How about "disconnect it from the network."? That's the cheapest one I can think of.
Now, do you have any solutions to network security that, you know, actually let me use the network?
You seem like the type that would propose shooting someone in the face is a good inexpensive way to ensure someone with cancer doesn't die of cancer, with the added benefit that they won't have to worry about their heart condition any more either.
Another one you might enjoy is the prophet Elisha - some kids make fun of him for being bald, so he calls on God to curse them. Two bears then come out of the woods and kill like 40 of the kids. For mocking a bald guy. It's in 2 Kings somewhere, I believe.
I've read that passage. All 2 paragraphs. And as much fun as "Elisha and the Bears" would be as q Sunday school story you've got to put it into context.
If I recall correctly:
The hebrew word they used for 'kids' would actually be equally interpretable as 'youths'.
Remember the bears killed 40+. So instead of 'some' think 'swarm' or 'mob'. This wasn't 2 or 3.
My point is your phrase 'some innocent kids make for of him for being bald' could easily be reinterpreted as a 'roving gang of 40+ teenagers surrounded him and began taunting him'.
I can see that ending really badly for Elisha had the bears not intervened on his behalf...
They can take their HDCP Blu-Ray High-Def crap and stuff it where/. won't let me say.
Are we reading the same slashdot? If there's place/. won't let you even ==SAY== then I don't want to even try to imagine it. The goatse guy is traumatic enough, and they let you link to him in all his full color glory.
I tried to do it right in windows...this last time I think it was XP.
If it has an installer, and you used it, and it didn't work, then its oracles fault.
If Oracle expects you to install something in Program Files that is modifiable by non-priviledged users, then again, Oracle needs to get its act together.
I kept trying to change the permissions on that folder to allow any user on the system to access files in that directory..
Define access: Read? or Write? By default normal users can read files in most normal places you'd install a program. But regular users aren't supposed to write to the program files folder (for example); if Oracle requires this than Oracle is defective..but, windows was making it hard for me to find how to do it. I tried the properties...security or whatever tab..told it to cascased down for users..etc.
You really shouldn't need to do this in the first place, if Oracle was written properly. The fact that you do suggests a problem with Oracle.
As for manually modifying permissions in Windows XP Pro its dead simple. Windows XP Home edition is much more of a hassle, because they obscured the feature. You have to either do it from safe mode, or from the command line.
Even in Windows, you can just extract the tarball and go. The only thing is, it needs to create services, set up the registry and shit like that. You don't need those admin related things on other operating systems.
You don't need any of that to run a program in user space. Why would it need to modify system-wide registry or system permission settings to run a program in user space? Why would it need to register a system-wide service to run in user space?
Don't even get me started on how to try to change file permissions...I finally had to say fuck it...and go change to admin users...soo I could more easily install and RUN oracle on my laptop for a test area....run as just didn't cut it.
Sound more like a problem with Oracle than windows to me. Complain to Oracle to fix it so their software can run inside of user space for a test system. Or at least, can install and run from a normal Windows Vista/7 user... hell get them to make it work properly in XP without admin priv's too.
Aaargh. Sorry for the double post... the first one got munched by slashdot's inability to hand a less than symbol in plaintext without mangling the whole thing. I thought I caught them all, and converted to the xml entity before posting... but no added one at the last minute and blew it up.
Is it really a good answer though? What are we really testing for here? Surely its not the ability to actually obtain the answer?
Your version is certainly clever, but it has several defects:
It has the 0 implicitly hard coded. Granted the specific question posed was computer Sum(0..100) but is solving Sum(0..n) correct? Or should we be solving Sum(m..n)?
Its also non-obvious to most code maintainers what x(x+1)/2 actually does. I suppose with some comments it would be ok. But without comments, I'd almost rather a dumb array with a loop.
Perhaps worst of all though, is that its got some serious range checking issues. It fails to check for negative numbers, and worse than crashing, it returns the wrong answer if you pass in a negative number. The sum of the numbers from 0 to -3 is -6 not 3. This could lead to some nasty bugs.
It also will fail horribly on large positive values, returning god knows what once int overflows.
My point is that sometimes 'dumb' is smarter than 'clever', depending on what is REALLY being tested here.
Your solution scores good in terms of clever, and I would recognize that you've got better math skills than most... but the guy who wrote:
int SumRange(start, stop) {
Assert(start <= stop, "Error if range not in order");
Assert(start >= 0, "This only works for non-negative values");
Assert(stop >=0, "This only works for non-negative values");
Assert(stop <= Sqrt(MAXINT)-1, "result will overflow int");
int sum = 0;
int iterator = start;
while( iterator <= stop)
{
sum +=iterator;
iterator++;
}
return sum; }
From a certain point of view this is orders of magnitude better code, even if it isn't nearly so clever or efficient. Of course the two could be combined, to get the performance advantage of yours and the robustness of mine.
Mine is almost robust to a fault. Technically the assertion on stop for non-negative is redundant because the fact that start is non-negative, and stop must be greater than start implies it won't negative... but I'm thinking ahead to the maintainer who will fix it up to add support for summing ranges even when they aren't specified in order.
If in the mean time, we'd implemented the sum as a difference between two x(x+1)/2 expressions, this would result in a bug being introduced. (Since x(x+1)/2 isn't valid on negative numbers, and I'm going to assume we didn't bother adding the fixes for that since the entire function was restricted to postive ints.)
So the 'redundant' assert might save some seriously hard to find fault one day.
Finally, as a tangential aside. I mentioned you didn't do range checking, and that it would fail for large positive ints.
Just off the cuff how large do you think I'm talking here? 1000? 10,000? A million? A billion?
In my code, I set the max to sqrt(MAXINT)-1 which is somewhat clever, because it adjusts to the current bit width of int automatically, but what are we actually talking about here?
The C int is defined as being at least 16 bits wide, meaning it could start flaking out as low as sqrt( 2^15)... 181. I bet that's a LOT lower than you'd have guessed.
Interestingly, if int width is 16 bits, then your version function starts flaking out right at 181: 181*182 => 32942 which is -32594, which you then divide by 2 to -16297. (Actually I might be wrong on that... it would really depend on what the compiler and cpu do with it. But potentially at least, your program breaks at a mere 181 on some compiler/cpu implementations.)
Probably should have made this function use at least long to be useful.;)
Is it really a good answer though? What are we really testing for here? Surely its not the ability to actually obtain the answer?
Your version is certainly clever, but it has several defects:
It has the 0 implicitly hard coded. Granted the specific question posed was computer Sum(0..100) but is solving Sum(0..n) correct? Or should we be solving Sum(m..n)?
Its also non-obvious to most code maintainers what x(x+1)/2 actually does. I suppose with some comments it would be ok. But without comments, I'd almost rather a dumb array with a loop.
Perhaps worst of all though, is that its got some serious range checking issues. It fails to check for negative numbers, and worse than crashing, it returns the wrong answer if you pass in a negative number. The sum of the numbers from 0 to -3 is -6 not 3. This could lead to some nasty bugs.
It also will fail horribly on large positive values, returning god knows what once int overflows.
My point is that sometimes 'dumb' is smarter than 'clever', depending on what is REALLY being tested here.
Your solution scores good in terms of clever, and I would recognize that you've got better math skills than most... but the guy who wrote:
int SumRange(start, stop) {
Assert(start <= stop, "Error if range not in order");
Assert(start >= 0, "This only works for non-negative values");
Assert(stop >=0, "This only works for non-negative values");
Assert(stop <= Sqrt(MAXINT)-1, "result will overflow int");
int sum = 0;
int iterator = start;
while( iterator < 32942 which is -32594, which you then divide by 2 to -16297. (Actually I might be wrong on that... it would really depend on what the compiler and cpu do with it. But potentially at least, your program breaks at a mere 181 on some compilers/chipsets/c-implementations.)
Probably should have made this function use at least long.;)
Your first point is moot; the number of friends in locations other than where I'm going is not relevant to the debate.
Bullshit.
Your second point makes no sense since what you're saying is I should use a feature that does not exist on my phone (E-mail via text message)
So send it from your laptop a couple hours later. This is hardly a message that can't wait to be sent out.
and that requires more effort (looking up each name, adding them to the CC list) and that doesn't have the effect of notifying people that I wouldn't know are also in Toledo at the time.
Boo fucking hoo. Take the time to contact the people who will be where you are going, and don't bother the vast majority who won't be. What? Are you so imporant and your time so valuable that you'd rather spam everyone you know than take the minimal amount of time to create an address group or lookup a few names?
And as for the people you wouldn't know are in Toledo at the same time... geez. You want to spam everyone you know on the off chance one or two people might be in the area? Hell, if you have friends that travel that much that its actually likely they'll happen to be in Toledo at the time, I guess send them a message too... but of my list of friends and acquaintences, I highly doubt any of them will be in Toledo.
In any case, turning it around, I have a cluster of friends in Calgary. They probably get together every few days, I'm in Calgary every couple years... do I (and everyone else they know who isn't in Calgary) want to be fucking notified everytime they want to see who's going to be at some local club for a few beers just in case one of us in Calgary that night. No fucking way do I need that constant stream of spam. If I'm going to Calgary I'll tell them.
Thirdly, your friends wouldn't know you were going to Toledo. Do your out of town friends frequently ask you to do lunch when they don't know you'll be in town?
If I was going to their town, I would send a message to the people in that town to invite them. See how that works.
Better still if someone else I knew was also going to be in town, yeah, I'd miss inviting him. But the friends in town that I did send it to would say, "hey, guess what, so-and-so from somewhere also called us to say he will be in town that weekend; we should all try to get together..."
Obviously I'm not going to change your mind, so I'll drop it, but your argument is so ridiculously self centered its pathetic.
That would be about 1965, or whenever it was that UNIX was conceived. UNIX has had the capacity to support thousands of users simultaneously since the beginning of time (literally). When X appeared in the late 80s, very little changed in this regard.
Unix may have been multiuser since around the time it was conceived, but the ability to neatly *switch* between multiple logins on a single terminal is much newer unless I'm mistaken.
Pedantic note: collision of matter and antimatter does not produce a net nothingness; it should produce massive amounts of radiation. Conservation of mass and energy still applies.
The problem isn't that they don't understand conservation of mass and energy. Its that that most people don't really understand that anti-matter is just regular energy composed into matter with inverted electrical charges on the particles.
In otherwords they don't get that anti-matter is not "negative-energy".
To them, anti-matter should be negative-energy... e.g. so when you mix it with regular matter they do in fact produce net nothingness in order to satisfy the conservation of mass and energy. And there would even be anti-photons (or negative-photons) that cancel out normal photons, etc. Versus normal physics where the photon has no anti-particle... or, more accurately, the photon is its own anti-particle. Since it carries no charge (and is not composed of sub-particles that carry charge).
The vast majority of people I've seen using windows never log out to switch users.
1) It used to be a ROYAL hassle to switch users in OSX and Windows. To force my wife or kids to log everything out just so I could check or send a quick email was absurd.
Fast user switching technologies have made this less of a hassle, but a lot of people are conditioned against multiple accounts from the hassle it was in Windows 2000 and before or OSX 10.2 and before. I honeslty don't know when exactly Linux added the feature to let you swap desktops easily.
2) Many "family computers" really have no need of the separation between accounts.
My wife has a laptop that's sort of a family unit. She has her email accounts, and IM etc on it. My email goes to another PC, but since hers is usually in the living room if I want to do something I'll usually just use it... whether its just look something up on the web, or check my email (via webmail), or IM my brother or something, there's really no point in having a whole separate account for me on it. Our kids use it too, mostly for games and tux paint. They are young enough they don't really need a separate account (the oldest is in grade 1). Having separate accounts would actually just be a hassle.
(And as you may have guessed from "tux paint" that its a linux laptop, not a windows one... so a single account is really a convenience thing, not a 'because its windows' thing.)
So do you think the original iPhone apps were not written in Objective-C using Xcode?
Remember, the iphone 3rd party developers were initially told to make their "apps" as 'iphone optimized websites accessed via safari' -- something they didn't have to put up with for THEIR apps. So while they were using their own tools, they weren't living under the same limitations they expected everyone else to.
More to the point, nobody has ever said objective-C & xcode aren't good enough tools to write apps.
An awful LOT of people (including me) have said that css/html/javascript apps (including g-crap) SUCK ASS compared to 'real apps' (at least within the web traditional desktop browser).
So when palm says, "hey, make your apps in css/html/javascript" I'm pretty leery and skeptical... but then I see that all THEIR apps are written in css/html/javascript and they look really good, and I'm a lot more comfortable with accepting that their css/html/javascript platform is actually pretty good.
After all, the problem with css/html/javascript apps isn't the languages, its the (relativly) piss poor functionality, bugginess, and non-standards-complianceness of the browser DOMs we have to build on. Everything from shitty event handling, to no-threading, to coping with all the IE quirks -- none of that is really the fault of css/html/javascript itself.
Doesn't matter who you blame... the reality was that openGL performance in *games* when 2k launched, was really weak. Most of the NT/2k video drivers were still primarily optimized and aimed at Autocad not Quake.
Meanwhile you have around 1000 other friends/acquaintances in their 20s who are perfectly healthy.
If that were true it should be possible to run a VERY profitable insurance company, charging 20 year olds $10/mo. They'd take in $10,000/mo in premiums, and pay out less than $2000.
Perhaps you should start an insurance company for people in their twenties. $10/mo for good coverage? I'd sign up in a heartbeat. Well... I'd sign up if I didn't think you'd immediately go bankrupt.
Sorry, your math just doesn't work. Insurance companies are generally profitable, but their is no way they'd be insanely profitable at $10/mo per 20 year old.
I don't what alternate reality you live in, but almost every week I get a piece of mail trying to sell me health insurance. It's almost as bad as those damn credit card mailings.
True, but they are either trying to sell you inexpensive insurance that doesn't actually cover anything, or expensive insurance that does.
If they thought the odds of you ever needing it were actually practically nil, you'd be getting lots offers of inexpensive insurance that provided good coverage.
You do know you can calibrate the reticle to actually point where you're aiming it, right? It takes a little bit of effort moving the reciever around and testing, but it works. No more effort than sighting in a real gun, I s'pose.
Is that a calibration feature of a particular game, or are you saying its generally true. Because its not generally true from what I can tell.
You can certainly improve things to a point, by moving the light bar and re positioning yourself. But it has no way of telling it how big your TV is, and no system of pointing at the center and corners to give it some sort of calibration info... unless I've really missed something.
Dump the insurance and just pay cash. It's cheaper in the long-run, and takes advantage of the fact that nearly-all people don't get a serious illness until after age 60.
Small comfort to those who suffer a stroke or heart attack or cancer at younger ages.
It's silly to waste thousands on insurance when you're still young and healthy & more likely to get hit with an asteroid than fall victim to a mortal illness. (Okay I exaggerated a bit, but you get my point.)
You'd think with odds like that a competitive free market insurance industry would be falling over themselves to insure young healthy people for low annual premiums... care to speculate on the fact that they don't?
Slashdot Mirror
How about "disconnect it from the network."? That's the cheapest one I can think of.
Now, do you have any solutions to network security that, you know, actually let me use the network?
You seem like the type that would propose shooting someone in the face is a good inexpensive way to ensure someone with cancer doesn't die of cancer, with the added benefit that they won't have to worry about their heart condition any more either.
I sincerely hope you aren't a doctor.
Where does the iphone/Touch fit into this now that apple is hyping it as a games platform?
Stuff that would be be shovelware on the DS is considered 'innovative' on the iPhone/Touch.
Another one you might enjoy is the prophet Elisha - some kids make fun of him for being bald, so he calls on God to curse them. Two bears then come out of the woods and kill like 40 of the kids. For mocking a bald guy. It's in 2 Kings somewhere, I believe.
I've read that passage. All 2 paragraphs. And as much fun as "Elisha and the Bears" would be as q Sunday school story you've got to put it into context.
If I recall correctly:
The hebrew word they used for 'kids' would actually be equally interpretable as 'youths'.
Remember the bears killed 40+. So instead of 'some' think 'swarm' or 'mob'. This wasn't 2 or 3.
My point is your phrase 'some innocent kids make for of him for being bald' could easily be reinterpreted as a 'roving gang of 40+ teenagers surrounded him and began taunting him'.
I can see that ending really badly for Elisha had the bears not intervened on his behalf...
They can take their HDCP Blu-Ray High-Def crap and stuff it where /. won't let me say.
Are we reading the same slashdot? If there's place /. won't let you even ==SAY== then I don't want to even try to imagine it. The goatse guy is traumatic enough, and they let you link to him in all his full color glory.
I tried to do it right in windows...this last time I think it was XP.
If it has an installer, and you used it, and it didn't work, then its oracles fault.
If Oracle expects you to install something in Program Files that is modifiable by non-priviledged users, then again, Oracle needs to get its act together.
I kept trying to change the permissions on that folder to allow any user on the system to access files in that directory..
Define access: Read? or Write? By default normal users can read files in most normal places you'd install a program. But regular users aren't supposed to write to the program files folder (for example); if Oracle requires this than Oracle is defective. .but, windows was making it hard for me to find how to do it. I tried the properties...security or whatever tab..told it to cascased down for users..etc.
You really shouldn't need to do this in the first place, if Oracle was written properly. The fact that you do suggests a problem with Oracle.
As for manually modifying permissions in Windows XP Pro its dead simple. Windows XP Home edition is much more of a hassle, because they obscured the feature. You have to either do it from safe mode, or from the command line.
Even in Windows, you can just extract the tarball and go. The only thing is, it needs to create services, set up the registry and shit like that. You don't need those admin related things on other operating systems.
You don't need any of that to run a program in user space. Why would it need to modify system-wide registry or system permission settings to run a program in user space? Why would it need to register a system-wide service to run in user space?
Hint: It doesn't.
Oracle needs to get its act together.
Don't even get me started on how to try to change file permissions...I finally had to say fuck it...and go change to admin users...soo I could more easily install and RUN oracle on my laptop for a test area....run as just didn't cut it.
Sound more like a problem with Oracle than windows to me. Complain to Oracle to fix it so their software can run inside of user space for a test system. Or at least, can install and run from a normal Windows Vista/7 user... hell get them to make it work properly in XP without admin priv's too.
Aaargh. Sorry for the double post... the first one got munched by slashdot's inability to hand a less than symbol in plaintext without mangling the whole thing. I thought I caught them all, and converted to the xml entity before posting... but no added one at the last minute and blew it up.
Is it really a good answer though?
What are we really testing for here? Surely its not the ability to actually obtain the answer?
Your version is certainly clever, but it has several defects:
It has the 0 implicitly hard coded. Granted the specific question posed was computer Sum(0..100) but is solving Sum(0..n) correct? Or should we be solving Sum(m..n)?
Its also non-obvious to most code maintainers what x(x+1)/2 actually does. I suppose with some comments it would be ok. But without comments, I'd almost rather a dumb array with a loop.
Perhaps worst of all though, is that its got some serious range checking issues. It fails to check for negative numbers, and worse than crashing, it returns the wrong answer if you pass in a negative number. The sum of the numbers from 0 to -3 is -6 not 3. This could lead to some nasty bugs.
It also will fail horribly on large positive values, returning god knows what once int overflows.
My point is that sometimes 'dumb' is smarter than 'clever', depending on what is REALLY being tested here.
Your solution scores good in terms of clever, and I would recognize that you've got better math skills than most... but the guy who wrote:
int SumRange(start, stop)
{
Assert(start <= stop, "Error if range not in order");
Assert(start >= 0, "This only works for non-negative values");
Assert(stop >=0, "This only works for non-negative values");
Assert(stop <= Sqrt(MAXINT)-1, "result will overflow int");
int sum = 0;
int iterator = start;
while( iterator <= stop)
{
sum +=iterator;
iterator++;
}
return sum;
}
From a certain point of view this is orders of magnitude better code, even if it isn't nearly so clever or efficient. Of course the two could be combined, to get the performance advantage of yours and the robustness of mine.
Mine is almost robust to a fault. Technically the assertion on stop for non-negative is redundant because the fact that start is non-negative, and stop must be greater than start implies it won't negative... but I'm thinking ahead to the maintainer who will fix it up to add support for summing ranges even when they aren't specified in order.
If in the mean time, we'd implemented the sum as a difference between two x(x+1)/2 expressions, this would result in a bug being introduced. (Since x(x+1)/2 isn't valid on negative numbers, and I'm going to assume we didn't bother adding the fixes for that since the entire function was restricted to postive ints.)
So the 'redundant' assert might save some seriously hard to find fault one day.
Finally, as a tangential aside. I mentioned you didn't do range checking, and that it would fail for large positive ints.
Just off the cuff how large do you think I'm talking here? 1000? 10,000? A million? A billion?
In my code, I set the max to sqrt(MAXINT)-1 which is somewhat clever, because it adjusts to the current bit width of int automatically, but what are we actually talking about here?
The C int is defined as being at least 16 bits wide, meaning it could start flaking out as low as sqrt( 2^15)... 181. I bet that's a LOT lower than you'd have guessed.
Interestingly, if int width is 16 bits, then your version function starts flaking out right at 181: 181*182 => 32942 which is -32594, which you then divide by 2 to -16297. (Actually I might be wrong on that... it would really depend on what the compiler and cpu do with it. But potentially at least, your program breaks at a mere 181 on some compiler/cpu implementations.)
Probably should have made this function use at least long to be useful. ;)
Is it really a good answer though?
What are we really testing for here? Surely its not the ability to actually obtain the answer?
Your version is certainly clever, but it has several defects:
It has the 0 implicitly hard coded. Granted the specific question posed was computer Sum(0..100) but is solving Sum(0..n) correct? Or should we be solving Sum(m..n)?
Its also non-obvious to most code maintainers what x(x+1)/2 actually does. I suppose with some comments it would be ok. But without comments, I'd almost rather a dumb array with a loop.
Perhaps worst of all though, is that its got some serious range checking issues. It fails to check for negative numbers, and worse than crashing, it returns the wrong answer if you pass in a negative number. The sum of the numbers from 0 to -3 is -6 not 3. This could lead to some nasty bugs.
It also will fail horribly on large positive values, returning god knows what once int overflows.
My point is that sometimes 'dumb' is smarter than 'clever', depending on what is REALLY being tested here.
Your solution scores good in terms of clever, and I would recognize that you've got better math skills than most... but the guy who wrote:
int SumRange(start, stop)
{
Assert(start <= stop, "Error if range not in order");
Assert(start >= 0, "This only works for non-negative values");
Assert(stop >=0, "This only works for non-negative values");
Assert(stop <= Sqrt(MAXINT)-1, "result will overflow int");
int sum = 0;
int iterator = start;
while( iterator < 32942 which is -32594, which you then divide by 2 to -16297. (Actually I might be wrong on that... it would really depend on what the compiler and cpu do with it. But potentially at least, your program breaks at a mere 181 on some compilers/chipsets/c-implementations.)
Probably should have made this function use at least long. ;)
Your first point is moot; the number of friends in locations other than where I'm going is not relevant to the debate.
Bullshit.
Your second point makes no sense since what you're saying is I should use a feature that does not exist on my phone (E-mail via text message)
So send it from your laptop a couple hours later. This is hardly a message that can't wait to be sent out.
and that requires more effort (looking up each name, adding them to the CC list) and that doesn't have the effect of notifying people that I wouldn't know are also in Toledo at the time.
Boo fucking hoo. Take the time to contact the people who will be where you are going, and don't bother the vast majority who won't be. What? Are you so imporant and your time so valuable that you'd rather spam everyone you know than take the minimal amount of time to create an address group or lookup a few names?
And as for the people you wouldn't know are in Toledo at the same time... geez. You want to spam everyone you know on the off chance one or two people might be in the area? Hell, if you have friends that travel that much that its actually likely they'll happen to be in Toledo at the time, I guess send them a message too... but of my list of friends and acquaintences, I highly doubt any of them will be in Toledo.
In any case, turning it around, I have a cluster of friends in Calgary. They probably get together every few days, I'm in Calgary every couple years... do I (and everyone else they know who isn't in Calgary) want to be fucking notified everytime they want to see who's going to be at some local club for a few beers just in case one of us in Calgary that night. No fucking way do I need that constant stream of spam. If I'm going to Calgary I'll tell them.
Thirdly, your friends wouldn't know you were going to Toledo. Do your out of town friends frequently ask you to do lunch when they don't know you'll be in town?
If I was going to their town, I would send a message to the people in that town to invite them. See how that works.
Better still if someone else I knew was also going to be in town, yeah, I'd miss inviting him. But the friends in town that I did send it to would say, "hey, guess what, so-and-so from somewhere also called us to say he will be in town that weekend; we should all try to get together..."
Obviously I'm not going to change your mind, so I'll drop it, but your argument is so ridiculously self centered its pathetic.
That would be about 1965, or whenever it was that UNIX was conceived. UNIX has had the capacity to support thousands of users simultaneously since the beginning of time (literally). When X appeared in the late 80s, very little changed in this regard.
Unix may have been multiuser since around the time it was conceived, but the ability to neatly *switch* between multiple logins on a single terminal is much newer unless I'm mistaken.
I thought Google would be the ones undermining privacy in this case...
How do you think they "discovered" this?
Pedantic note: collision of matter and antimatter does not produce a net nothingness; it should produce massive amounts of radiation. Conservation of mass and energy still applies.
The problem isn't that they don't understand conservation of mass and energy. Its that that most people don't really understand that anti-matter is just regular energy composed into matter with inverted electrical charges on the particles.
In otherwords they don't get that anti-matter is not "negative-energy".
To them, anti-matter should be negative-energy... e.g. so when you mix it with regular matter they do in fact produce net nothingness in order to satisfy the conservation of mass and energy. And there would even be anti-photons (or negative-photons) that cancel out normal photons, etc. Versus normal physics where the photon has no anti-particle... or, more accurately, the photon is its own anti-particle. Since it carries no charge (and is not composed of sub-particles that carry charge).
The vast majority of people I've seen using windows never log out to switch users.
1) It used to be a ROYAL hassle to switch users in OSX and Windows. To force my wife or kids to log everything out just so I could check or send a quick email was absurd.
Fast user switching technologies have made this less of a hassle, but a lot of people are conditioned against multiple accounts from the hassle it was in Windows 2000 and before or OSX 10.2 and before. I honeslty don't know when exactly Linux added the feature to let you swap desktops easily.
2) Many "family computers" really have no need of the separation between accounts.
My wife has a laptop that's sort of a family unit. She has her email accounts, and IM etc on it. My email goes to another PC, but since hers is usually in the living room if I want to do something I'll usually just use it... whether its just look something up on the web, or check my email (via webmail), or IM my brother or something, there's really no point in having a whole separate account for me on it. Our kids use it too, mostly for games and tux paint. They are young enough they don't really need a separate account (the oldest is in grade 1). Having separate accounts would actually just be a hassle.
(And as you may have guessed from "tux paint" that its a linux laptop, not a windows one... so a single account is really a convenience thing, not a 'because its windows' thing.)
So do you think the original iPhone apps were not written in Objective-C using Xcode?
Remember, the iphone 3rd party developers were initially told to make their "apps" as 'iphone optimized websites accessed via safari' -- something they didn't have to put up with for THEIR apps. So while they were using their own tools, they weren't living under the same limitations they expected everyone else to.
More to the point, nobody has ever said objective-C & xcode aren't good enough tools to write apps.
An awful LOT of people (including me) have said that css/html/javascript apps (including g-crap) SUCK ASS compared to 'real apps' (at least within the web traditional desktop browser).
So when palm says, "hey, make your apps in css/html/javascript" I'm pretty leery and skeptical... but then I see that all THEIR apps are written in css/html/javascript and they look really good, and I'm a lot more comfortable with accepting that their css/html/javascript platform is actually pretty good.
After all, the problem with css/html/javascript apps isn't the languages, its the (relativly) piss poor functionality, bugginess, and non-standards-complianceness of the browser DOMs we have to build on. Everything from shitty event handling, to no-threading, to coping with all the IE quirks -- none of that is really the fault of css/html/javascript itself.
Will this be the first card to run Windows Aero at a decent speed?
No. It won't be the first.
Of course, that's because the first cards to run Windows Aero at a decent speed were made several years ago.
Microsoft faces an uphill battle as the word "google" is now a verb.
"Microsoft" can be used as a verb too. Trouble is...if I were to say I'm going to "Microsoft something" its not exactly a positive image.
Please leave the thinking to people who known how to do it.
Apparently that excludes you too. ;)
Doesn't matter who you blame... the reality was that openGL performance in *games* when 2k launched, was really weak. Most of the NT/2k video drivers were still primarily optimized and aimed at Autocad not Quake.
Meanwhile you have around 1000 other friends/acquaintances in their 20s who are perfectly healthy.
If that were true it should be possible to run a VERY profitable insurance company, charging 20 year olds $10/mo. They'd take in $10,000/mo in premiums, and pay out less than $2000.
Perhaps you should start an insurance company for people in their twenties. $10/mo for good coverage? I'd sign up in a heartbeat. Well... I'd sign up if I didn't think you'd immediately go bankrupt.
Sorry, your math just doesn't work. Insurance companies are generally profitable, but their is no way they'd be insanely profitable at $10/mo per 20 year old.
I don't what alternate reality you live in, but almost every week I get a piece of mail trying to sell me health insurance. It's almost as bad as those damn credit card mailings.
True, but they are either trying to sell you inexpensive insurance that doesn't actually cover anything, or expensive insurance that does.
If they thought the odds of you ever needing it were actually practically nil, you'd be getting lots offers of inexpensive insurance that provided good coverage.
You do know you can calibrate the reticle to actually point where you're aiming it, right? It takes a little bit of effort moving the reciever around and testing, but it works. No more effort than sighting in a real gun, I s'pose.
Is that a calibration feature of a particular game, or are you saying its generally true. Because its not generally true from what I can tell.
You can certainly improve things to a point, by moving the light bar and re positioning yourself. But it has no way of telling it how big your TV is, and no system of pointing at the center and corners to give it some sort of calibration info... unless I've really missed something.
Dump the insurance and just pay cash. It's cheaper in the long-run, and takes advantage of the fact that nearly-all people don't get a serious illness until after age 60.
Small comfort to those who suffer a stroke or heart attack or cancer at younger ages.
It's silly to waste thousands on insurance when you're still young and healthy & more likely to get hit with an asteroid than fall victim to a mortal illness. (Okay I exaggerated a bit, but you get my point.)
You'd think with odds like that a competitive free market insurance industry would be falling over themselves to insure young healthy people for low annual premiums... care to speculate on the fact that they don't?
My theory is that you are simply mistaken.
Which, by the way, is a succinct explanation of why socialized medicine sucks.
Which, by the way, applies equally well to a free market system of private insurers.
not too happy about some proprietary filesystem (assuming it isn't ro/rw on all platforms yet).
Is there any decent modern FS that is reliably read/write on Win/*nix/osx platforms? I'm still looking for one.