Gee, I wonder if that's why I put the word only in quotes:
It was "only" a few thousand new species.
Oh, that's right, you intentionally removed them, thereby misquoting me. Then took me to task for failing to recognize how great his accomplishment was in a thread started by myself making the argument that he deserved recognition for his contributions.
Do you know the difference between psychology and psychiatry? Or the difference between ophthalmology and optometry? How about the difference between the Internet and an intranet? Or even the difference between affect and effect? And you've never confused any of these terms, nor known anybody of intelligence to confuse these terms?
Similar sounding words for similar concepts cause confusion. This is not particularly surprising, nor is it particularly indicative of intelligence. Language is complicated, and talent or ability with language is not a necessary indicator of intelligence. If the NSF failed to account for the natural ambiguity of language, then they've clearly poisoned their results.
Yes, and you have to understand that that only works because your DE of choice has bent over backwards to make sure all it's dependencies are running and functional when you try to start it. That is to say, startx has to duplicate functionality of init because init is too stupid or too unreliable to be able to do it for your DE.
This issue can be generalized to any significantly complex application. That means you already have a half dozen "init systems" working on your systems. They're all independent (even though they maybe should know about each other), and you can't manage them universally (even though you might want to fire things off with system level events, like restarting a service if it crashes), and you certainly can't be sure you're not stepping on each others' toes.
Essentially: a large enough number of people noticed that the same features for starting and managing processes were getting implemented over, and over, and over. They realized that these functions belong in the init role -- because only init has the authority and knowledge required to not screw it up -- but that sysv-init didn't have the capability to do any of that.
All this began to happen perhaps 10 years ago, when other operating systems (e.g., Windows, which has had service dependencies and crash recovery since Windows 2000) showed what a more feature-complete init system was capable of.
At this point these "why do we even need a new init system?" questions are like someone watching I-40 getting repaved in the 1970s and asking "why do we even need Interstates?"
This beetle really should have been named for Alfred Russel Wallace, who came up with the concept of natural selection (independent of Darwin) while studying beetles. He collected some 126,000 species in his time.
Well, defining the problem away certainly makes your difficult issues much easier to solve. That's why the term RINO is so laughable. If the party doesn't stop disavowing itself so often, it might deny that it even exists.
Well, that's the difference between reason and faith, isn't it? That's why those debates are so stupid. It's two people arguing across different dimensions.
I'm sorry, but what? Running drivers as the kernel in ring 0 -- which is the Linux model since it's a monolithic kernel -- is a better security model than user space drivers? How about running as root and writing directly to/dev/mem for memory mapped devices? Is that a better security model, too?
Sounds very similar to the last place I worked. I wasn't a developer, but it was an engineering firm that built test stands. All the PLCs and PXI devices were programmed with LabVIEW. There, too, the objects in LabVIEW were representing C code. Most of the electrical engineers didn't write their own C code and just used the libraries that came with the software.
The way it was explained to me was, essentially: write your functions and subroutines in C as modular and agnostic as you can, then write your main routine as a data flow diagram. It's somewhat more complicated than that, since subroutines can also be LabVIEW programs, but that's essentially it. It's very easy to understand if you understand data flow. It always reminded me of setting up a TV with an amplifier, VCR, DVD, CD player, and a cable box.
The only other mainstream visual programming environment I can think of is MS SQL's SSIS.
The volume of a cylinder is linear with height and square with radius. The average person's radius doesn't (or isn't supposed to) scale proportionally with their height, so weight shouldn't follow a cubic formula.
If that's your argument, then it should be BMI * height = mass, not BMI * (height ^ 2) = mass. You're still off by a degree of polynomial. Now you're inflating BMI for the short, and deflating it for the tall.
However, I'd argue that the human skeleton is roughly proportional. As height increases, width and depth increase at the same proportion, and the skeleton is the major determining factor in the dimensions of a human being. Therefore, width and depth are each directly proportional to height. Thus, height is an analog for width and depth. Remember, we're not actually calculating volume. It's not important that we end up with cubes. We're calculating a rough approximation of volume that we can compare to mass. This comparison will *only* be useful when comparing our ratio to others.
Personally, I think the markup could do with a severe overhaul. Copy Reddit. Copy StackOverflow. Copy BBCode. I'm pretty tired of using HTML markup in a comment when literally every other site has something that works better.
The problem with BMI is that the formula is bad. A first year physics major should notice the issue.
BMI = mass / (height^2)
so:
BMI * (height ^ 2) = mass
So it says that mass is directly proportional to the square of the height. That's not right at all. Mass is directly proportional to the volume of an object, which is a cubic value, not the area of one of the facings. Therefore BMI should be mass / (height^3). The formula as presented inflates BMI for the very tall and deflates BMI for the very short.
Why? Why the hell should that be the case? If I pour loads of MY time and MY effort and MY resources into creating something, then it's MY creation and I want to keep it then I can, because it's MINE.
If you want to keep it, then it's yours. Shove it up your ass and keep it out of the world. Open up a theater and show it to 200 people a day. Print one copy, and lease it. But that's not what you want. You want to sell it, but still keep it. You want to work for 1 year, and get paid for 30. You want it to be everywhere and in everybody's mind and on everybody's shelf, but still demand that you control it.
When you release your work, it becomes consumed by the culture that receives it. Eventually it stops being yours because everyone else takes it, reshapes it, and builds on it again and again. Just as Shakespeare, Twain, Swift, Dickens, Homer, Da Vinci, Mozart, Beethoven, Euripides, etc. created works and ideas that spread and *became* our culture. *Our* culture. *Everybody's*. Not yours. You get just enough time to make a profit off of it to keep doing what you're doing. Then it's not yours anymore. Then it's *ours*. You added to the culture. You added to the groupthink. You don't get to own it anymore. It's everybody's now. Why? Because we want to take your contribution, add our thoughts on to it, and add it back in. Fan fiction, fan art, fan conventions... this is how culture ripples through and absorbs into the collective narratives of our lives.
Tell me that your stories, your songs, your thoughts, your images are cut new from the cloth and you deserve to be laughed off the planet. Everybody who creates takes ideas and themes from existing culture. You copy a method that someone else devised, copy a theme, copy a plotline, copy a story structure, copy a poem's form, copy a bassline, copy a lens setting, copy, copy, copy. The *fraction* of new in your creation is really quite small. All this culture and knowledge that has been given to you by those who came before, and now you, selfishly, demand that you keep control over your little corner of the world.
Well, no. Sorry. You can't adopt our culture to your story, then expect to appropriate our culture that way in perpetuity. You get some time to make some money off it -- we're not savages -- but after that you give it back and give future artists the same benefits you've had.
Meanwhile my neighbor down the street's daughter flies F16s, she was bored with her Cessna 172 by the age of 15.
And who inspired her? Who made her say, "I wish to fly, too"? I admit she is dedicated to be an F16 pilot, but dedication and inspiration are different things.
Mae Jemison has stated that Nichelle Nichols inspired her. Inspiration is not false merely because the source is fiction. Fiction is a mirror of us. Of our ideals and dreams. That's the power of fiction. It allows us to strip away all the human failings to see the ideal. To see beyond what is to what is possible. How narrow your vision if it cannot see beyond what already exists.
Teacher's are well paid if you look at hourly and benefits.
Bullshit. Teachers start at $35,000 from a 5 year program (there's a year of student teaching that you have to pay for). That's not particularly amazing. Yes, you might work 10 months out of the year, and maybe only 7 hours of classtime a day, but you have to work well over 40 hours a week. You have to show up early and stay late every day. You have homework every night either correcting papers from today or planning lessons for tomorrow. Worst of all, you have to put up with children and their parents.
From her being a "goth" in high school to discovering her calling though female characters on CSI and NCIS.
Yes, I'm sure nobody here was inspired to go into their field because they watched Star Trek growing up.
She's a child of her generation. There's nothing wrong with that. The character Abby is intelligent, passionate, strong-willed, extremely skilled in her field, and admired for those qualities by her co-workers. She's also not intimidated by working with men in the military, knows who she is, doesn't care what people think of her (other than Gibbs, I suppose) and stands up for herself. She's a great role model for a child, boy or girl.
That being said, females in the field have the potential to be more successful at social engineering/pen-testing due to their sexual charm (see: Russian KGB "Cardinals"), but me saying that would be sexist, so I won't.
I'd say women have an advantage because people assume women are incapable or helpless. I'd say a woman could infiltrate a lot further by pretending she was stupid and boring rather than dressing sexy and acting promiscuous.
You also have to consider how the game was programmed and compiled. Many games are not able to support multiple cores, or may not support as many cores as you have. If you've got a 6 core CPU and your game is only designed and optimized for 2 cores, your CPU can bottleneck at 33% utilization, and some threads may bottleneck at 17% utilization. Even if the game does support all 6 cores, you still can get threads that hit capacity on a single core and won't be split to multiple cores.
But I deserve to have more wealth than any ten thousand other people on this planet combined! I mean, maybe I actually invented it and maybe I just bought it from the sucker-- er, person who did. My handful of years of work should absolutely support me and my family indefinitely. Also, I shouldn't have to pay taxes because I'm so great.
I hate to say it, but it's not a bug. It's a feature.
Simple markup with limited layout control is the design intent of HTML. It was expressly designed to present documents whose look and layout were to be determined by the reader, not the author. That CSS provides a mechanism to do layout is beside the point because HTML still demands that the browser, not the server determines what a page looks like. This is all by design, because the author can't know what the reader is using to read the document. HTML+CSS is not intended to replace desktop publishing any more than MS Word is. If you want results akin to desktop publishing, you need to use desktop publishing software.
If you want to make a TeX-based browsing engine, please, go right ahead. I'd love to see a TeX engine in browsers just for all the pedantic web designers out there. Trying to make HTML+CSS behave like desktop publishing software is a fool's errand.
but a 486 in 1990 must have been horribly expensive.
Actually, it must've been 1992; it had MS-DOS 5.0, Windows 3.1, and Word for Windows 2.0. I forgot about that.
It was expensive, but like I said, we took advantage of an offer Intel made to it's staff at the time. My understanding -- I would've been 15-16 at the time -- was that Intel was upgrading their entire company, and offered to let staff members purchase computers through the same order. I'm not even sure if Intel was building the PCs themselves or ordering them. They shipped in generic beige cases with no marks or labels. Well, beyond energy star labels.
Originally, many site owners didn't want links to their website to appear on other websites. They saw that linking as copyright infringement or, in cases of popular articles, encouraging a DoS attack. They posted the information on their websites for the people they wanted to see it and the people they gave the links to and nobody else. This was all before ad revenue became a thing, and before web branding and popularity was important. Before people saw that websites were something more than a novelty, or more useful than a phone number. Before websites really did anything but provide phone and address listings. Before people even knew what to do with websites. Before the Internet was business.
Slashdot Mirror
That is a detail not particularly important to my point. If you wish, s/startx/xinit/.
Gee, I wonder if that's why I put the word only in quotes:
Oh, that's right, you intentionally removed them, thereby misquoting me. Then took me to task for failing to recognize how great his accomplishment was in a thread started by myself making the argument that he deserved recognition for his contributions.
Do you know the difference between psychology and psychiatry? Or the difference between ophthalmology and optometry? How about the difference between the Internet and an intranet? Or even the difference between affect and effect? And you've never confused any of these terms, nor known anybody of intelligence to confuse these terms?
Similar sounding words for similar concepts cause confusion. This is not particularly surprising, nor is it particularly indicative of intelligence. Language is complicated, and talent or ability with language is not a necessary indicator of intelligence. If the NSF failed to account for the natural ambiguity of language, then they've clearly poisoned their results.
Yes, and you have to understand that that only works because your DE of choice has bent over backwards to make sure all it's dependencies are running and functional when you try to start it. That is to say, startx has to duplicate functionality of init because init is too stupid or too unreliable to be able to do it for your DE.
This issue can be generalized to any significantly complex application. That means you already have a half dozen "init systems" working on your systems. They're all independent (even though they maybe should know about each other), and you can't manage them universally (even though you might want to fire things off with system level events, like restarting a service if it crashes), and you certainly can't be sure you're not stepping on each others' toes.
Essentially: a large enough number of people noticed that the same features for starting and managing processes were getting implemented over, and over, and over. They realized that these functions belong in the init role -- because only init has the authority and knowledge required to not screw it up -- but that sysv-init didn't have the capability to do any of that.
All this began to happen perhaps 10 years ago, when other operating systems (e.g., Windows, which has had service dependencies and crash recovery since Windows 2000) showed what a more feature-complete init system was capable of.
At this point these "why do we even need a new init system?" questions are like someone watching I-40 getting repaved in the 1970s and asking "why do we even need Interstates?"
Sorry, that should be "specimens" not "species". It was "only" a few thousand new species.
This beetle really should have been named for Alfred Russel Wallace, who came up with the concept of natural selection (independent of Darwin) while studying beetles. He collected some 126,000 species in his time.
Well, defining the problem away certainly makes your difficult issues much easier to solve. That's why the term RINO is so laughable. If the party doesn't stop disavowing itself so often, it might deny that it even exists.
Well, that's the difference between reason and faith, isn't it? That's why those debates are so stupid. It's two people arguing across different dimensions.
I'm sorry, but what? Running drivers as the kernel in ring 0 -- which is the Linux model since it's a monolithic kernel -- is a better security model than user space drivers? How about running as root and writing directly to /dev/mem for memory mapped devices? Is that a better security model, too?
Sounds very similar to the last place I worked. I wasn't a developer, but it was an engineering firm that built test stands. All the PLCs and PXI devices were programmed with LabVIEW. There, too, the objects in LabVIEW were representing C code. Most of the electrical engineers didn't write their own C code and just used the libraries that came with the software.
The way it was explained to me was, essentially: write your functions and subroutines in C as modular and agnostic as you can, then write your main routine as a data flow diagram. It's somewhat more complicated than that, since subroutines can also be LabVIEW programs, but that's essentially it. It's very easy to understand if you understand data flow. It always reminded me of setting up a TV with an amplifier, VCR, DVD, CD player, and a cable box.
The only other mainstream visual programming environment I can think of is MS SQL's SSIS.
If that's your argument, then it should be BMI * height = mass, not BMI * (height ^ 2) = mass. You're still off by a degree of polynomial. Now you're inflating BMI for the short, and deflating it for the tall.
However, I'd argue that the human skeleton is roughly proportional. As height increases, width and depth increase at the same proportion, and the skeleton is the major determining factor in the dimensions of a human being. Therefore, width and depth are each directly proportional to height. Thus, height is an analog for width and depth. Remember, we're not actually calculating volume. It's not important that we end up with cubes. We're calculating a rough approximation of volume that we can compare to mass. This comparison will *only* be useful when comparing our ratio to others.
Personally, I think the markup could do with a severe overhaul. Copy Reddit. Copy StackOverflow. Copy BBCode. I'm pretty tired of using HTML markup in a comment when literally every other site has something that works better.
The problem with BMI is that the formula is bad. A first year physics major should notice the issue.
BMI = mass / (height^2)
so:
BMI * (height ^ 2) = mass
So it says that mass is directly proportional to the square of the height. That's not right at all. Mass is directly proportional to the volume of an object, which is a cubic value, not the area of one of the facings. Therefore BMI should be mass / (height^3). The formula as presented inflates BMI for the very tall and deflates BMI for the very short.
If you want to keep it, then it's yours. Shove it up your ass and keep it out of the world. Open up a theater and show it to 200 people a day. Print one copy, and lease it. But that's not what you want. You want to sell it, but still keep it. You want to work for 1 year, and get paid for 30. You want it to be everywhere and in everybody's mind and on everybody's shelf, but still demand that you control it.
When you release your work, it becomes consumed by the culture that receives it. Eventually it stops being yours because everyone else takes it, reshapes it, and builds on it again and again. Just as Shakespeare, Twain, Swift, Dickens, Homer, Da Vinci, Mozart, Beethoven, Euripides, etc. created works and ideas that spread and *became* our culture. *Our* culture. *Everybody's*. Not yours. You get just enough time to make a profit off of it to keep doing what you're doing. Then it's not yours anymore. Then it's *ours*. You added to the culture. You added to the groupthink. You don't get to own it anymore. It's everybody's now. Why? Because we want to take your contribution, add our thoughts on to it, and add it back in. Fan fiction, fan art, fan conventions... this is how culture ripples through and absorbs into the collective narratives of our lives.
Tell me that your stories, your songs, your thoughts, your images are cut new from the cloth and you deserve to be laughed off the planet. Everybody who creates takes ideas and themes from existing culture. You copy a method that someone else devised, copy a theme, copy a plotline, copy a story structure, copy a poem's form, copy a bassline, copy a lens setting, copy, copy, copy. The *fraction* of new in your creation is really quite small. All this culture and knowledge that has been given to you by those who came before, and now you, selfishly, demand that you keep control over your little corner of the world.
Well, no. Sorry. You can't adopt our culture to your story, then expect to appropriate our culture that way in perpetuity. You get some time to make some money off it -- we're not savages -- but after that you give it back and give future artists the same benefits you've had.
And who inspired her? Who made her say, "I wish to fly, too"? I admit she is dedicated to be an F16 pilot, but dedication and inspiration are different things.
Mae Jemison has stated that Nichelle Nichols inspired her. Inspiration is not false merely because the source is fiction. Fiction is a mirror of us. Of our ideals and dreams. That's the power of fiction. It allows us to strip away all the human failings to see the ideal. To see beyond what is to what is possible. How narrow your vision if it cannot see beyond what already exists.
Bullshit. Teachers start at $35,000 from a 5 year program (there's a year of student teaching that you have to pay for). That's not particularly amazing. Yes, you might work 10 months out of the year, and maybe only 7 hours of classtime a day, but you have to work well over 40 hours a week. You have to show up early and stay late every day. You have homework every night either correcting papers from today or planning lessons for tomorrow. Worst of all, you have to put up with children and their parents.
Seriously. The pay is shit:
http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/docs/...
IE also used to be available on OS X, and was even the default browser from 1998 to 2003.
Yes, I'm sure nobody here was inspired to go into their field because they watched Star Trek growing up.
She's a child of her generation. There's nothing wrong with that. The character Abby is intelligent, passionate, strong-willed, extremely skilled in her field, and admired for those qualities by her co-workers. She's also not intimidated by working with men in the military, knows who she is, doesn't care what people think of her (other than Gibbs, I suppose) and stands up for herself. She's a great role model for a child, boy or girl.
I'd say women have an advantage because people assume women are incapable or helpless. I'd say a woman could infiltrate a lot further by pretending she was stupid and boring rather than dressing sexy and acting promiscuous.
Hey, I'm not greedy!
You also have to consider how the game was programmed and compiled. Many games are not able to support multiple cores, or may not support as many cores as you have. If you've got a 6 core CPU and your game is only designed and optimized for 2 cores, your CPU can bottleneck at 33% utilization, and some threads may bottleneck at 17% utilization. Even if the game does support all 6 cores, you still can get threads that hit capacity on a single core and won't be split to multiple cores.
But I deserve to have more wealth than any ten thousand other people on this planet combined! I mean, maybe I actually invented it and maybe I just bought it from the sucker-- er, person who did. My handful of years of work should absolutely support me and my family indefinitely. Also, I shouldn't have to pay taxes because I'm so great.
I hate to say it, but it's not a bug. It's a feature.
Simple markup with limited layout control is the design intent of HTML. It was expressly designed to present documents whose look and layout were to be determined by the reader, not the author. That CSS provides a mechanism to do layout is beside the point because HTML still demands that the browser, not the server determines what a page looks like. This is all by design, because the author can't know what the reader is using to read the document. HTML+CSS is not intended to replace desktop publishing any more than MS Word is. If you want results akin to desktop publishing, you need to use desktop publishing software.
If you want to make a TeX-based browsing engine, please, go right ahead. I'd love to see a TeX engine in browsers just for all the pedantic web designers out there. Trying to make HTML+CSS behave like desktop publishing software is a fool's errand.
Actually, it must've been 1992; it had MS-DOS 5.0, Windows 3.1, and Word for Windows 2.0. I forgot about that.
It was expensive, but like I said, we took advantage of an offer Intel made to it's staff at the time. My understanding -- I would've been 15-16 at the time -- was that Intel was upgrading their entire company, and offered to let staff members purchase computers through the same order. I'm not even sure if Intel was building the PCs themselves or ordering them. They shipped in generic beige cases with no marks or labels. Well, beyond energy star labels.
Paying taxes? Listening to constituents? Earning a living through hard work?
Oh, no, it's much older than that.
Originally, many site owners didn't want links to their website to appear on other websites. They saw that linking as copyright infringement or, in cases of popular articles, encouraging a DoS attack. They posted the information on their websites for the people they wanted to see it and the people they gave the links to and nobody else. This was all before ad revenue became a thing, and before web branding and popularity was important. Before people saw that websites were something more than a novelty, or more useful than a phone number. Before websites really did anything but provide phone and address listings. Before people even knew what to do with websites. Before the Internet was business.