Two circles can't even remain linked in 2D, although they can remain linked in 3D (provided they are noncoplanar.) Perhaps one could be moved into the 4th dimension to allow the linking to happen without breaking them (two 2D circles can't be linked even in the 3rd dimension without breaking them.)
I suspect that if you could take two 2D circles into the 4th dimension to link them in the 3rd, you could link two *spheres* in the 4th dimension by taking one into the 5th to accomplish the link.
Hey, if it means that I get more interesting games because they're more profitable to make, cool. I'd pay good money for, say, a sneak preview of the next Elder Scrolls V game (or even an official version of Morroblivion complete with quests). Just please don't make it an online game; that would ruin it.
Not only was it only sort of fast (although I don't know if he's one of the contestants or just "demonstrating" the challenge, like the other guy said) -- I wouldn't want any servers that I paid for built this way.
Honestly, guys -- which is less likely to get you in trouble with the boss -- taking an extra half a minute to do it right, or snapping a stick of DDR3 in half because you were in a big hurry?
I can see the point of assembling and disassembling a weapon quickly (Marine-style); they're built for it, and there might be a real, tangible benefit to getting your rifle assembled 0.2 seconds faster than the other guy. But servers? Naah.
Make it a real contest. Give them all them identical problems -- like a missing filter cap causing intermittent errors, or an out-of-spec power supply or something. First one to diagnose the problem wins.
...NASA's facility is being used for the launch of a new rocket. If it works well, NASA stands to lose funding. If it doesn't (especially if it fails catastrophically), NASA comes out ahead?
I'm glad I'm not anywhere near the Cape right about now, y'know? Just saying.
So you prompt the sellers to spray each piece with Oleic acid to make their display look extra-tasty. It needs to be a more sophisticated, hard-to-fool algorithm than that.
For most of the Web surfing that I do, full https encryption simply isn't needed. Why do I need encryption (which adds another quite significant protocol layer) to surf Slashdot or CNN or xkcd?
OK, granted, I probably should use encryption or TOR for that last one or the 'raptors will catch on. But other than that... why?
It has better *resolution* than that, although I can't speak for the accuracy (meaning repeatability).
Back in the day, I actually rigged up a Loran system and a surplus Compaq Plus luggable computer in my car, and wrote a program in QuickBASIC to log lat/long data points while driving back to college from vacation. Just to see what it would look like, I drove completely around a cloverleaf interchange (four 270-degree turns), and continued on. When I got where I was going and ran the data through a really cheapo plotting program I wrote, I could clearly see all four loops (some a little flattened, probably more due to the 1-second time resolution than anything.)
Granted, this was in the middle of nowhere (low noise), at night (nice propagation), with a long whip antenna on the top of the car -- but it was still impressive for Loran-C. (And yeah, I know it would be a piece of cake for any half-decent GPS receiver.)
As for selective availability, I think this could be implemented over Loran -- although Loran's repeatability without modifications is probably no better than the ~50m accuracy of GPS+SA...
There are any number of legitimate reasons for one of 'those' addresses to still be in use. The two most common are convenience and the desires of a spouse.
Convenience? Get a second email address at gmail. It's easy and doesn't risk looking unprofessional. You don't get the bonus points for running your own domain that way, but it's an easy, convenient out for lazy folks. (Lazier than me == pretty lazy, and even I have my own domains.)
Desires of a spouse? That applies here, too. My wife still uses her @yahoo.com account, out of convenience and inertia. I have one as well, but would never consider putting it on a resume. Some employers would look down on it and some wouldn't, but why give yourself negative points with a large percentage of employers, just out of laziness?
If it were me hiring (and I'm not a manager, though I've been consulted for several hires), I definitely would look at the email address. It may or may not indicate the applicant's level of IT savvy, but anyone applying for a job in IT should know that AOL (for instance) is not looked upon as a professional email address domain by many/most professionals in the field. Firstname.lastname@gmail.com would be neutral, but having your own domain (as long as it's professional) would be a plus. None of this would be a showstopper, but joe@smith.com would be looked upon much more favorably than l33thax0r@hotmail.com .
Analyzing systems for failure modes/exploitation - check
Same here, but:
...Ability to blindly swallow what religious authorities tell me? Uh oh. We're a "no-go" on that one, Houston.
It's amazing to me that anyone with an engineering background could have blind (I.E. without tangible proof) faith in any religion. Agnosticism seems to me to be the viewpoint most consistent with an Engineering outlook (until a religion provides some kind of tangible proof, which goes against what most of them say about faith.)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If I were to claim to have a device that could solve any problem in linear time, or that produced more energy than it consumed, or that nullified gravity, any engineer worth the title would be highly skeptical and would demand to see hard data before believing such a claim.
It doesn't make sense to me that most people with this sort of engineering mindset could blindly accept extraordinary claims (made by whichever religion.) I'm not saying they're necessarily wrong -- just that they are very difficult to believe without strong evidence.
I enjoy what I call my "8-bit mix" -- various songs, each with some kind of "8-bit" flavor to them. Some are old Nintendo themes (Tetris for the GB had great music for looping), some are simple classical instrumentals (pieces by Rameau, The Harmonious Blacksmith, etc.)
But then again, my programming tends to be very procedural (and often 8-bit assembly). YMMV.
About the only common theme seems to be order, as opposed to chaos.
Essentially, a flip-flop circuit. The classic one is two NAND gates in a feedback loop, but there are other implementations, too. D flip-flops are modular one-bit memory components. Larger memories are pretty much just more of the same -- but you can do really cool things with a lot of really simple pieces.
This sounds like a good idea -- show them how computer fundamentals work. Use some nice, durable switches and pretty lights to make some demo AND, OR, NOT gates etc. Maybe even an XOR, a flip-flop, etc. Show them how all the pieces come together -- maybe put a Z80 or something under a fixed microscope to show them how complex they are.
OK, if I were to rate PC speeds as "Very Good" if they exceeded 500 petaflops, none would get that rating. But it's still quite possible that the fastest ones out there would be worth having, compared to the rest.
If there are differences in performance in the products you are evaluating, your scale should reflect this. If none of the packages rate "Very Good," it's time to recalibrate the scale, unless there's a clear natural distinction between that rating and the next-lowest. Unless you're asking for perfection to achieve that rating (which is unrealistic), it doesn't really mean anything if none of the programs get your top rating.
If you have a true religious fanatic, who is looking forward to dying for a cause he believes in -- and is looking forward to eternity in the paradise-of-his-choice for his actions, would he* still show physiological signs of fear?
* (I think statistically, "he" is a fair generalization here.)
Slashdot Mirror
Two circles can't even remain linked in 2D, although they can remain linked in 3D (provided they are noncoplanar.) Perhaps one could be moved into the 4th dimension to allow the linking to happen without breaking them (two 2D circles can't be linked even in the 3rd dimension without breaking them.)
I suspect that if you could take two 2D circles into the 4th dimension to link them in the 3rd, you could link two *spheres* in the 4th dimension by taking one into the 5th to accomplish the link.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!
*whoooosh*
Hey, if it means that I get more interesting games because they're more profitable to make, cool. I'd pay good money for, say, a sneak preview of the next Elder Scrolls V game (or even an official version of Morroblivion complete with quests). Just please don't make it an online game; that would ruin it.
Not only was it only sort of fast (although I don't know if he's one of the contestants or just "demonstrating" the challenge, like the other guy said) -- I wouldn't want any servers that I paid for built this way.
Honestly, guys -- which is less likely to get you in trouble with the boss -- taking an extra half a minute to do it right, or snapping a stick of DDR3 in half because you were in a big hurry?
I can see the point of assembling and disassembling a weapon quickly (Marine-style); they're built for it, and there might be a real, tangible benefit to getting your rifle assembled 0.2 seconds faster than the other guy. But servers? Naah.
Make it a real contest. Give them all them identical problems -- like a missing filter cap causing intermittent errors, or an out-of-spec power supply or something. First one to diagnose the problem wins.
I for one welcome our new robotic co-workers!
...NASA's facility is being used for the launch of a new rocket. If it works well, NASA stands to lose funding. If it doesn't (especially if it fails catastrophically), NASA comes out ahead?
I'm glad I'm not anywhere near the Cape right about now, y'know? Just saying.
So you prompt the sellers to spray each piece with Oleic acid to make their display look extra-tasty. It needs to be a more sophisticated, hard-to-fool algorithm than that.
Man -- I meant if it was *multiplayer*.
Note to self -- no posts before caffeine.
>If a game is multi-platform, then you will play it less, or not at all.
There -- fixed that for you.
For most of the Web surfing that I do, full https encryption simply isn't needed. Why do I need encryption (which adds another quite significant protocol layer) to surf Slashdot or CNN or xkcd?
OK, granted, I probably should use encryption or TOR for that last one or the 'raptors will catch on. But other than that... why?
Ah the good old days of alt.religion.kibology.
Oh, now you've done it. And here I thought we were finally done with the whole Kibo/Xibo thing...
Ah, yes -- but Loran-C stations are no doubt being phased out due to their comparative vulnerability to raptor attacks. Just ask Randall Munroe!
It has better *resolution* than that, although I can't speak for the accuracy (meaning repeatability).
Back in the day, I actually rigged up a Loran system and a surplus Compaq Plus luggable computer in my car, and wrote a program in QuickBASIC to log lat/long data points while driving back to college from vacation. Just to see what it would look like, I drove completely around a cloverleaf interchange (four 270-degree turns), and continued on. When I got where I was going and ran the data through a really cheapo plotting program I wrote, I could clearly see all four loops (some a little flattened, probably more due to the 1-second time resolution than anything.)
Granted, this was in the middle of nowhere (low noise), at night (nice propagation), with a long whip antenna on the top of the car -- but it was still impressive for Loran-C. (And yeah, I know it would be a piece of cake for any half-decent GPS receiver.)
As for selective availability, I think this could be implemented over Loran -- although Loran's repeatability without modifications is probably no better than the ~50m accuracy of GPS+SA...
There are any number of legitimate reasons for one of 'those' addresses to still be in use. The two most common are convenience and the desires of a spouse.
Convenience? Get a second email address at gmail. It's easy and doesn't risk looking unprofessional. You don't get the bonus points for running your own domain that way, but it's an easy, convenient out for lazy folks. (Lazier than me == pretty lazy, and even I have my own domains.)
Desires of a spouse? That applies here, too. My wife still uses her @yahoo.com account, out of convenience and inertia. I have one as well, but would never consider putting it on a resume. Some employers would look down on it and some wouldn't, but why give yourself negative points with a large percentage of employers, just out of laziness?
If it were me hiring (and I'm not a manager, though I've been consulted for several hires), I definitely would look at the email address. It may or may not indicate the applicant's level of IT savvy, but anyone applying for a job in IT should know that AOL (for instance) is not looked upon as a professional email address domain by many/most professionals in the field. Firstname.lastname@gmail.com would be neutral, but having your own domain (as long as it's professional) would be a plus. None of this would be a showstopper, but joe@smith.com would be looked upon much more favorably than l33thax0r@hotmail.com .
Chemical explosives - check
Electronic devices - check
Radio communications - check
Problem solving techniques - check
Analyzing systems for failure modes/exploitation - check
Same here, but:
...Ability to blindly swallow what religious authorities tell me? Uh oh. We're a "no-go" on that one, Houston.
It's amazing to me that anyone with an engineering background could have blind (I.E. without tangible proof) faith in any religion. Agnosticism seems to me to be the viewpoint most consistent with an Engineering outlook (until a religion provides some kind of tangible proof, which goes against what most of them say about faith.)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If I were to claim to have a device that could solve any problem in linear time, or that produced more energy than it consumed, or that nullified gravity, any engineer worth the title would be highly skeptical and would demand to see hard data before believing such a claim.
It doesn't make sense to me that most people with this sort of engineering mindset could blindly accept extraordinary claims (made by whichever religion.) I'm not saying they're necessarily wrong -- just that they are very difficult to believe without strong evidence.
I, for one, welcome the new tinfoil armband fashion!
>...but now things have gone quiet and we'd really appreciate some Slashdotter idle time.
Your wish is our Slashdotting! That's a name-brand CPU cooling solution you're running, right? Gooood.
I, for one, welcome the new opportunity to game the system. I mean pricing scheme.
I enjoy what I call my "8-bit mix" -- various songs, each with some kind of "8-bit" flavor to them. Some are old Nintendo themes (Tetris for the GB had great music for looping), some are simple classical instrumentals (pieces by Rameau, The Harmonious Blacksmith, etc.)
But then again, my programming tends to be very procedural (and often 8-bit assembly). YMMV.
About the only common theme seems to be order, as opposed to chaos.
Essentially, a flip-flop circuit. The classic one is two NAND gates in a feedback loop, but there are other implementations, too. D flip-flops are modular one-bit memory components. Larger memories are pretty much just more of the same -- but you can do really cool things with a lot of really simple pieces.
This sounds like a good idea -- show them how computer fundamentals work. Use some nice, durable switches and pretty lights to make some demo AND, OR, NOT gates etc. Maybe even an XOR, a flip-flop, etc. Show them how all the pieces come together -- maybe put a Z80 or something under a fixed microscope to show them how complex they are.
I'll wait for the Arrrr edition. That, I could at least pirate and get some enjoyment from.
OK, if I were to rate PC speeds as "Very Good" if they exceeded 500 petaflops, none would get that rating. But it's still quite possible that the fastest ones out there would be worth having, compared to the rest.
If there are differences in performance in the products you are evaluating, your scale should reflect this. If none of the packages rate "Very Good," it's time to recalibrate the scale, unless there's a clear natural distinction between that rating and the next-lowest. Unless you're asking for perfection to achieve that rating (which is unrealistic), it doesn't really mean anything if none of the programs get your top rating.
If you have a true religious fanatic, who is looking forward to dying for a cause he believes in -- and is looking forward to eternity in the paradise-of-his-choice for his actions, would he* still show physiological signs of fear?
* (I think statistically, "he" is a fair generalization here.)