The article doesn't say how the study was conducted or what the collected data was. It just gives an interpretation.
It says that 35% chose to purchase a hybrid again. So are we to assume that the others purchased something else? It doesn't say that. How many of the remaining 65% chose to not buy a new car at all?
The article doesn't say how the study was conducted. Was some of the data collected at dealerships that don't sell hybrids?
Does the study consider only new car buyers, or does it include people buying clunkers? Because clunker-buyers might not know or care whether a clunker is hybrid.
By and large, hybrid owners love their hybrids. You know who doesn't like hybrids? Outdated automobile manufacturers who don't have the technological prowess to develop them. They wouldn't be behind a phony study/article, would they?
Two lines are perpendicular if they meet at a right angle. If they don't meet, they aren't perpendicular.
So question (i) on the Chinese national test is ill-formed.
I prefer the British test. It looks like the people who wrote the Chinese test were trying to make too complicated a question, and got confused themselves. Maybe something got lost in translation.
You could guess that they meant that any non-zero vector along BD is perpendicular to any non-zero vector along A1C, but if that's
what they meant, they could have said so.
Instead of bad-mouthing the people who discover the problems, why not tell us what Oracle is doing to improve its response time to vulnerabilities?
Open source software projects have an advantage in that they can just fix the bugs and make a new release while close source software projects have to additionally fix old versions or else offer free upgrades.
Yes it is hard to respond rapidly, but it's necessary. The security researchers know this. But many closed-source software vendors are in denial. Bad mouthing security researchers won't help. Changing your release model to help get fixes out more rapidly will.
Do they really want applicants who do not know how to use a browser? Modifying a URL isn't hacking, it's navigating.
Just because Harvard didn't want people to look at their scores doesn't mean that it was unethical for people to look at their scores.
Harvard should be ashamed for being so careless with its data. If it's out there with a URL, it's fair game.
Programmers optimize their code until they are satisfied with its speed, then they stop.
So the speed of software is not set by the speed of computers. Rather it is set by what programmers will tolerate.
The level of programmer toleration for slow software has not changed over the years. For software to get faster, programmer's attitudes need to change. They need to become intolerant of slow software.
(in many cases, it's the managers, not the programmers who are tolerant of slow software).
Slashdot Mirror
The article doesn't say how the study was conducted or what the collected data was. It just gives an interpretation.
It says that 35% chose to purchase a hybrid again. So are we to assume that the others purchased something else? It doesn't say that. How many of the remaining 65% chose to not buy a new car at all?
The article doesn't say how the study was conducted. Was some of the data collected at dealerships that don't sell hybrids?
Does the study consider only new car buyers, or does it include people buying clunkers? Because clunker-buyers might not know or care whether a clunker is hybrid.
By and large, hybrid owners love their hybrids. You know who doesn't like hybrids? Outdated automobile manufacturers who don't have the technological prowess to develop them. They wouldn't be behind a phony study/article, would they?
Two lines are perpendicular if they meet at a right angle. If they don't meet, they aren't perpendicular. So question (i) on the Chinese national test is ill-formed. I prefer the British test. It looks like the people who wrote the Chinese test were trying to make too complicated a question, and got confused themselves. Maybe something got lost in translation. You could guess that they meant that any non-zero vector along BD is perpendicular to any non-zero vector along A1C, but if that's what they meant, they could have said so.
Instead of bad-mouthing the people who discover the problems, why not tell us what Oracle is doing to improve its response time to vulnerabilities? Open source software projects have an advantage in that they can just fix the bugs and make a new release while close source software projects have to additionally fix old versions or else offer free upgrades. Yes it is hard to respond rapidly, but it's necessary. The security researchers know this. But many closed-source software vendors are in denial. Bad mouthing security researchers won't help. Changing your release model to help get fixes out more rapidly will.
Do they really want applicants who do not know how to use a browser? Modifying a URL isn't hacking, it's navigating. Just because Harvard didn't want people to look at their scores doesn't mean that it was unethical for people to look at their scores. Harvard should be ashamed for being so careless with its data. If it's out there with a URL, it's fair game.
So the speed of software is not set by the speed of computers. Rather it is set by what programmers will tolerate.
The level of programmer toleration for slow software has not changed over the years. For software to get faster, programmer's attitudes need to change. They need to become intolerant of slow software. (in many cases, it's the managers, not the programmers who are tolerant of slow software).