are all different odds... so really you need two weighted three sided die, and three weighted coins (which incidentally brings us back up to 5 items, but at least no one needs to figure out which die have the most dots)
Just because you are not good at something doesn't mean you shouldn't spend more time in school learning it.
I'm sure there's a lot of people, myself included, who weren't treated very well at primary school recess and did very well in primary school math. In the rest of the world there is a lot of people who felt miserable during math but excelled at socializing and loved recess.
Maybe if we had socialized more though, and had more instruction in socializing then we would have been better prepared for the life. Instruction in drama particularly would likely help socially.
Your post makes me sad on two levels; first that at 25 I'm no longer part of the younger generation (nearly everyone my age has seen/used a C64 at least in their early grades of primary school); and secondly because there are poor people out there who have never had a chance to use one.
Limited pfft: POKE, PEEK, and 64k is all anyone will ever need.
The summary mentions dynamic programming; but this book contains nothing about dynamic programming. (A particular method suitable to problems with optimal substructure that can be used in a subset of cases where recursion can be used and typically generates results very quickly.)
The author, who I've seen speak, instead writes about "metaprogramming" which in my personal opinion is a silly catch phrase to sell talks and books when actually he's just talking about using some of the advanced functionality present in Ruby (and also JavaScript) to do things that would be done with macros or can't be done at all in traditional object oriented and procedural languages.
If you're buying this book thinking it contains some new breakthrough paradigm, and you're already familiar with the ins and outs of Ruby prepare to be disappointed. If your background is Java or C++ and you've just learned enough to get by until now it'll probably be an eye-opener.
Open Source is a technocracy. FOSS is generally written by programmers, for programmers. If you are a programmer you can have your way - otherwise if you can impress programmers with your ideas you can get them accepted. Anyone who is not a programmer is free or even encouraged to use FOSS, and likewise they are encouraged to share their ideas on how to improve things but they can't force these changes into practice if programmers don't want to implement them.
A technocracy isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's deceitful to call it a democracy. There could be democratic software, but I've never met a programmer or software company yet willing to develop whatever feature has the most votes at any particular time regardless of personal or corporate interests/approval.
Essentially they have a list of highly popular browsers and a list of other browsers some people seem to use. They shuffle both lists then put the list of popular browsers first followed by the other list.
Not saying you should; but Civ and BfW are completely different games. If anything BfW is a lot like Panzer General, mentioned in the article as inspiration for some of the unit changes in Civ V. BfW is very unit focused but has no city management, technology, culture etc.
You could have asked why you should pay for it when you could get FreeCiv for free; and the obvious answer to that is more polish - whether it's worth $60 is a subjective issue.
He didn't say anything about being pro-liberal. He may be NDP or Green, both of which would be undeniably unlike Bush. If anything his anti-American sentiment and extreme distaste for proroguing parliament would lead me to believe he was a supporter of the Canadian Action Party.
We don't have a two party system here, so you can't assume that because you're against Evil1 that you're automatically in support of Evil2.
Of course that is not an exhastive list of options, you forgot 4. Find another business model.
I hear merchandising is a popular and fairly successful one (e.g. most webcomics). Donations can work if people care enough about the content (e.g. wikimedia). If your content really stands out and you appeal to the right demographic a paid subscription model might work, though I can't personally think of any content I'd pay for besides research journals.
I'll cherry pick the definitions that fit my intended purpose:
"3b: not prominent or famous "
As in Windows is far more prominent. Linux is niche for desktop machines. For servers the situation is different but my post isn't about servers - users don't surf insecure sites and run random programs off of servers.
Linux isn't all that secure in the way people care about. Most Linux users care about and are aware of security so they tend to only run programs they get off their package manager or other trusted sources and not run them as root.
However I've introduced windows users to Linux, and they keep their windows habits like downloading random programs off the internet until told otherwise. A malicious program in Linux can do all the bad things a malicious program in Windows can; and if the program has a little dialog that tells people to run 'sudo programname' if it has limited permissions, I'm sure a lot of people could be socially engineered to do so.
SELinux addresses some of these problems (eg. a program cannot modify files outside of its security context even if they are owned by the same user) but it is not feasible for an inexperienced/casual user to configure.
As has been mentioned before, there are two/three things that keep Linux more secure at the moment besides the average technical know-how of its users.
1. The main one: obscurity. There are not nearly as many Linux machines, and those have fairly diverse sets of software installed on them.
2. All software (installed through package repositories) have a single update mechanism, making it easier to keep all programs up to date. In windows lots of programs don't have any built in mechanism for determining if a newer version is available, so old exploitable software can go unnoticed for a long time.
3. Users and Groups existed since the beginning so all software is written to avoid requiring root access unless necessary. This is a problem with windows since the UAC comes up often enough and is easy enough to bypass by default (click ok) that users do it automatically. At this point it's too late though, malicious code that can access my/home/x directory already has access to lots of sensitive information (browser history, personal files, etc.), and can transmit that information over the internet.
I love Linux, but it is not a security fix-all for uneducated users.
FUD? GNOME/gtk+ is managed by the GNOME foundation, an NPO, and Qt is managed by Nokia a for profit company but that's where the differences end. Both are available through public git repositories, and both are licensed through the LGPL (with Qt also available through the GPL 3 and Proprietary licenses).
Qt is fairly widely deployed as well, even in the 'community' or would you like us to forget about KDE?
Actually I found his slides: http://www.slideshare.net/gvwilson The slides themselves don't touch unit testing, and should be combined with his talk. I never meant to refute unit testing in the first place though, I just wanted to ensure before I spent the time and money going through the above book that it provided empirical evidence that his methods were better.
He did, and I wish I could find his slides to better present what he was saying. I believe he said there were a lack of scientifically rigorous studies which would be necessary to adopt a practice in other disciplines (eg. business.) Your first citation for example is a study of less than two dozen people. The second I can't read, but in general you'll notice that while they have the same conclusions the actual number vary quite wildly which brings into doubt the methods and the conclusions.
I was at Dev Days in Toronto a few months ago, and one of the speakers brought up a very good point relating to different software engineering methodologies. He said that despite all the literature written on them, and the huge amount of money involved, there has been very few good studies on the effectiveness of various techniques. He went on to challenge the effectiveness of unit testing and 'agile development.' The only methodology he had found studies to demonstrate significant effectiveness was peer code review.
This brings me to my question. Does this book say anything concrete with citations to back it up, or is it all the opinion of one person?
Brave New World was utopia. John just wasn't conditioned with the proper morality for such an environment; and Bernard was somewhat of an accident and thus hard to account for. They even would have sent them to be with other free thinkers like them if they had wanted it.
Or to pose a more interesting question: What is utopia if not happiness, and if you don't care how does an invasion of privacy (in and of itself) affect your happiness?
I typically use vim for my development, but I do on occasion use Eclipse when I run into problems. The static code analysis can be handy sometimes.
That said I only develop php as an amateur so perhaps if I did it day in and out every day I wouldn't have a use for code analysis. Professionally I program ColdFusion and use vim exclusively.
It would do the younger generation well to learn the language and traditions of their elders so that they can blend in and become gainfully employed until their generation is old enough to make the rules; but you're guilty of a slippery slope line of thinking to associate using modern informal English in a paper with a lack of basic interpersonal skills.
Someone else in this thread made a point about the King James version of the Bible, and I have encountered a small amount of high medieval English in my studies as well. The former is awkward to read, the latter impossible without taking a course in it. Between 1500 and 1700AD there was such a massive transformation of the English language that I sincerely doubt many people could have fluently read and written what was popular among both the octogenarians and the youth.
As for the comments on grammar from other posts; grammar studies were invented to reflect the language not vice-versa. There are numerous models and none of the ones taught in elementary school have accurately reflected the language to a great degree. To say that we must conform to a model of a crude after the fact model of our language is like telling the universe that it must conform to Newtonian physics.
So what this demonstrates is that universities are not adapting as fast as the English language is. It makes sense in the information age that our language would be evolving at unprecedented rates. We could be like the L'academie Francaise and dictate that because it wasn't invented in an ivory tower it's not the true language; but English has historically been a living language - that is it's greatest strength. (We all know what 'cuz' means; don't TAs and Professors?)
There are uses for more formal linguistics, in the same way Latin was used well past the end of the Roman empire, to sound regal or intellectual - but it's really all for show.
You're likely correct; the fitPC 2 is able to play HD video with a GMA an atom processor but they cite that they are able to do this because they use a Z series Atom which supports accelerated HD video; the budget N series used by this computer doesn't have those capabilities.
Slashdot Mirror
When there are 2 defenders there's a possibility both players lose one so you'd need a 3 sided die
But...
3 attackers - 2 defenders (37.2% both, 33.6% one)
3 attackers - 1 defender (66.0%)
2 attackers - 2 defenders (22.8% both, 32.4% one)
2 attackers - 1 defender (57.9%)
1 attacker - 1 defender (41.7%)
are all different odds... so really you need two weighted three sided die, and three weighted coins (which incidentally brings us back up to 5 items, but at least no one needs to figure out which die have the most dots)
Just because you are not good at something doesn't mean you shouldn't spend more time in school learning it.
I'm sure there's a lot of people, myself included, who weren't treated very well at primary school recess and did very well in primary school math. In the rest of the world there is a lot of people who felt miserable during math but excelled at socializing and loved recess.
Maybe if we had socialized more though, and had more instruction in socializing then we would have been better prepared for the life. Instruction in drama particularly would likely help socially.
Your post makes me sad on two levels; first that at 25 I'm no longer part of the younger generation (nearly everyone my age has seen/used a C64 at least in their early grades of primary school); and secondly because there are poor people out there who have never had a chance to use one.
Limited pfft: POKE, PEEK, and 64k is all anyone will ever need.
The summary mentions dynamic programming; but this book contains nothing about dynamic programming. (A particular method suitable to problems with optimal substructure that can be used in a subset of cases where recursion can be used and typically generates results very quickly.)
The author, who I've seen speak, instead writes about "metaprogramming" which in my personal opinion is a silly catch phrase to sell talks and books when actually he's just talking about using some of the advanced functionality present in Ruby (and also JavaScript) to do things that would be done with macros or can't be done at all in traditional object oriented and procedural languages.
If you're buying this book thinking it contains some new breakthrough paradigm, and you're already familiar with the ins and outs of Ruby prepare to be disappointed. If your background is Java or C++ and you've just learned enough to get by until now it'll probably be an eye-opener.
Open Source is a technocracy. FOSS is generally written by programmers, for programmers. If you are a programmer you can have your way - otherwise if you can impress programmers with your ideas you can get them accepted. Anyone who is not a programmer is free or even encouraged to use FOSS, and likewise they are encouraged to share their ideas on how to improve things but they can't force these changes into practice if programmers don't want to implement them.
A technocracy isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's deceitful to call it a democracy. There could be democratic software, but I've never met a programmer or software company yet willing to develop whatever feature has the most votes at any particular time regardless of personal or corporate interests/approval.
Clearly you haven't been following this topic for very long. The top 5 browsers are always on the first screen; though the order is randomized. (Though they didn't do it very well as you can read here: http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/02/microsoft-random-browser-ballot.html)
Essentially they have a list of highly popular browsers and a list of other browsers some people seem to use. They shuffle both lists then put the list of popular browsers first followed by the other list.
Not saying you should; but Civ and BfW are completely different games. If anything BfW is a lot like Panzer General, mentioned in the article as inspiration for some of the unit changes in Civ V. BfW is very unit focused but has no city management, technology, culture etc.
You could have asked why you should pay for it when you could get FreeCiv for free; and the obvious answer to that is more polish - whether it's worth $60 is a subjective issue.
It may be crappy, but it's everywhere. This is the whole reason .NET Reflector is so popular.
He didn't say anything about being pro-liberal. He may be NDP or Green, both of which would be undeniably unlike Bush. If anything his anti-American sentiment and extreme distaste for proroguing parliament would lead me to believe he was a supporter of the Canadian Action Party.
We don't have a two party system here, so you can't assume that because you're against Evil1 that you're automatically in support of Evil2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_parties_in_Canada
http://www.canadianactionparty.ca/
Of course that is not an exhastive list of options, you forgot 4. Find another business model.
I hear merchandising is a popular and fairly successful one (e.g. most webcomics). Donations can work if people care enough about the content (e.g. wikimedia). If your content really stands out and you appeal to the right demographic a paid subscription model might work, though I can't personally think of any content I'd pay for besides research journals.
I'll cherry pick the definitions that fit my intended purpose:
"3b: not prominent or famous "
As in Windows is far more prominent. Linux is niche for desktop machines. For servers the situation is different but my post isn't about servers - users don't surf insecure sites and run random programs off of servers.
They've already reviewed it and apologized: http://blog.fabulis.com/post/411481294/citi-we-said-what
Linux isn't all that secure in the way people care about. Most Linux users care about and are aware of security so they tend to only run programs they get off their package manager or other trusted sources and not run them as root.
However I've introduced windows users to Linux, and they keep their windows habits like downloading random programs off the internet until told otherwise. A malicious program in Linux can do all the bad things a malicious program in Windows can; and if the program has a little dialog that tells people to run 'sudo programname' if it has limited permissions, I'm sure a lot of people could be socially engineered to do so.
SELinux addresses some of these problems (eg. a program cannot modify files outside of its security context even if they are owned by the same user) but it is not feasible for an inexperienced/casual user to configure.
As has been mentioned before, there are two/three things that keep Linux more secure at the moment besides the average technical know-how of its users.
1. The main one: obscurity. There are not nearly as many Linux machines, and those have fairly diverse sets of software installed on them.
2. All software (installed through package repositories) have a single update mechanism, making it easier to keep all programs up to date. In windows lots of programs don't have any built in mechanism for determining if a newer version is available, so old exploitable software can go unnoticed for a long time.
3. Users and Groups existed since the beginning so all software is written to avoid requiring root access unless necessary. This is a problem with windows since the UAC comes up often enough and is easy enough to bypass by default (click ok) that users do it automatically. At this point it's too late though, malicious code that can access my /home/x directory already has access to lots of sensitive information (browser history, personal files, etc.), and can transmit that information over the internet.
I love Linux, but it is not a security fix-all for uneducated users.
FUD? GNOME/gtk+ is managed by the GNOME foundation, an NPO, and Qt is managed by Nokia a for profit company but that's where the differences end. Both are available through public git repositories, and both are licensed through the LGPL (with Qt also available through the GPL 3 and Proprietary licenses).
Qt is fairly widely deployed as well, even in the 'community' or would you like us to forget about KDE?
Actually I found his slides: http://www.slideshare.net/gvwilson The slides themselves don't touch unit testing, and should be combined with his talk. I never meant to refute unit testing in the first place though, I just wanted to ensure before I spent the time and money going through the above book that it provided empirical evidence that his methods were better.
He did, and I wish I could find his slides to better present what he was saying. I believe he said there were a lack of scientifically rigorous studies which would be necessary to adopt a practice in other disciplines (eg. business.) Your first citation for example is a study of less than two dozen people. The second I can't read, but in general you'll notice that while they have the same conclusions the actual number vary quite wildly which brings into doubt the methods and the conclusions.
I was at Dev Days in Toronto a few months ago, and one of the speakers brought up a very good point relating to different software engineering methodologies. He said that despite all the literature written on them, and the huge amount of money involved, there has been very few good studies on the effectiveness of various techniques. He went on to challenge the effectiveness of unit testing and 'agile development.' The only methodology he had found studies to demonstrate significant effectiveness was peer code review.
This brings me to my question. Does this book say anything concrete with citations to back it up, or is it all the opinion of one person?
Brave New World was utopia. John just wasn't conditioned with the proper morality for such an environment; and Bernard was somewhat of an accident and thus hard to account for. They even would have sent them to be with other free thinkers like them if they had wanted it.
Or to pose a more interesting question: What is utopia if not happiness, and if you don't care how does an invasion of privacy (in and of itself) affect your happiness?
I typically use vim for my development, but I do on occasion use Eclipse when I run into problems. The static code analysis can be handy sometimes.
That said I only develop php as an amateur so perhaps if I did it day in and out every day I wouldn't have a use for code analysis. Professionally I program ColdFusion and use vim exclusively.
Vim came out, and vi users switched over?
The lady besides Woz in this picture: http://evilbeetgossip.film.com/2008/06/24/kathy-griffin-says-she-never-let-steve-wozniak-put-it-in-her/kathy_steve2/
Don't feel bad, I didn't know either.
Someone might show up at IBM wearing blue jeans! Wait, that was 1995. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-819481.html
It would do the younger generation well to learn the language and traditions of their elders so that they can blend in and become gainfully employed until their generation is old enough to make the rules; but you're guilty of a slippery slope line of thinking to associate using modern informal English in a paper with a lack of basic interpersonal skills.
Someone else in this thread made a point about the King James version of the Bible, and I have encountered a small amount of high medieval English in my studies as well. The former is awkward to read, the latter impossible without taking a course in it. Between 1500 and 1700AD there was such a massive transformation of the English language that I sincerely doubt many people could have fluently read and written what was popular among both the octogenarians and the youth.
As for the comments on grammar from other posts; grammar studies were invented to reflect the language not vice-versa. There are numerous models and none of the ones taught in elementary school have accurately reflected the language to a great degree. To say that we must conform to a model of a crude after the fact model of our language is like telling the universe that it must conform to Newtonian physics.
So what this demonstrates is that universities are not adapting as fast as the English language is. It makes sense in the information age that our language would be evolving at unprecedented rates. We could be like the L'academie Francaise and dictate that because it wasn't invented in an ivory tower it's not the true language; but English has historically been a living language - that is it's greatest strength. (We all know what 'cuz' means; don't TAs and Professors?)
There are uses for more formal linguistics, in the same way Latin was used well past the end of the Roman empire, to sound regal or intellectual - but it's really all for show.
You should have probably read the link. Buffer overflow allowed code to run as root (because the nvidia drivers do)
You're likely correct; the fitPC 2 is able to play HD video with a GMA an atom processor but they cite that they are able to do this because they use a Z series Atom which supports accelerated HD video; the budget N series used by this computer doesn't have those capabilities.