So, every time you do or have "clicked" your track pad, you have used the force touch feature.
Nope. My macbook pro trackpad definitely has a haptic click if I acutally push on it, and then a second click if i push harder.
I *never* touch it with enough force to engage either.
So, every time you do or have "clicked" your track pad, you have used the force touch feature.
The feature is there, and I might be technically using it in the sense that I can't use the trackpad without using it. But the fact that it is 'force touch' is irrelevant to me, I find it no different to the trackpad in my previous macbook pro which didn't have it.
Secondly, force touch on the Apple Watch works beautifully
Meh, a gimmick on a product that is itself a gimmick?
and will be useful on the iPhone too. Contextual menus in iOS apps will be a great addition.
Yeah, maybe. Then again, a phone with more buttons kind of solves most of those issues too; and is more intuitive to use. Just saying.
I'm not anti-apple; I'm using an mbp to write this... but I have no interest in their walled garden; or their watch. The force touch tech... is an evolutionary step with some uses and I do expect to see it become ubuiqitous, but its hardly anything to get excited about.
This is Force Touch, which as it's name implies is about measuring the force of finger touches.
For what its worth, (and probably not much) I have a new macbook pro with the force touchpad. I've never actually used it. Not once. Not ever. I tried it on the demo unit in the store to see what the fuss was... but I count it as a total gimmick.
I really only ever use the tap-to-click; so I don't even click the touchpad, nevermind force-click it.
I agree with you. Especially about the speculative 'guff' from click-hungry bloggers.
I do have a question though; especially given the content of your post: why did you phrase your subject as a question instead of a declarative statement?
Was it deliberately ironic or just inadvertently so?
The NSA is an offensive organization, not a defensive one. That's it's mission.
That's according to you. Now according to the NSA their mission, from their Mission pagel:
"The National Security Agency/Central Security Service (NSA/CSS) leads the U.S. Government in cryptology that encompasses both Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) and Information Assurance (IA) products and services, and enables Computer Network Operations (CNO) in order to gain a decision advantage for the Nation and our allies under all circumstances."
NSA's Information Assurance Directorate delivers mission enhancing information assurance technologies, products and services that enable customers and clients to secure operational information and information systems.
Or to paraphrase: enable its customers (government and its departments, domestic corporations, and our allies) to secure their data and computer systems.*
That is ALSO there mission. They have been so busy with SIGINT that not only have they neglected IA, but they have ACTIVELY subverted and sabotaged it in the process.
*and I'm not just putting words into their mouths when I say their job is to protect our allies (vs spying on them) that's also from them:
"The NSA [...] encompasses both SIGINT and IA [...] in order to gain a decision advantage for the Nation and our allies under all circumstances."
Just because the government purchased something doesn't entitle you to its use. You don't get to borrow a navy fighter jet because your taxes helped pay for that
That's entirely at the governments discretion, and there's no public benefit to letting me borrow a fighter jet.
Besides, that $9.1mil is probably based on a certain number of licenses, it doesn't cover you.
1) Negotiate a flat rate.
It doesn't affect Microsofts costs. They'll do the updates as long as there is enough money in it for them. How many users is really completely irrelevant. If it costs $5 million to maintain XP then it costs 5 million whether there is 100 users or 300 million of them. We know this. Microsoft knows this.
2) Government makes the rules; so it can change the rules. Copyright is there for the public good. If a company is literally using copyright to deny critical security updates (that they have ALREADY been paid by the governement to develop) then make exceptions to copyright law, and then distribute those changes to the public.
Pass a law to strip security related software patches of copyright protection. Now if the company creates them, anyone one who is licensed for the software can have them. Now, the government wants security patches, and is still willing pay 7 figures to get them; does microsoft pass on the cash? Its still pretty lucrative.
Why not? I write software that I only get paid for once all the time, regardless of how many users it ends up with. For the right price, I don't give a shit about licensing. I got paid upfront. That model can work for security patches.
Yeah, I know it won't happen. But it could... perhaps even should.
Yeah +1 for spideroak. But you still do need to trust them.
The source is closed. So you can't inspect and build the client yourself. So you have no way of knowing whether its really zero knowledge or not; or whether the client can or is sending the keys to the server etc.
They also specifically disclaim zero knowledge for web based access and mobile. The former should be obvious, but the latter is a bit of a surprise/disappointment.
Still I -do- generally trust them; and recommend them. Their business model isn't advertising and harvesting data.
But the fact that I've decided to trust them is a far cry from it being a provably trustworthy system.
Re:The problem is that landfills are too cheap
on
Recycling Is Dying
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Yeah, me too. I think part of the problem with recyling is lack of education. I honestly don't know what actually is and is not ok to put into what...
For example I recently bought a mcdonalds meal...
What about a macdonalds bag? Is that ok to put in the paper? What about Unused napkins? Used napkins?
What about the 'cardboard' thing the bigmac was in? Is that paper or cardboard or is it just garbage?
Can I recycle the the plastic fork? The little plastic bag the fork came in? or the straw? The plastic lid on the cup?
What about the wax paper cup?
Would I need to wash all these things? or does the recyling processes itself mean that a bit of salad dressing on the fork, or a bit cola on the cup is completely irrelevant?
And what the hell am I supposed to do with a pringles can or the containers Ice Tea powder comes in? The ones with the cardboard cylinder (although maybe some sort of foil coating on it?) plus it has a metal ring at the top lid, and a metal base.
Is the plastic lid recycleable? The ice tea has the #4 recyle symbol on it... but the pringles can doesn't have any symbol that I can see... but surely its recycleable? isn't it?
Should I err on the side of caution, and toss anything I'm not 100% sure of in the garbage, or should i err on the side of recycling?
I think most people, like me, simply don't know the answers to these questions and we make a lot of mistakes we'd avoid because of it.
Actually, one of my premises, is that as the government is paying for it, we ARE paying for it.
Should a Amazon give out all their ebooks for free because someone already bought a copy of one of them?
When that someone is the governent, then yes? Isn't that what a library is?
It's not like these are businesses that rely on paying customers to run or anything stupid like that.
Again, we are the paying customers.
Plus, MS wants to move away from XP. It takes away from their talent pool to work on a 15 year old operating system that very few people actually want to run.
But Microsoft set a price for doing so, and then it was paid. Its not taking away from anything, its a whole extra revenue stream.
If they are going to keep patching it, they are going to want a bunch of money to compensate for the time and money sink that it is.
Yes. They set a price to compensate themselves for the time it would take to do that, with enough profit built in to motivate them to do it. Then we paid it.
What are your thoughts about Bush (and now Obama) saying that if you encrypt your internet communications you must be a terrorist?
They never said that. Either of them. A few blowhards and talking heads have made such comments over the years; and the press eats it up because that's what the press does.
The country as a whole is grappling with rather intractable problem. It simultaneously wants it to be possible for the NSA to break encrypted data belonging to terrorists and criminals in general with a proper warrant. But it doesn't want encryption itself to be compromised with a back door so that they can get in whenever they want without leaving so much as a trace. Unfortunately meeting those two objectives right now is a fantasy. So we get loonies at both ends making nonsensical statements.
And then what would happen if they used the IRS to go after the Linux foundation(or some other FOSS tech company) for making encryption readily available?
As long as saner heads prevail who cares. Linux isn't a terrorist front and any honest investigation not run with the same mentality as the spanish inquisition will promptly discern this to be the case.
The thing that irks me is that once various governments and organizations have "sucked-it-up" and ponied up the "ransom" to keep XP going -- why cant the public at large benefit from this. Especially given that we are the ones literally paying for it.
Once the patches are written, tested, and released why aren't they available on Windows update?
Don't get me wrong, I want XP to die in a fire. Cutting over to Vista onward, embracing 64 bit*, leaving the days of "administrator by default" behind, etc were all good things. But still if my government dropped 9 million bucks to get MS to develop some more security patches for XP; it'd be nice if the lathes at work could have them too.
Because roundabouts consume a lot more land and are not that much safer for pedestrians.
Even a little safer is better. Roundabouts generally bring the speed of traffic approaching the intersection down.
How can a circular roadway be smaller than a simple intersection? You can't put a median in the middle of an intersection and force the traffic to go around it without it being bigger than a simple cross.
They put one in by the school near where I live, and the new roundabout doesn't take any more space than the old intersection did.
And that's a residential simple one lane going each way intersection, with parking along the curb. At the roundabout the curbs bulb out preventing parking, and create the room for the circular space.
Previously, there was effectively 2 lanes of room at the intersection, so someone waiting to turn left could be driven around on the right side, or cars could make right turns while people were waiting to go through or turn right. This complexity is what often led to accidents both between vehicles and involving pedestrians.
Now, its always one car entering from each side at a time; and it never really stops except for pedestrians. Honestly its been working well.
It seems to scale well to 2 lanes as well We have several 2 lane round abouts and those also work well.
We're dropping half a million dollars in our area to replace a simple intersection because a few people don't like waiting at the stop signs on the intersection side streets.
Yeah I can't comment on that. The local roundabout only cost $200,000; or about a $5 per household; and that budget was part of larger project that repaved about 2 blocks on either side of the round about along the main road; new sidewalks, and landscaping including midsize trees, shrubs, and planters along the roadway. So... we got a lot more than "just a roundabout" for 200k. Not sure why yours costs 500k. That seems to be the average price for a large non-residential roundabout...
Like the ones shown here... most of the big ones cost ~500k
Windows 8 asks if you want a Microsoft account or a local account exactly once during installation
Ok. This isn't quite true. Windows 8 -assumes- you want a microsoft account, and makes the option of using a local account, more than little non-obvious.
Apple, for what its worth isn't any better.
and never bothers you about it again.
Also not quite true; various interactions with the store require you to sign into the store; and if you are not paying attention, the default path the wizard takes you down will convert your local account into a microsoft account. It warns you this is going to happen, but if your not paying attention you can end up with a microsoft account after installing with a local one.
You must have got drunk, passed out and dreamt about the nags.
If you never use the app store, you won't see any nags. But if you do, it will prompt you to sign in to the store with your ms account; and it will "helpfully" suggest you switch your account to a microsoft account to make your life "better".
An equation that uses Divide by zero might go to "max limit" or to zero (in practical terms), based on preceding values. It will not suddenly say; "Sorry, the resultant value is indeterminable".
Using an function where its undefined is fundamentally invalid.
lets say I define function:
f(x,y) = 1+ x/y; for all y in R such that y>0; for all x in R such that x>=0
If I call this function f(-4,2) same thing. Its not defined, its NOT defined for xbased on preceding values
See what that does? It doesn't merely shoot off to infinity; its clearly bounded between 1 and -1. But nor does it have a clear value at x=0; its limit is undefined at 0.
It does go towards a finite number, it doesn't go to plus or minus infinity. Its JUST not defined. Don't ask for a value there because there isn't one is the ONLY correct answer.
The point is, a function is defined on an interval. If there is somewhere where its undefined, it is an error to ask it for a value there. If you are interested in where the function is going, then don't ask it for a value, as it where it going (ie take a limit). But don't be too surprised when you find out there isn't a limit either.
And don't forget that lots of real world functions have values that don't line up with their limits.
f(x) = { 2x for all x in R, such that x != 5; 5 if x = 5 } this is a perfectly valid function. The limit of f(x) as x->5 = 10 from the left, and the right; but f(5) = 5.
You are technically correct but IMHO practically wrong. I'm talking about "real use" such as in animation, graphing and financial.
I can't imagine a scenario in financial where division by zero should ever be fudged. I can't imagine a scenario in graphing where division by zero should ever be fudged. In amimation; yes; sometimes you take shortcuts to correctness for performance, but honestly handling division by zero properly tends to be an optimization. You are usually dealing with a vertical line (infinite slope), or a the intersection of a line parallel to a plane or something; and you can and should handle it correctly easily.
Can you cite an example where not handling a case where division by zero is going to occur properly makes sense to you? Rather than just hand waving that examples exist, can you acutally provide one? Because I can't think of one.
Snowden had physical access to the network and still had to social engineer passwords.
Anyone who thinks Snowden is the first and only person who had the access, ability, and inclination to take the data he took is as high as a fucking kite.
Snowden is just the only one who went public.
Snowden didn't have special access or magical powers. Thousands of other people work there just like he did; do you really think its inconceivable none have them have sold out? or have been compromised and are under foreign leverage? or outright work for a foreign government?
As for the utility, if there are situations where a plot or solve 1/x for every x is necessary,
Think about that for half a second. Your just substituting 1/0 for some "E" symbol. How is the plot going to plot "E" on an x,y plane?
It'll still need special handling, and special data types. (you can't sqrt(-1) on a double; you have to use special complex classes everywhere for that to be allowed;
I don't generally use complex numbers when writing algorithms that plot circles or parabolas, because I'm not usually interested in complex results. If I'm plotting a circle on an x,y screen; using y = +/- sqrt(r^2 - x^2)+h; I'm not interested in complex results; and I'm using doubles in the algorithm. So sqrt(-1) is still an error to workaround, not i. (And if I was using complex numbers, then I'd still have to test for i and discard it.
So what have we gained with 'zeplex' numbers? Unless it's actually useful for some other aspect of mathematics.
However,... if I were programming an animation and it's following a path y= 2/x, I'm going to have a smooth motion along screen at position 2 until I get to Zero.
Does it make practical sense that if X = 0, then X =.0000001 will get you a reasonable facsimile of what should occur with X?
Certainly not here. And in general no. Dividing by "nearly zero" is generally just as bad as dividing by zero. If X is approaching zero division by x is approaching an infinity.
No matter what data type you are using you are going to blow past its MIN/MAX; you are propagating error into the significant digits, etc. 10^80
Unless you are literally trying to plot a hyperbola or something, odds are if you are dividing something large by 0.0000000001 you are probably doing something wrong somewhere.
And there are countless other examples where its just nonsensical. Lets say you are doing a test and have a running tally of pass vs fail... and you haven't made any fails yet... so 5 pass, 0 fail... 5/0 is an error; so we'll just display 5/0.00000001 because that's a 'reasonable facsimile' right?:)
When you have 0/0, you hit two "obvious" but contradictory rules in basic algebra:
Rule one: anything multiplied by zero is zero Rule two: anything divided by itself is one
Ugh no, just no. "Rule one: anything multiplied by zero is zero"
Yes, this is called, amongst other things, the zero property of multiplication. However 0/0 is not a multiplication and the rule is not relevant, and there is no conflict.
Secondly your "rule two" is not actually rule of algebra. There is no rule x/x = 1.
There is an identity rule for division: anything divided by one is itself (x/1 = x) but there is no rule that says x/x = 1
You can derive "rule two" from the identity rule for multiplication x*1 = x --> x/x = 1
However, that transformation always stipulates that x 0 because division by zero is undefined.
Mathematicians have no issue determine which rule has precedence, because neither rule applies to 0/0. There is no conflict. Division by zero is specifically "undefined".
The graph of the function is a horizontal line at y=1, with a discontinuity at 0. (if x=0, x/x=0/0) So 0/0 should be 1 right? Because everywhere else on the graph x/x = 1??
As x approaches 0 (lim x->0) from either the left or right the limit of the equation is 2. A graph of the function is horizontal line at y=2, with a discontinuity at 0. But every where else 2x/x = 2. So shouldn't 2(0)/0 = 0/0 = 2? So 0/0 should be 2 right?
As x approaches 0 from the left it goes to negative infinity. As x approaches 0 from the right it goes to positive infinity. This graph doesn't even suggest a value for 0/0? Is it + infinity? Or - infinity?
I can write a function that makes 0/0 look like it should be anything I want. 0/0 is undefined. It doesn't violate any rules of algebra. It's a rule of algebra that division by 0 is undefined.
I don't disagree with you. But one role of Windows servers you sort of glossed over is simply: "managing windows desktops" (active directory, group policy, etc, etc). If you are running more than a handful of windows desktops you've probably got a windows server.
And if you've already got a bunch of windows desktops plus a windows server, it doesn't really make sense to spin up one *nix box in that environment unless you really need something that only *nix can do. It generally makes more sense to either use the existing windows server, or drop in another one.
unless, of course, you're attempting to run a windows program
I'm not arguing with you that *nix is a better server overall. But windows is a better server if your working with windows apps, serving windows apps, or managing windows desktops.
With 90%+ of the desktop market; most people are running windows applications. They are using remote desktop into servers running windows applications. They are using local windows applications that talk to server windows applications. etc.And the whole thing is managed by another windows server running active directory, and their backups and antivirus and wsus... all windows servers... because why would you install *nix box in a role like that?
Windows and Windows servers is not a niche market. And its not going to be a niche market any time soon. Even if its in "decline" relative to the ascension of mobile apps...
Slashdot Mirror
So, every time you do or have "clicked" your track pad, you have used the force touch feature.
Nope. My macbook pro trackpad definitely has a haptic click if I acutally push on it, and then a second click if i push harder.
I *never* touch it with enough force to engage either.
So, every time you do or have "clicked" your track pad, you have used the force touch feature.
The feature is there, and I might be technically using it in the sense that I can't use the trackpad without using it. But the fact that it is 'force touch' is irrelevant to me, I find it no different to the trackpad in my previous macbook pro which didn't have it.
Secondly, force touch on the Apple Watch works beautifully
Meh, a gimmick on a product that is itself a gimmick?
and will be useful on the iPhone too. Contextual menus in iOS apps will be a great addition.
Yeah, maybe. Then again, a phone with more buttons kind of solves most of those issues too; and is more intuitive to use. Just saying.
I'm not anti-apple; I'm using an mbp to write this... but I have no interest in their walled garden; or their watch. The force touch tech... is an evolutionary step with some uses and I do expect to see it become ubuiqitous, but its hardly anything to get excited about.
This is Force Touch, which as it's name implies is about measuring the force of finger touches.
For what its worth, (and probably not much) I have a new macbook pro with the force touchpad. I've never actually used it. Not once. Not ever. I tried it on the demo unit in the store to see what the fuss was... but I count it as a total gimmick.
I really only ever use the tap-to-click; so I don't even click the touchpad, nevermind force-click it.
I agree with you. Especially about the speculative 'guff' from click-hungry bloggers.
I do have a question though; especially given the content of your post: why did you phrase your subject as a question instead of a declarative statement?
Was it deliberately ironic or just inadvertently so?
The NSA is an offensive organization, not a defensive one. That's it's mission.
That's according to you. Now according to the NSA their mission, from their Mission pagel:
"The National Security Agency/Central Security Service (NSA/CSS) leads the U.S. Government in cryptology that encompasses both Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) and Information Assurance (IA) products and services, and enables Computer Network Operations (CNO) in order to gain a decision advantage for the Nation and our allies under all circumstances."
https://www.nsa.gov/about/miss...
Offense is definitely a big part of there job. But right up there with SIGINT is IA (information assurance); so what is IA?
Well I could look in a dictionary but lets see what the NSA thinks it is instead... since they are the ones charged with doing it:
https://www.nsa.gov/ia/ia_bann...
NSA's Information Assurance Directorate delivers mission enhancing information assurance technologies, products and services that enable customers and clients to secure operational information and information systems.
Or to paraphrase: enable its customers (government and its departments, domestic corporations, and our allies) to secure their data and computer systems.*
That is ALSO there mission. They have been so busy with SIGINT that not only have they neglected IA, but they have ACTIVELY subverted and sabotaged it in the process.
*and I'm not just putting words into their mouths when I say their job is to protect our allies (vs spying on them) that's also from them:
"The NSA [...] encompasses both SIGINT and IA [...] in order to gain a decision advantage for the Nation and our allies under all circumstances."
Just because the government purchased something doesn't entitle you to its use. You don't get to borrow a navy fighter jet because your taxes helped pay for that
That's entirely at the governments discretion, and there's no public benefit to letting me borrow a fighter jet.
Besides, that $9.1mil is probably based on a certain number of licenses, it doesn't cover you.
1) Negotiate a flat rate.
It doesn't affect Microsofts costs. They'll do the updates as long as there is enough money in it for them. How many users is really completely irrelevant. If it costs $5 million to maintain XP then it costs 5 million whether there is 100 users or 300 million of them. We know this. Microsoft knows this.
2) Government makes the rules; so it can change the rules. Copyright is there for the public good. If a company is literally using copyright to deny critical security updates (that they have ALREADY been paid by the governement to develop) then make exceptions to copyright law, and then distribute those changes to the public.
Pass a law to strip security related software patches of copyright protection. Now if the company creates them, anyone one who is licensed for the software can have them. Now, the government wants security patches, and is still willing pay 7 figures to get them; does microsoft pass on the cash? Its still pretty lucrative.
Why not? I write software that I only get paid for once all the time, regardless of how many users it ends up with. For the right price, I don't give a shit about licensing. I got paid upfront. That model can work for security patches.
Yeah, I know it won't happen. But it could... perhaps even should.
Yeah +1 for spideroak. But you still do need to trust them.
The source is closed. So you can't inspect and build the client yourself. So you have no way of knowing whether its really zero knowledge or not; or whether the client can or is sending the keys to the server etc.
They also specifically disclaim zero knowledge for web based access and mobile. The former should be obvious, but the latter is a bit of a surprise/disappointment.
Still I -do- generally trust them; and recommend them. Their business model isn't advertising and harvesting data.
But the fact that I've decided to trust them is a far cry from it being a provably trustworthy system.
Yeah, me too. I think part of the problem with recyling is lack of education. I honestly don't know what actually is and is not ok to put into what...
For example I recently bought a mcdonalds meal...
What about a macdonalds bag? Is that ok to put in the paper?
What about Unused napkins? Used napkins?
What about the 'cardboard' thing the bigmac was in? Is that paper or cardboard or is it just garbage?
Can I recycle the the plastic fork? The little plastic bag the fork came in? or the straw? The plastic lid on the cup?
What about the wax paper cup?
Would I need to wash all these things? or does the recyling processes itself mean that a bit of salad dressing on the fork, or a bit cola on the cup is completely irrelevant?
And what the hell am I supposed to do with a pringles can or the containers Ice Tea powder comes in? The ones with the cardboard cylinder (although maybe some sort of foil coating on it?) plus it has a metal ring at the top lid, and a metal base.
Is the plastic lid recycleable? The ice tea has the #4 recyle symbol on it... but the pringles can doesn't have any symbol that I can see... but surely its recycleable? isn't it?
Should I err on the side of caution, and toss anything I'm not 100% sure of in the garbage, or should i err on the side of recycling?
I think most people, like me, simply don't know the answers to these questions and we make a lot of mistakes we'd avoid because of it.
Because you aren't paying for it.
Actually, one of my premises, is that as the government is paying for it, we ARE paying for it.
Should a Amazon give out all their ebooks for free because someone already bought a copy of one of them?
When that someone is the governent, then yes? Isn't that what a library is?
It's not like these are businesses that rely on paying customers to run or anything stupid like that.
Again, we are the paying customers.
Plus, MS wants to move away from XP. It takes away from their talent pool to work on a 15 year old operating system that very few people actually want to run.
But Microsoft set a price for doing so, and then it was paid. Its not taking away from anything, its a whole extra revenue stream.
If they are going to keep patching it, they are going to want a bunch of money to compensate for the time and money sink that it is.
Yes. They set a price to compensate themselves for the time it would take to do that, with enough profit built in to motivate them to do it. Then we paid it.
:eyerolls:
We're all learners. But anyone with more than a passing familiarity with C++ already knows everything in that puff piece of a Dice article.
What are your thoughts about Bush (and now Obama) saying that if you encrypt your internet communications you must be a terrorist?
They never said that. Either of them. A few blowhards and talking heads have made such comments over the years; and the press eats it up because that's what the press does.
The country as a whole is grappling with rather intractable problem. It simultaneously wants it to be possible for the NSA to break encrypted data belonging to terrorists and criminals in general with a proper warrant. But it doesn't want encryption itself to be compromised with a back door so that they can get in whenever they want without leaving so much as a trace. Unfortunately meeting those two objectives right now is a fantasy. So we get loonies at both ends making nonsensical statements.
And then what would happen if they used the IRS to go after the Linux foundation(or some other FOSS tech company) for making encryption readily available?
As long as saner heads prevail who cares. Linux isn't a terrorist front and any honest investigation not run with the same mentality as the spanish inquisition will promptly discern this to be the case.
The thing that irks me is that once various governments and organizations have "sucked-it-up" and ponied up the "ransom" to keep XP going -- why cant the public at large benefit from this. Especially given that we are the ones literally paying for it.
Once the patches are written, tested, and released why aren't they available on Windows update?
Don't get me wrong, I want XP to die in a fire. Cutting over to Vista onward, embracing 64 bit*, leaving the days of "administrator by default" behind, etc were all good things. But still if my government dropped 9 million bucks to get MS to develop some more security patches for XP; it'd be nice if the lathes at work could have them too.
* (yes, yes, i know xp 64 bit existed. shut up. :)
classify domestic terrorist which include things like having more than a month's worth of food & owning a gun.
I'm pretty sure those are the sort of things domestic terrorists would actually have... so what exactly is your issue with it?
A bunch of food and a gun doesn't get you classified as a terrorist; its a flag that the group might be worth investigating.
An investigation isn't persecution.
Because roundabouts consume a lot more land and are not that much safer for pedestrians.
Even a little safer is better. Roundabouts generally bring the speed of traffic approaching the intersection down.
How can a circular roadway be smaller than a simple intersection? You can't put a median in the middle of an intersection and force the traffic to go around it without it being bigger than a simple cross.
They put one in by the school near where I live, and the new roundabout doesn't take any more space than the old intersection did.
And that's a residential simple one lane going each way intersection, with parking along the curb. At the roundabout the curbs bulb out preventing parking, and create the room for the circular space.
Previously, there was effectively 2 lanes of room at the intersection, so someone waiting to turn left could be driven around on the right side, or cars could make right turns while people were waiting to go through or turn right. This complexity is what often led to accidents both between vehicles and involving pedestrians.
Now, its always one car entering from each side at a time; and it never really stops except for pedestrians. Honestly its been working well.
It seems to scale well to 2 lanes as well We have several 2 lane round abouts and those also work well.
We're dropping half a million dollars in our area to replace a simple intersection because a few people don't like waiting at the stop signs on the intersection side streets.
Yeah I can't comment on that. The local roundabout only cost $200,000; or about a $5 per household; and that budget was part of larger project that repaved about 2 blocks on either side of the round about along the main road; new sidewalks, and landscaping including midsize trees, shrubs, and planters along the roadway. So... we got a lot more than "just a roundabout" for 200k. Not sure why yours costs 500k. That seems to be the average price for a large non-residential roundabout...
Like the ones shown here... most of the big ones cost ~500k
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/int...
I see no obvious benefit to that waste.
Windows 8 asks if you want a Microsoft account or a local account exactly once during installation
Ok. This isn't quite true. Windows 8 -assumes- you want a microsoft account, and makes the option of using a local account, more than little non-obvious.
Apple, for what its worth isn't any better.
and never bothers you about it again.
Also not quite true; various interactions with the store require you to sign into the store; and if you are not paying attention, the default path the wizard takes you down will convert your local account into a microsoft account. It warns you this is going to happen, but if your not paying attention you can end up with a microsoft account after installing with a local one.
You must have got drunk, passed out and dreamt about the nags.
If you never use the app store, you won't see any nags. But if you do, it will prompt you to sign in to the store with your ms account; and it will "helpfully" suggest you switch your account to a microsoft account to make your life "better".
No you don't. You can use a local account; and still use the app store. I've both 8.1 and the 10 tech preview setup like that.
An equation that uses Divide by zero might go to "max limit" or to zero (in practical terms), based on preceding values. It will not suddenly say; "Sorry, the resultant value is indeterminable".
Using an function where its undefined is fundamentally invalid.
lets say I define function:
f(x,y) = 1+ x/y; for all y in R such that y>0; for all x in R such that x>=0
If I call this function f(-4,2) same thing. Its not defined, its NOT defined for xbased on preceding values
Its not hard to completely break this.
Consider sin(1/x)
http://www.wolframalpha.com/in...
See what that does? It doesn't merely shoot off to infinity; its clearly bounded between 1 and -1. But nor does it have a clear value at x=0; its limit is undefined at 0.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/in...
Limit does not exist.
It does go towards a finite number, it doesn't go to plus or minus infinity. Its JUST not defined. Don't ask for a value there because there isn't one is the ONLY correct answer.
The point is, a function is defined on an interval. If there is somewhere where its undefined, it is an error to ask it for a value there. If you are interested in where the function is going, then don't ask it for a value, as it where it going (ie take a limit). But don't be too surprised when you find out there isn't a limit either.
And don't forget that lots of real world functions have values that don't line up with their limits.
f(x) = { 2x for all x in R, such that x != 5; 5 if x = 5 } this is a perfectly valid function. The limit of f(x) as x->5 = 10 from the left, and the right; but f(5) = 5.
You are technically correct but IMHO practically wrong. I'm talking about "real use" such as in animation, graphing and financial.
I can't imagine a scenario in financial where division by zero should ever be fudged.
I can't imagine a scenario in graphing where division by zero should ever be fudged.
In amimation; yes; sometimes you take shortcuts to correctness for performance, but honestly handling division by zero properly tends to be an optimization. You are usually dealing with a vertical line (infinite slope), or a the intersection of a line parallel to a plane or something; and you can and should handle it correctly easily.
Can you cite an example where not handling a case where division by zero is going to occur properly makes sense to you? Rather than just hand waving that examples exist, can you acutally provide one? Because I can't think of one.
Snowden had physical access to the network and still had to social engineer passwords.
Anyone who thinks Snowden is the first and only person who had the access, ability, and inclination to take the data he took is as high as a fucking kite.
Snowden is just the only one who went public.
Snowden didn't have special access or magical powers. Thousands of other people work there just like he did; do you really think its inconceivable none have them have sold out? or have been compromised and are under foreign leverage? or outright work for a foreign government?
As for the utility, if there are situations where a plot or solve 1/x for every x is necessary,
Think about that for half a second. Your just substituting 1/0 for some "E" symbol. How is the plot going to plot "E" on an x,y plane?
It'll still need special handling, and special data types. (you can't sqrt(-1) on a double; you have to use special complex classes everywhere for that to be allowed;
I don't generally use complex numbers when writing algorithms that plot circles or parabolas, because I'm not usually interested in complex results. If I'm plotting a circle on an x,y screen; using y = +/- sqrt(r^2 - x^2)+h; I'm not interested in complex results; and I'm using doubles in the algorithm. So sqrt(-1) is still an error to workaround, not i. (And if I was using complex numbers, then I'd still have to test for i and discard it.
So what have we gained with 'zeplex' numbers? Unless it's actually useful for some other aspect of mathematics.
However,... if I were programming an animation and it's following a path y= 2/x, I'm going to have a smooth motion along screen at position 2 until I get to Zero.
No. You aren't.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/in...
What do you think it should do at 0?
Does it make practical sense that if X = 0, then X = .0000001 will get you a reasonable facsimile of what should occur with X?
Certainly not here. And in general no. Dividing by "nearly zero" is generally just as bad as dividing by zero. If X is approaching zero division by x is approaching an infinity.
No matter what data type you are using you are going to blow past its MIN/MAX; you are propagating error into the significant digits, etc. 10^80
Unless you are literally trying to plot a hyperbola or something, odds are if you are dividing something large by 0.0000000001 you are probably doing something wrong somewhere.
And there are countless other examples where its just nonsensical. Lets say you are doing a test and have a running tally of pass vs fail... and you haven't made any fails yet... so 5 pass, 0 fail... 5/0 is an error; so we'll just display 5/0.00000001 because that's a 'reasonable facsimile' right? :)
You could define anything you like.
1) Are you sure that wouldn't simply make the whole system inconsistent? ie Can we use 1/0 = E to prove 0 = 1 ?
2) What would that actually give us that would be useful?
Complex numbers are useful.
You can't derive existence of multiplicative inverse from existence of multiplicative unity, you have to assume existence of multiplicative inverse.
Right. I'm not deriving that.
And there is no identity rule for division
Formally speaking, your right. But for a precalculus audience x/1 = x is taught as a 'property of division'. I perhaps misspoke calling it a 'rule'.
Huh? You've just stated two formulations that mean the same exact thing.
No. They are NOT quite the exact same thing. The identy x*1 = x is defined for all x in the set of Real numbers. The 2nd form is not.
x*1 = x is defined for x=0
x/x = 1 is not defined for x=0
Just as a graph of y=1, is not quite the same as a graph of y = x/x. The latter has a discontinuity at 0, the former is continuous.
When you have 0/0, you hit two "obvious" but contradictory rules in basic algebra:
Rule one: anything multiplied by zero is zero
Rule two: anything divided by itself is one
Ugh no, just no.
"Rule one: anything multiplied by zero is zero"
Yes, this is called, amongst other things, the zero property of multiplication. However 0/0 is not a multiplication and the rule is not relevant, and there is no conflict.
Secondly your "rule two" is not actually rule of algebra. There is no rule x/x = 1.
There is an identity rule for division: anything divided by one is itself (x/1 = x) but there is no rule that says x/x = 1
You can derive "rule two" from the identity rule for multiplication x*1 = x --> x/x = 1
However, that transformation always stipulates that x 0 because division by zero is undefined.
Mathematicians have no issue determine which rule has precedence, because neither rule applies to 0/0.
There is no conflict. Division by zero is specifically "undefined".
Consider the equation; x/x.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/in...
The graph of the function is a horizontal line at y=1, with a discontinuity at 0. (if x=0, x/x=0/0) So 0/0 should be 1 right? Because everywhere else on the graph x/x = 1??
http://www.wolframalpha.com/in...
Now consider the equation 2x/x.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/in...
As x approaches 0 (lim x->0) from either the left or right the limit of the equation is 2. A graph of the function is horizontal line at y=2, with a discontinuity at 0. But every where else 2x/x = 2. So shouldn't 2(0)/0 = 0/0 = 2? So 0/0 should be 2 right?
http://www.wolframalpha.com/in...
Neither. Its not defined.
Now consider the equation 1/x.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/in...
As x approaches 0 from the left it goes to negative infinity. As x approaches 0 from the right it goes to positive infinity. This graph doesn't even suggest a value for 0/0? Is it + infinity? Or - infinity?
I can write a function that makes 0/0 look like it should be anything I want.
0/0 is undefined. It doesn't violate any rules of algebra. It's a rule of algebra that division by 0 is undefined.
I don't disagree with you. But one role of Windows servers you sort of glossed over is simply: "managing windows desktops" (active directory, group policy, etc, etc). If you are running more than a handful of windows desktops you've probably got a windows server.
And if you've already got a bunch of windows desktops plus a windows server, it doesn't really make sense to spin up one *nix box in that environment unless you really need something that only *nix can do. It generally makes more sense to either use the existing windows server, or drop in another one.
unless, of course, you're attempting to run a windows program
I'm not arguing with you that *nix is a better server overall. But windows is a better server if your working with windows apps, serving windows apps, or managing windows desktops.
With 90%+ of the desktop market; most people are running windows applications. They are using remote desktop into servers running windows applications. They are using local windows applications that talk to server windows applications. etc.And the whole thing is managed by another windows server running active directory, and their backups and antivirus and wsus ... all windows servers ... because why would you install *nix box in a role like that?
Windows and Windows servers is not a niche market. And its not going to be a niche market any time soon. Even if its in "decline" relative to the ascension of mobile apps...