However, a BRS will drop you down (more) vertically - making it possible to have a hard impact on land that's would only permit you to crash, gliding or no.
The FA that refers to the 16 footer says that a 16 footer is a non-worry, as it would have "exploded high up".
You may be referring to the other FA in the story, where it says "An asteroid large enough to have flattened a city buzzed Earth earlier this month"... but that article refers to a much larger rock - 130-260 feet in diameter. As in ten times the diameter, or a thousand times the mass.
Quite simply, it's not that people want the iPod to fail. The term "iPod killer" means something so much better that it beats the pants off the iPod.
In other words, we just want to see what can be made BETTER than an iPod. That's not saying that the iPod is bad - in fact, there's nothing interesting about one-upping a bad product.
The PG books may be full of errors, but hopefully the raw scans from DP will be kept after the OCR, doubleproof, and postproduction is complete. That way you can still go back and see what the heck a given item really said.
I should scrounge around their forums and see if they state what the final disposition of the scans is.
Very true - DP demonstrates that it's not trivial to OCR these texts without error. Part of me was assuming that Google must have some amazing improvements up their sleeve to manage it in a completely automated fashion.
Having looked at their Catalogs beta, I still suspect they just may have... not only is the text OCR'd well enough to search it, but it even highlights the words in the text. They could certainly have hand-proofed, but that strikes me as not a very Google thing to do.
Well, there's the Distributed Proofreaders project for Project Gutenberg... but PG isn't a "we must be the source" attitude from what I've seen. As far as PG is concerned, the more eBooks, the better.
DP probably isn't threatened either - they just shift focus to books that are not in the Harvard collection to avoid duplication of effort.
If you previously had a copy of the feed with items A through X, and now A has dropped off and Y has been added, you'll pull the entire thing, B through Y, when all you really need is:
remove A add Y, data follows
Think more along the lines of "diff since $last_timestamp".
How, exactly, can you "pick up the damn phone and call them" when it's midnight there when you would be picking up the phone?
I'm not considering that the implied solution is acceptable - the utter surrender of personal time to the interruptions of the job. To hell with that, my time is my time, and work time is work time.
There's a difference between bad tech and badly DONE tech.
Something may not have the latest wizbang effects, but what they have is used well - that's still "bad tech" because it's behind SOTA, but it makes for a good movie.
Yes, technology expands the boundaries, but it's the icing on the cake. The concern is that people will just learn about the icing, since it's sexy, and not the fundamental cake.
No story, great tech = bad movie Great story, bad tech = good (if primitive) movie
Slashdot Mirror
The trick is to have a crewcut. That way you can't get a good enough hold to pull the hair out. ;)
However, a BRS will drop you down (more) vertically - making it possible to have a hard impact on land that's would only permit you to crash, gliding or no.
He meant "last Slashdot article". If you look at it on -1, it's flooded with GNAA stuff.
The FA that refers to the 16 footer says that a 16 footer is a non-worry, as it would have "exploded high up".
You may be referring to the other FA in the story, where it says "An asteroid large enough to have flattened a city buzzed Earth earlier this month"... but that article refers to a much larger rock - 130-260 feet in diameter. As in ten times the diameter, or a thousand times the mass.
Quite simply, it's not that people want the iPod to fail. The term "iPod killer" means something so much better that it beats the pants off the iPod.
In other words, we just want to see what can be made BETTER than an iPod. That's not saying that the iPod is bad - in fact, there's nothing interesting about one-upping a bad product.
Within... *hdd grinds* certain defi-*pause*nitions of *hdd melts down due to excessive paging* fine.
It's schadenfreude.
Not according to a guy I know who worked there during the permatemping era.
He described it as a bunch of feifdoms. Have the right liege lord, and you ran whatever you wanted.
Wow, cool! Thanks for the reply. I've only got about 120 pages under my belt so far but I'm certainly enjoying it.
The PG books may be full of errors, but hopefully the raw scans from DP will be kept after the OCR, doubleproof, and postproduction is complete. That way you can still go back and see what the heck a given item really said.
I should scrounge around their forums and see if they state what the final disposition of the scans is.
Very true - DP demonstrates that it's not trivial to OCR these texts without error. Part of me was assuming that Google must have some amazing improvements up their sleeve to manage it in a completely automated fashion.
Having looked at their Catalogs beta, I still suspect they just may have... not only is the text OCR'd well enough to search it, but it even highlights the words in the text. They could certainly have hand-proofed, but that strikes me as not a very Google thing to do.
Well, there's the Distributed Proofreaders project for Project Gutenberg... but PG isn't a "we must be the source" attitude from what I've seen. As far as PG is concerned, the more eBooks, the better.
DP probably isn't threatened either - they just shift focus to books that are not in the Harvard collection to avoid duplication of effort.
Parents are responsible for their children, and have rights over them.
Companies are NOT responsible for their clients, and do NOT have rights over them.
Your post is a case of "my comparison isn't applicable at all".
According to FARK, it also assists in killing kittens.
Until they get a cybernetically boosted dolphin to crack your brain, that is.
Only two of them, thank god... and both are technically "unsupported but critical". Gotta love the schizophrenia of large companies.
That's not quite what he's talking about.
If you previously had a copy of the feed with items A through X, and now A has dropped off and Y has been added, you'll pull the entire thing, B through Y, when all you really need is:
remove A
add Y, data follows
Think more along the lines of "diff since $last_timestamp".
I've seen HP fly out a new motherboard from Toronto, then the two they kept in the city were found problematic.
I've seen Microsoft fly up people to help with Exchange servers.
I've been on the phone with top level Sun techs within five minutes of the event.
I do, however, work for a very big customer. I don't even pretend that anyone a tenth the size would get this support.
Nice try, unless 1400 UNIX servers and 2000+ databases is the new definition of "swabbing toilets".
How, exactly, can you "pick up the damn phone and call them" when it's midnight there when you would be picking up the phone?
I'm not considering that the implied solution is acceptable - the utter surrender of personal time to the interruptions of the job. To hell with that, my time is my time, and work time is work time.
Contractors, of course!
(Why no, I don't mean to imply contractors aren't people, no, not at all... especially since I am one)
Thanks for linking their proofreading project. I've signed up and already done a couple pages.
How much space does it take to store a bunch of mobile homes for emergency shelters, vs a bunch of these knock-down homes?
It's in disaster response that these things could really shine.
There's a difference between bad tech and badly DONE tech.
Something may not have the latest wizbang effects, but what they have is used well - that's still "bad tech" because it's behind SOTA, but it makes for a good movie.
Yes, technology expands the boundaries, but it's the icing on the cake. The concern is that people will just learn about the icing, since it's sexy, and not the fundamental cake.
No story, great tech = bad movie
Great story, bad tech = good (if primitive) movie