Nope. That's not what I said. If they surround you and start calling you a nigger or a kike or a faggot or whatever. They don't need to touch you to keep surrounded. They don't need to "threaten you" explicitly. That's what the hate speech is doing.
"Hate speech" is typically threatening. If you call someone a nigger, that's one thing. And at least in the US, it's no crime. But if you put up a noose, you're threatening to lynch someone. Moreover, it is obviously racially motivated. That behavior cannot be tolerated, and laws were put into place specifically BECAUSE IT WAS HAPPENING UNTIL THE LAWS WERE PUT INTO PLACE AND ENFORCED. People still get lynched, though it is becoming rarer.
"Each AM station is allocated a frequency band of 10kHz in which to transmit its signal.
This frequency band is centered around the carrier frequency of the station -A station at 610 on your dial transmits at a carrier frequency of 610kHz -The signal that is broadcast occupies the frequency range from 605kHz to 615kHz"
If you were willing to do a little basic research, you would realize that socialized health care is a good thing.
Compare the following ratio: life expectancy / price spent on health care per person, by country.
You will find that the United States is near dead last among Western countries. That means we are spending more money than other countries, per capita, and getting less for our money.
Affording your own health care would be a hell of a lot easier if it was significantly cheaper. If it was cheaper, people would be healthier and have more money to put into activities that actually drive industry. This is a good thing, unless you hate America and want to see it continue its decline. Unless the promises G.W. Bush made regarding health care and social security are rescinded or otherwise solved, every single American tax dollar will be going towards paying retirees, instead of maintaining our roads and other common goods where economy of scale can give us significantly better deals than a single person can accomplish alone.
When will these people stop trying to change definitions. Broadband is a technology not a speed. All DSL is broadband, but ethernet and (most) cable is not even though they can offer higher speeds than ADSL.
You have that exactly backwards. Broadband is speed, not a technology. Ethernet is broadband. In fact, Ethernet's bandwidth (literally the width of the band of electromagnetic spectrum it uses) is MUCH broader than DSL and Cable. That is why Ethernet is unsuitable for long cable runs (and thus unsuitable for "the last mile" of internet distribution). High frequencies face "attenuation" from long cables because of "inductance".
There's (essentially) a one-to-one correspondence between the width of a band and the maximum capacity it can carry. That is why "bandwidth" can legitimately be overloaded now. That's the Nyquist-Shannon Sampling theorem. Hertz aren't very useful units of information capacity anymore, and there is a simple conversion to bits/second.
Dude, you're seriously confused. EVERY signaling system uses multiple frequencies at the same time.
Look up the Shannon-Nyquist Sampling theorem. It establishes that any signal over a single channel is limited by the width of the band that signal can transmit. In particular, you can send less than half as many samples per second as the channel is wide, in hertz.
Telephone modems do NOT use multiple connections. They use a single channel, about as wide as the voice frequencies. DSL does better, pushing the band width (literally the width of the band) up to a few megahertz.
The reason ethernet is faster than a telephone line is merely that the engineering implicit in the ethernet standards (less than 100m cables at the like) ensure that the band used is wide. Things like "inductance" lower a circuit's response to high frequency inputs.
If you're not legally allowed to drive then don't tell me how to drive. If you've never done a thing, don't try to tell someone who's done it how to do it. You'll only show your ignorance.
I don't have a license. I have had a license, and I got rid of it, purposefully. I can and will tell you how to drive, and YOU WILL FUCKING LOVE IT.
I think his point was that you're complicating things for yourself by even bringing up these units. A "kilobyte" is 1024 bytes. While that is a power of two, there isn't any reason to convert to that as a base, since you are already dealing with powers of two.
It's more support for the position that the kilo prefix should mean only 1000, because it is redundant when it means 1024.
SI units have been in use since the nineteenth century. The uses of binary mathematics and exponents in computer science is well understood, and has always been known as an approximate measure. It's called the kilobyte BECAUSE there are about 1000 of them. It is in analogy to (surprise) the SI prefix k-, which denotes 1000. But somehow you expect this to be the only "k-" to stand for 1024. That makes a lot of sense...
I can understand the computer scientist's reasons for coining the term, but it must fall by the wayside. It is literally wrong, despite being useful in some contexts. In most contexts, it doesn't matter one way or the other. That's more support that the notion of k- as 1024 should be dropped. The only contexts in which 1024 makes any sense at all is when dealing with powers of two. And analytically, it makes MUCH MORE sense to just deal with the powers of two. So k- as 1024 is only marginally useful even when it is useful at all.
In fact, here's some more knowledge for you: every constructive proof is equivalent to an algorithm, under the Howard-Curry Isomorphism. Since formal verification as you describe it aims to construct a constructive proof of a program's validity (albeit in a larger logic than the underlying program), it aims to construct an algorithm to validate the program, via the Howard-Curry correspondence. Ergo, Rice's theorem applies directly.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. That's not what I said. If they surround you and start calling you a nigger or a kike or a faggot or whatever. They don't need to touch you to keep surrounded. They don't need to "threaten you" explicitly. That's what the hate speech is doing.
And if you are surrounded and menacingly harassed while at a funeral?
And if they surround you and menacingly harass while you're at a funeral?
"Hate speech" is typically threatening. If you call someone a nigger, that's one thing. And at least in the US, it's no crime. But if you put up a noose, you're threatening to lynch someone. Moreover, it is obviously racially motivated. That behavior cannot be tolerated, and laws were put into place specifically BECAUSE IT WAS HAPPENING UNTIL THE LAWS WERE PUT INTO PLACE AND ENFORCED. People still get lynched, though it is becoming rarer.
"Each AM station is allocated a frequency band of
10kHz in which to transmit its signal.
This frequency band is centered around the carrier
frequency of the station
-A station at 610 on your dial transmits at a
carrier frequency of 610kHz
-The signal that is broadcast occupies the
frequency range from 605kHz to 615kHz"
http://www.teleamerica.net/reference/Electronics/RadioSlides.pdf
Eat a dick dude, that job is mine. /me shoves you out of the way, asshole. ;-)
Nope, I meant every. If the amplitude varies in time, the spectrum changes in time as well. That's just simple Fourier Analysis.
They ate breath mints and died of cancer.
If you were willing to do a little basic research, you would realize that socialized health care is a good thing.
Compare the following ratio: life expectancy / price spent on health care per person, by country.
You will find that the United States is near dead last among Western countries. That means we are spending more money than other countries, per capita, and getting less for our money.
Affording your own health care would be a hell of a lot easier if it was significantly cheaper. If it was cheaper, people would be healthier and have more money to put into activities that actually drive industry. This is a good thing, unless you hate America and want to see it continue its decline. Unless the promises G.W. Bush made regarding health care and social security are rescinded or otherwise solved, every single American tax dollar will be going towards paying retirees, instead of maintaining our roads and other common goods where economy of scale can give us significantly better deals than a single person can accomplish alone.
Maybe your Y-chromosome is short. Mine has never gotten any complaints, and a few excited gasps.
No. You don't. The certainty of the inference is just low. This is a fine start, and new data will be added as genetic sequencing becomes cheaper.
When will these people stop trying to change definitions. Broadband is a technology not a speed. All DSL is broadband, but ethernet and (most) cable is not even though they can offer higher speeds than ADSL.
You have that exactly backwards. Broadband is speed, not a technology. Ethernet is broadband. In fact, Ethernet's bandwidth (literally the width of the band of electromagnetic spectrum it uses) is MUCH broader than DSL and Cable. That is why Ethernet is unsuitable for long cable runs (and thus unsuitable for "the last mile" of internet distribution). High frequencies face "attenuation" from long cables because of "inductance".
(...assuming you can quantify the dynamic range and the associated bit depth of the signal)
There's (essentially) a one-to-one correspondence between the width of a band and the maximum capacity it can carry. That is why "bandwidth" can legitimately be overloaded now. That's the Nyquist-Shannon Sampling theorem. Hertz aren't very useful units of information capacity anymore, and there is a simple conversion to bits/second.
Dude, you're seriously confused. EVERY signaling system uses multiple frequencies at the same time.
Look up the Shannon-Nyquist Sampling theorem. It establishes that any signal over a single channel is limited by the width of the band that signal can transmit. In particular, you can send less than half as many samples per second as the channel is wide, in hertz.
Telephone modems do NOT use multiple connections. They use a single channel, about as wide as the voice frequencies. DSL does better, pushing the band width (literally the width of the band) up to a few megahertz.
The reason ethernet is faster than a telephone line is merely that the engineering implicit in the ethernet standards (less than 100m cables at the like) ensure that the band used is wide. Things like "inductance" lower a circuit's response to high frequency inputs.
govt can forgive the debt it loans itself...
Not if they're selling bonds to finance the project, as modern governments do....
They can donate their shiny G5's to me. I will give them a good home.
When your shooting skeet, the task is "playing a game". I don't see how you think that doesn't translate into playing with guns.
If you're not legally allowed to drive then don't tell me how to drive. If you've never done a thing, don't try to tell someone who's done it how to do it. You'll only show your ignorance.
I don't have a license. I have had a license, and I got rid of it, purposefully. I can and will tell you how to drive, and YOU WILL FUCKING LOVE IT.
...
I think his point was that you're complicating things for yourself by even bringing up these units. A "kilobyte" is 1024 bytes. While that is a power of two, there isn't any reason to convert to that as a base, since you are already dealing with powers of two.
It's more support for the position that the kilo prefix should mean only 1000, because it is redundant when it means 1024.
SI units have been in use since the nineteenth century. The uses of binary mathematics and exponents in computer science is well understood, and has always been known as an approximate measure. It's called the kilobyte BECAUSE there are about 1000 of them. It is in analogy to (surprise) the SI prefix k-, which denotes 1000. But somehow you expect this to be the only "k-" to stand for 1024. That makes a lot of sense...
I can understand the computer scientist's reasons for coining the term, but it must fall by the wayside. It is literally wrong, despite being useful in some contexts. In most contexts, it doesn't matter one way or the other. That's more support that the notion of k- as 1024 should be dropped. The only contexts in which 1024 makes any sense at all is when dealing with powers of two. And analytically, it makes MUCH MORE sense to just deal with the powers of two. So k- as 1024 is only marginally useful even when it is useful at all.
Given the number of stars in the universe, it's very unlikely to observe the small percentage that is experiencing "very unlikely" conditions.
All you have to do is blow them all up. Deal with it.
In fact, here's some more knowledge for you: every constructive proof is equivalent to an algorithm, under the Howard-Curry Isomorphism. Since formal verification as you describe it aims to construct a constructive proof of a program's validity (albeit in a larger logic than the underlying program), it aims to construct an algorithm to validate the program, via the Howard-Curry correspondence. Ergo, Rice's theorem applies directly.
"Contains bugs" is rather too vague a property of a program for Rice's Theorem to apply.
Not really. Fitness for purpose is as good a property as any.