The text, however, is asking you to observe the chain, and equate the speed of the chain movement with the speed of the blades. It is not asking you to observe the speed of the wheel movement.
A dragon is a mythical serpent. It has one head. A hydra is another mythical serpent. It has many. Heads contain brains. Brains are important to programming. The rest is left as an exercise to the reader.
I guess what I'm saying is that the point of materials science research like this is often to discover new materials with new sets of properties. I don't think they're aiming right at exactly what single crystal superalloy tech can do already. I think they're asking "what cool materials can we make this way?"
Yes, the summary did give that one property (homogeneity). Aren't there dozens of other properties that might be relevant in deciding whether or not the problem is 'solved', though? Certainly I couldn't take any old homogeneous substance and make an awesome turbofan blade out of it.
Your post could have been much shorter if you wrote it this way:
"This will fail because there are tradeoffs for using it. I know this because I'm in college and other college kids said it was hard to use. I tried to come up with an idea, but there are those darned tradeoffs again. No tool that has ever succeeded has had tradeoffs or was hard to use."
Sure, Vista kinda sucks, but all Windows versions kinda suck.
I'm not sure I see how your post qualifies as less of a microsoft-bashing post than the one you were responding to. Why must you say such negative things about the products of a poor, defenseless, beleaguered little 800lb gorilla!?
Can't one be a realist, weigh the relative merits of the two, and come to a conclusion that one is a better design?
I think automatically coming to the conclusion that someone with an aesthetic sense of design for code structure must be a fanboi is a more pernicious dogma than fanboism ever was.
Use something other than x86, and you lose that advantage.
Well, not for a Mac, though. With few exceptions, if you buy a Mac application today you get a universal binary that still supports PPC Macintoshes like the one I own. Application-availability is a non-issue for me on my dual-core G5 PowerMac. There's no reason it need be an issue on a new machines using the PA6T-1682M.
Well, let's start with what life is: life is patterns that self-replicate in a manner subject to natural selection.
So how long has there been life on Earth? Now for what percentage of that time has there been sentience?
There's a good basis for suspecting "more primitive" to be the common case right there.
Here is an excellent presentation on the sort of human computation that you're refering to. Indeed it is cool stuff. Unfortunately, if you watch the entire presentation, you'll realize that this technique is also effective against CAPTCHA-like tests, including the kitten test. Basically all spammers would need to do is capture the images, forward them to porn consumers who are frantic to the next titillating image, capture the response, and send it back to the webmail provider. It has already been done in the wild against CAPTCHAs.
Certainly the way that new OS X features have made it onto the iPhone first suggest to me that if there are two separate pipes, Apple has figured a way to span them much better than Microsoft ever did with Windows CE.
A lot of claims here, and no real proof.
CoreAnimation is a well-known example: it was developed and announced first for Leopard, but its first production use was in the UI for the iPhone. MacOS X and OSX share a common base of source code. Yes, the latter is trimmed-down, but it's not a completely separate beast as in the case of WinCE.
'Tis no mere canard or straw man. Simple economies of scale keep the Macs out of the botnets - not Cupertino prowess.
That has been the claim, but I consider it to be, by no means, a foregone conclusion. Software architecture and implementation, after all, contribute to security to a very large degree - and to claim that the effect of quality architecture and implementation have upon security is overwhelmed by the effects of popularity has not yet been established.
An interesting question comes to mind: how many Macintoshes are out there today. (Since I don't have a concrete number, let's call it M.) Now ask the question: what year were there M windows boxes out in the world, and what sort of malware for those windows boxes existed back then?
I would guess that there would have been no malware for windows back then, given the claim that M machines is insufficient to attract the interest of malware authors.
Substitute MS for Google in this story and slashdotters would be flaming mad.
Gosh, I'm torn between two different ways of responding to you...
#1: Aren't you assuming that the exact same set of people would be commenting in both threads? (This thread, and the hypothetical thread you propose). I think it's more likely that the appearance of "Microsoft" in the headline would merely get a different set of people to post in it, and that is why the results would be different.
#2: MS is copying all the time and rarely do I see people actually get angry about it. Sure, Apple will poke fun at them ("Redmond, start your photocopiers") but they didn't actually get offended. Rather, they appear to take it as the sincerest form of flattery.
I don't see how his statement ("This almost never works") and the anecdotal case of mozilla's success are mutually exclusive. Or are you asserting that a success like Firefox is the common case?
Are you referring to this resolution? I agree that it's a bit scary in how broad it is (particularly the way the Byrd amendment was defeated) but at least the judge Lynch in Doe v Bush was under the opinion that congress had not given the president absolute discretion to declare war.
I don't think anyone questions the assertion that it's written into law. I think the common argument is that violating that particular law is a victimless crime -- and that is what distinguishes it from voting rights and equal access for the disabled. If I have a machine that duplicates things at no cost, and pointing it at a sandwich that you own does no harm to your sandwich, then I deprive you of nothing.
The counter-counter argument that you're likely to make is that I would be depriving you of your right to suckle at the teat of the government-supported monopoly, that copyright law gives you, over selling copies of that sandwich.
I think the counter-counter-counter argument is then "well, fuck you and your copyright-welfare check." Or another one that I like better is "I create things every day in [insert creative industry] and nobody in my industry gets the luxury of creating something once and getting paid a million times for it, so fuck you."
Personally, I pay for my content. But at least I pay attention to the debate about the subject. If you were genuinely tired of it, one would think that you'd have it down by now, too.
The success of podcasting is not limited to the radio business. Universities are using it both for distance learning and for increasing student engagement outside of the classroom.
Slashdot Mirror
The text, however, is asking you to observe the chain, and equate the speed of the chain movement with the speed of the blades. It is not asking you to observe the speed of the wheel movement.
A dragon is a mythical serpent. It has one head. A hydra is another mythical serpent. It has many. Heads contain brains. Brains are important to programming. The rest is left as an exercise to the reader.
What do they taste like?
You'd have to ask Micro$oft.
I guess what I'm saying is that the point of materials science research like this is often to discover new materials with new sets of properties. I don't think they're aiming right at exactly what single crystal superalloy tech can do already. I think they're asking "what cool materials can we make this way?"
Yes, the summary did give that one property (homogeneity). Aren't there dozens of other properties that might be relevant in deciding whether or not the problem is 'solved', though? Certainly I couldn't take any old homogeneous substance and make an awesome turbofan blade out of it.
Your post could have been much shorter if you wrote it this way: "This will fail because there are tradeoffs for using it. I know this because I'm in college and other college kids said it was hard to use. I tried to come up with an idea, but there are those darned tradeoffs again. No tool that has ever succeeded has had tradeoffs or was hard to use."
Doesn't the answer to that question depend on exactly what properties one would like the resulting material to have?
Sure, Vista kinda sucks, but all Windows versions kinda suck.
I'm not sure I see how your post qualifies as less of a microsoft-bashing post than the one you were responding to. Why must you say such negative things about the products of a poor, defenseless, beleaguered little 800lb gorilla!?
Can't one be a realist, weigh the relative merits of the two, and come to a conclusion that one is a better design?
I think automatically coming to the conclusion that someone with an aesthetic sense of design for code structure must be a fanboi is a more pernicious dogma than fanboism ever was.
I think for this administration it goes in a different order
1. ?????
2. Profit!
3. Blame it on Microsoft
4. Post on Slashdot
The Alzheimer's gambit was already played-out. They had to come up with something new for this administration.
Perhaps he said that to provide plausible cover for his own malice.
Use something other than x86, and you lose that advantage.
Well, not for a Mac, though. With few exceptions, if you buy a Mac application today you get a universal binary that still supports PPC Macintoshes like the one I own. Application-availability is a non-issue for me on my dual-core G5 PowerMac. There's no reason it need be an issue on a new machines using the PA6T-1682M.
Well, let's start with what life is: life is patterns that self-replicate in a manner subject to natural selection. So how long has there been life on Earth? Now for what percentage of that time has there been sentience? There's a good basis for suspecting "more primitive" to be the common case right there.
Here is an excellent presentation on the sort of human computation that you're refering to. Indeed it is cool stuff. Unfortunately, if you watch the entire presentation, you'll realize that this technique is also effective against CAPTCHA-like tests, including the kitten test. Basically all spammers would need to do is capture the images, forward them to porn consumers who are frantic to the next titillating image, capture the response, and send it back to the webmail provider. It has already been done in the wild against CAPTCHAs.
CoreAnimation is a well-known example: it was developed and announced first for Leopard, but its first production use was in the UI for the iPhone. MacOS X and OSX share a common base of source code. Yes, the latter is trimmed-down, but it's not a completely separate beast as in the case of WinCE.
'Tis no mere canard or straw man. Simple economies of scale keep the Macs out of the botnets - not Cupertino prowess.
That has been the claim, but I consider it to be, by no means, a foregone conclusion. Software architecture and implementation, after all, contribute to security to a very large degree - and to claim that the effect of quality architecture and implementation have upon security is overwhelmed by the effects of popularity has not yet been established.
An interesting question comes to mind: how many Macintoshes are out there today. (Since I don't have a concrete number, let's call it M.) Now ask the question: what year were there M windows boxes out in the world, and what sort of malware for those windows boxes existed back then?
I would guess that there would have been no malware for windows back then, given the claim that M machines is insufficient to attract the interest of malware authors.
Substitute MS for Google in this story and slashdotters would be flaming mad.
Gosh, I'm torn between two different ways of responding to you...
#1: Aren't you assuming that the exact same set of people would be commenting in both threads? (This thread, and the hypothetical thread you propose). I think it's more likely that the appearance of "Microsoft" in the headline would merely get a different set of people to post in it, and that is why the results would be different.
#2: MS is copying all the time and rarely do I see people actually get angry about it. Sure, Apple will poke fun at them ("Redmond, start your photocopiers") but they didn't actually get offended. Rather, they appear to take it as the sincerest form of flattery.
I don't see how his statement ("This almost never works") and the anecdotal case of mozilla's success are mutually exclusive. Or are you asserting that a success like Firefox is the common case?
Does that mean you still doubt it, or that it's so obvious that no one should still doubt it?
Are you referring to this resolution? I agree that it's a bit scary in how broad it is (particularly the way the Byrd amendment was defeated) but at least the judge Lynch in Doe v Bush was under the opinion that congress had not given the president absolute discretion to declare war.
I realize that, but I think there's a lot of room between "failing to rise to the hype" and "being sidelined".
I don't think anyone questions the assertion that it's written into law. I think the common argument is that violating that particular law is a victimless crime -- and that is what distinguishes it from voting rights and equal access for the disabled. If I have a machine that duplicates things at no cost, and pointing it at a sandwich that you own does no harm to your sandwich, then I deprive you of nothing. The counter-counter argument that you're likely to make is that I would be depriving you of your right to suckle at the teat of the government-supported monopoly, that copyright law gives you, over selling copies of that sandwich. I think the counter-counter-counter argument is then "well, fuck you and your copyright-welfare check." Or another one that I like better is "I create things every day in [insert creative industry] and nobody in my industry gets the luxury of creating something once and getting paid a million times for it, so fuck you." Personally, I pay for my content. But at least I pay attention to the debate about the subject. If you were genuinely tired of it, one would think that you'd have it down by now, too.
Flamebait? Someone from The Industry Standard had mod points to spend.
The success of podcasting is not limited to the radio business. Universities are using it both for distance learning and for increasing student engagement outside of the classroom.