaking
Nothing to see here, please move along.
The rule of thumb here (or rule of wrist, if you're a fan of The Boondock Saints) is:
Don't do stupid/illegal/dangerous stuff online - someone's always watching!
That'd work wonderfully, if phishers didn't do silly things like purchase things online with their stolen credit cards and obfuscate the physical trail with things like PayPal and p.o. boxes.
I think that making the motors sprung would add a trivial amount of complexity to the mechanical workings of a vehicle, especially since most mechanics are familiar with CV shafts & joints. It would also make for the possibility of creating retrofit kits for FWD vehicles. It would probably make service on the motor(s) simpler, since they're in the same general area of the vehicle. If I was performing service, I would definitely appreciate the two front motors being accessible from the same place (under the hood, say).
As a footnote, I prefer using the term motor, since I usually think of an engine as a machine that consumes fuel directly)
Wanna bet? I've been putting post-its on my co-workers' screens when they're not at their desk, then sending them emails telling them to update their pop-up blockers.
I'm holding out for OLED
...and (since I wrote the parent) I'm hoping that I might get a job offer in Scotland if they think I'm bright enough to make the vapourware into reality.
Consider how much computing resources (for multiprogramming systems) are spent now in context switching. How much more of that would be spent not only dumping and reloading the contents of the registers, like in current systems, but the instruction set architecture (ISA)?
Unless there's some way to dynamically optimize and/or compromise between different running processes (which would inevitably include the OS kernel), this technology has a great potential to be much slower than the usual set-up (this may be a moot point in this particular case, considering that there are 64 different processing units). However, there will need to be some consideration for where the programming of the FPGAs ultimately comes (and how much can be done) from if this technology goes anywhere beyond just supercomputing.
IMNSHO, it should probably be governed with a set-up similar to how operating systems resource management is handled - the kernel has its portion of the ISA that it never allows anyone to mess with (probably not much more than what would make a FPGA as turing-complete as a finite-memory machine could be), and processes, as they have a need for a custom instruction, they will request it from the kernel. However, a process should not block when it fails to acquire a part of the FPGA for its custom instruction(s), it should use a composition of primitive operations (from the set that is kernel-reserved) to perform its operations until the kernel frees up a portion of the ISA to service its request (or until the process finishes).
When you really consider this, it's basically an architecture that allows you to encode subroutines into hardware. The wisest approach (IMO) would be for programmers/compilers to attempt, as much as possible, to use 'library' configurations of the FPGA, so that two or more concurrent processes would have the possibility of at least some overlap between the ISAs of concurrent processes, rather than everybody re-inventing the wheel for every task and making it (essentially) impossible for any processes to share the programmable portion of the FPGA.
Sounds like a game of Worms to me...
Selfish bastard.
I was wondering the same thing. The only thing that comes to mind is that it may introduce some level of abstraction via a new primitive data type. I do, however, think that most of it is over-patented.
The concept, however, I agree with. The fact that most aesthetics of video games are generated solely by artists does lead to a rather disappointing world. I would like to be able to generate a forest-full of trees that is exactly the same every time, with every tree different, and not have every frickin' tree generated by an artist.
(as necessary, s/tree/house/, s/tree/planets/, s/tree/asteroids/, et. al.)
This type of concept ought to give a whole lot more control (and value) back to the programmers, and away from the artists. How wonderful would it be to have a function that would generate a tree based on 8 bytes of input (essentially making 2^64 different trees) possible?
I don't want the differently weighted keys! I write code, and when I write code, since it tends to require a large amount of special chars. Because of that, quite often, the whole "home row typing" ideal goes right out the window, meaning that i have a keyboard with a seemingly random weight depending on which of my different "home row for right now" configurations i'm using.
Perhaps it was simultaneously simultaneously simultaneously =)