This is the stupidest snippet ever. 1 man-year == an amount of men, x, working on a problem for y days each, such that x*y = 364 days.
You, as an individual, cannot work more then 1 man-year in a year. In fact, I highly doubt anyone has ever worked 1 man-year in a year - you have to sleep sometime. This guy is claiming to have spend 365 may-days (8760 man-hours) running virus scans and reformatting hard drives. Working 40 hour weeks, that's 219 weeks. That's more then four years. And that's assuming that he never does any other sort of work.
Looks like someone needs to brush up on their journalism skills.
Yeah, as I wrote above - usually CDs works fine, the caps giving away the abbreviation.
Basically, they're style choices, but you've got to be aware of the style having impact on the meaning. If you didn't know what a CD was and you saw CD's, you may assume the text is referring to a person whose initials are CD - that's the sort of thing you want to avoid.
I probably don't have to point out, but I will anyway - Not Safe For Work!
It seems a fairly explicit example of, uhhh, polyigonal relations, and contains a fair amount of content (in the way of textures and animations) - I wonder why it was left in if it wasn't intended that players find it? (Though, it seems the barrier to unlock it is high enough so it'd never be found unless you were explicitly looking for it, it's not like Rockstar forced this on the players.)
Look. Killing certain human cells while not killing all the rest of the cells is hard. It's a lot harder than killing a foreign pathogen without killing the human, which is already a lot harder than, say, rebooting a server or modifying a Perl script.
Medicine is a completely different field to Information Technology - it's similar to comparing an english essay with a mathematical proof. And not only that - you're comparing the most basic of Computer Science with the most complex of medicine. Is injecting something into a bunch of rats then measuring the results harder then designing an O(1) scheduler? Is theorising a drug based on complex bio-chemical equations harder then hitting 'reboot'?
There isn't really an easy answer, but I think that 'which is already a lot harder than, say, rebooting a server or modifying a Perl script' is a vast simplification. Some medicine is easy, some Comp. Sci. is hard and vice-versa. Of course, I believe that medicine is probably a more useful area of study overall - I'd rather live in a pre-industrial society free of disease then a modern one where we have horrible super-virii - but I don't think you can just claim that medicine is harder.
I would guess the root of the problem is that when learning your first language you simply learn to speak it by trial and error. Very seldom are you exposed to the concept of 'noun', 'pronoun', 'verb' or similar until you are much older and the habits have already formed. As a result, people who have English as a second language tend to speak more 'correctly' then native speakers, of course, I'd be willing to say that of almost any language.
Re:Catching up using eye candy?
on
Longhorn Preview
·
· Score: 1
Looks like it will cause some nastyy readability problems.
Maybe. But looking at the image - http://pcworld.com/news/graphics/121435-2308p020-2 b.jpg - it's not just straight transparency. It looks like it blurs out the background a bit, making it more akin to a 'frosted glass' look. If they do it well enough, it could make the desktop a little less 'cluttered' with multiple windows open.
Of course, the real improvement is that it will support per-pixel transparency, not just per-window like it is currently - with some hacks that allow some pixels 100% transparency - like the mouse cursor shadows and such that use grids of transparent/not transparent pixels. And it's 3d accelerated - so transparency won't be a huge performance drain.
And now all that remains is for me to think up a useful application for tranparency.
Hmm... I propose we build a giant bubble around an old growth forest, gas all the cute woodland creatures, measure the CO2 inside, then burn it to the ground. We can measure the levels of CO2 again afterward and speculate wildly that the difference represents the same amount of CO2 as the trees absorbed in their lifetime.
Can the computes compute how long it will be computing to compute the time for the compute's computing to compute? Or is it too compute-intensive for the compute resources to correctly compute?
Except that hardwood trees on the whole are much slower growing and older than softwood trees. Chopping down hardwood trees is what is causing the deforestation of the rain forests.
I'm not really speaking in support of chopping down old hardwood trees any more then I'm speaking in favour of producing that much plastic. I'm just saying it's probably has relatively less effect on the environment. Whether or not we should continue to do either is something I'm not really qualified to answer.
So something along the lines of it absorbs all the carbon to build itself up, then when it burns or rots, that carbon combines with oxygen in the air to form CO2 again?
That results in no net change in the amount of oxygen and CO2 available in the air - and now I think I understand. I was under the impression (from somewhere) that it all resulted in a net CO2 increase.
Well yes, but if a tree absorbs an amount of CO2, releasing O2 into the atmosphere in the process, how does it synthesise "exactly the net amount of CO2 that the tree absorbed over its life" to release when it dies?
I did some checking, and I still can't find any reason for the CO2 released by a dying tree to be "exactly the net amount of CO2 that the tree absorbed over its life". If a tree lives 200 years, does this mean that 200 years worth of absorbed CO2 will flood back into the atmosphere as that tree dies?
An accusation of piracy used to be a very big deal. There was usually hanging involved. Your quote from Thomas Babington Macaulay even backs this up. He doesn't call the booksellers 'pirates'. He calls them 'piratical'. The difference being that he is accusing them of having something in common with real pirates, not being real pirates.
Using the term to refer to copyright infringement is roughly as accurate as using the term 'Child Molester' or 'Fluffy Rabbit'.
Unfortunately, it seems the powers-that-be have successfully inserted the term into the language as a means to refer to the infringers of copyright as a sort of pre-emptive argumentum ad hominem.
Hrm, that makes more sense to me then it releasing more I guess. But if a tree absorbs x units of CO2, releasing y units of O2 in its lifetime, then you would assume the tree would contain x - y units of carbon. So where does it get the x - y units of O2 to synthesise the CO2 it releases?
Does it come from absorbed water, soil nutrients, etc.? I would assume there're 'running costs' associated with being a tree that would account for the use of things like that.
What's more, chopping down trees and planting new ones is actually better for the environment than simply leaving the trees there. As a tree grows it generates more oxygen and takes up more CO2 than an old tree.
I had heard that a tree dying naturally released more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere then it had absorbed in its entire life. The closest I could come to confirming this with a quick google search was this page, which claims that old overcrowded forests tend to use more oxygen than they produce. So I would assume that planting and chopping down fast growing trees would result in a net oxygen increase.
Rambling aside, I would think that chopping down an old hardwood tree would have less of an impact then producing the equivalent amount of plastics.
Perhaps they meant 'idiot-ology'...a common ailment of slashdot users...
Wouldn't that be the study of morons? And an ailment... hmmm... would that mean that if you passed an idiot in the street you would be compelled to stop and study him/her?
And common on slashdot? Well I guess thats why we have so many frequent posters, they came for the news and stayed for the idiology.
Bah, I mention one area in which Windows surpasses UNIX. One. And all of a sudden I'm 'focusing on the wrong things'? My mountain bike is a nicer shade of red then the Porche next door - does that mean I think the bike is better the Porche? Don't assume just because I think one thing is better in Windows it means I think anything else is better in Windows, I may, but it has nothing to do with this discussion.
If you want to argue my point, go ahead, but don't resort to assuming that just because I believe one thing, I automatically believe another. And worse, don't try and argue against this other thing which you just assumed existed. That sort of thinking leads to the worst sort of fanaticism.
And before you try the "I didn't assume..." tack, what the hell does Microsoft's focus have to do with the fact that I like something the way it's currently implemented in Windows? They can focus all they want, it won't change the fact that I like the way the Windows file permissions system is implemented right now. And what the hell does SELINUX have to do with it? And what does it matter that the ACL is only supported in NTFS? These things are all irrelevant to my point and only serve to prove that you're more interested in the idea that UNIX is better then Windows so therefore it must be better in every possible way then you are in having any sort of reasonable discussion.
An ACL is a security system, in the context of this discussion, I think what I meant was fairly clear. But ok, file security model.
And I'm not claiming that Windows as a whole is secure because it supports ACLs, I'm claiming the ACL model used in Windows is better then the average UNIX model. Considering that the average UNIX model is composed of 9 bits, total (I'm ignoring things like 'sticky' and 'setUID') - I think I have a case.
Slashdot Mirror
the man-years I've
This is the stupidest snippet ever. 1 man-year == an amount of men, x, working on a problem for y days each, such that x*y = 364 days.
You, as an individual, cannot work more then 1 man-year in a year. In fact, I highly doubt anyone has ever worked 1 man-year in a year - you have to sleep sometime. This guy is claiming to have spend 365 may-days (8760 man-hours) running virus scans and reformatting hard drives. Working 40 hour weeks, that's 219 weeks. That's more then four years. And that's assuming that he never does any other sort of work.
Looks like someone needs to brush up on their journalism skills.
Wouldn't that mean that the RIAA would be having people put to death left and right?
Yeah, as I wrote above - usually CDs works fine, the caps giving away the abbreviation.
Basically, they're style choices, but you've got to be aware of the style having impact on the meaning. If you didn't know what a CD was and you saw CD's, you may assume the text is referring to a person whose initials are CD - that's the sort of thing you want to avoid.
Unfortunately, all your points are invalid because the UK equivalent tax site is and always has been cross-platform...
The Australian e-tax is a Windows application - it is not a website.
0x1E120? That's only 123168. 123168 what though?
I probably don't have to point out, but I will anyway - Not Safe For Work!
It seems a fairly explicit example of, uhhh, polyigonal relations, and contains a fair amount of content (in the way of textures and animations) - I wonder why it was left in if it wasn't intended that players find it? (Though, it seems the barrier to unlock it is high enough so it'd never be found unless you were explicitly looking for it, it's not like Rockstar forced this on the players.)
Maybe a pineapple is just a big Bucky Ball?
Look. Killing certain human cells while not killing all the rest of the cells is hard. It's a lot harder than killing a foreign pathogen without killing the human, which is already a lot harder than, say, rebooting a server or modifying a Perl script.
Medicine is a completely different field to Information Technology - it's similar to comparing an english essay with a mathematical proof. And not only that - you're comparing the most basic of Computer Science with the most complex of medicine. Is injecting something into a bunch of rats then measuring the results harder then designing an O(1) scheduler? Is theorising a drug based on complex bio-chemical equations harder then hitting 'reboot'?
There isn't really an easy answer, but I think that 'which is already a lot harder than, say, rebooting a server or modifying a Perl script' is a vast simplification. Some medicine is easy, some Comp. Sci. is hard and vice-versa. Of course, I believe that medicine is probably a more useful area of study overall - I'd rather live in a pre-industrial society free of disease then a modern one where we have horrible super-virii - but I don't think you can just claim that medicine is harder.
I figured that paucity of unbiased analysis had to be an anagram for something...
Inauspicious Beady Satan Fly!
Now all you have to do is figure out what it means.
Who the fuck says "in-built"?????????
The dictionary writers?
I would guess the root of the problem is that when learning your first language you simply learn to speak it by trial and error. Very seldom are you exposed to the concept of 'noun', 'pronoun', 'verb' or similar until you are much older and the habits have already formed. As a result, people who have English as a second language tend to speak more 'correctly' then native speakers, of course, I'd be willing to say that of almost any language.
Looks like it will cause some nastyy readability problems.
Maybe. But looking at the image - http://pcworld.com/news/graphics/121435-2308p020-2 b.jpg - it's not just straight transparency. It looks like it blurs out the background a bit, making it more akin to a 'frosted glass' look. If they do it well enough, it could make the desktop a little less 'cluttered' with multiple windows open.
Of course, the real improvement is that it will support per-pixel transparency, not just per-window like it is currently - with some hacks that allow some pixels 100% transparency - like the mouse cursor shadows and such that use grids of transparent/not transparent pixels. And it's 3d accelerated - so transparency won't be a huge performance drain.
And now all that remains is for me to think up a useful application for tranparency.
Hmm... I propose we build a giant bubble around an old growth forest, gas all the cute woodland creatures, measure the CO2 inside, then burn it to the ground. We can measure the levels of CO2 again afterward and speculate wildly that the difference represents the same amount of CO2 as the trees absorbed in their lifetime.
It's the only way to be sure.
Can the computes compute how long it will be computing to compute the time for the compute's computing to compute? Or is it too compute-intensive for the compute resources to correctly compute?
Except that hardwood trees on the whole are much slower growing and older than softwood trees. Chopping down hardwood trees is what is causing the deforestation of the rain forests.
I'm not really speaking in support of chopping down old hardwood trees any more then I'm speaking in favour of producing that much plastic. I'm just saying it's probably has relatively less effect on the environment. Whether or not we should continue to do either is something I'm not really qualified to answer.
So something along the lines of it absorbs all the carbon to build itself up, then when it burns or rots, that carbon combines with oxygen in the air to form CO2 again?
That results in no net change in the amount of oxygen and CO2 available in the air - and now I think I understand. I was under the impression (from somewhere) that it all resulted in a net CO2 increase.
Well yes, but if a tree absorbs an amount of CO2, releasing O2 into the atmosphere in the process, how does it synthesise "exactly the net amount of CO2 that the tree absorbed over its life" to release when it dies?
I did some checking, and I still can't find any reason for the CO2 released by a dying tree to be "exactly the net amount of CO2 that the tree absorbed over its life". If a tree lives 200 years, does this mean that 200 years worth of absorbed CO2 will flood back into the atmosphere as that tree dies?
An accusation of piracy used to be a very big deal. There was usually hanging involved. Your quote from Thomas Babington Macaulay even backs this up. He doesn't call the booksellers 'pirates'. He calls them 'piratical'. The difference being that he is accusing them of having something in common with real pirates, not being real pirates.
Using the term to refer to copyright infringement is roughly as accurate as using the term 'Child Molester' or 'Fluffy Rabbit'.
Unfortunately, it seems the powers-that-be have successfully inserted the term into the language as a means to refer to the infringers of copyright as a sort of pre-emptive argumentum ad hominem .
Hrm, that makes more sense to me then it releasing more I guess. But if a tree absorbs x units of CO2, releasing y units of O2 in its lifetime, then you would assume the tree would contain x - y units of carbon. So where does it get the x - y units of O2 to synthesise the CO2 it releases?
Does it come from absorbed water, soil nutrients, etc.? I would assume there're 'running costs' associated with being a tree that would account for the use of things like that.
I'm just curious as to the mechanics behind it.
What's more, chopping down trees and planting new ones is actually better for the environment than simply leaving the trees there. As a tree grows it generates more oxygen and takes up more CO2 than an old tree.
I had heard that a tree dying naturally released more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere then it had absorbed in its entire life. The closest I could come to confirming this with a quick google search was this page, which claims that old overcrowded forests tend to use more oxygen than they produce. So I would assume that planting and chopping down fast growing trees would result in a net oxygen increase.
Rambling aside, I would think that chopping down an old hardwood tree would have less of an impact then producing the equivalent amount of plastics.
Perhaps they meant 'idiot-ology'...a common ailment of slashdot users...
Wouldn't that be the study of morons? And an ailment... hmmm... would that mean that if you passed an idiot in the street you would be compelled to stop and study him/her?
And common on slashdot? Well I guess thats why we have so many frequent posters, they came for the news and stayed for the idiology.
But they don't keep the voices away.
Bah, I mention one area in which Windows surpasses UNIX. One . And all of a sudden I'm 'focusing on the wrong things'? My mountain bike is a nicer shade of red then the Porche next door - does that mean I think the bike is better the Porche? Don't assume just because I think one thing is better in Windows it means I think anything else is better in Windows, I may, but it has nothing to do with this discussion.
If you want to argue my point, go ahead, but don't resort to assuming that just because I believe one thing, I automatically believe another. And worse, don't try and argue against this other thing which you just assumed existed. That sort of thinking leads to the worst sort of fanaticism.
And before you try the "I didn't assume..." tack, what the hell does Microsoft's focus have to do with the fact that I like something the way it's currently implemented in Windows? They can focus all they want, it won't change the fact that I like the way the Windows file permissions system is implemented right now. And what the hell does SELINUX have to do with it? And what does it matter that the ACL is only supported in NTFS? These things are all irrelevant to my point and only serve to prove that you're more interested in the idea that UNIX is better then Windows so therefore it must be better in every possible way then you are in having any sort of reasonable discussion.
An ACL is a security system, in the context of this discussion, I think what I meant was fairly clear. But ok, file security model.
And I'm not claiming that Windows as a whole is secure because it supports ACLs, I'm claiming the ACL model used in Windows is better then the average UNIX model. Considering that the average UNIX model is composed of 9 bits, total (I'm ignoring things like 'sticky' and 'setUID') - I think I have a case.