If you are dividing by zero in the first place you are doing it wrong. You should never be throwing divide by zero errors; because doing so means you've already failed.
You should know you have a valid denominator before you attempt the division.
In other words, ensure your denominator is non-zero before you divide rather than trapping divide by zero errors, because if your code is asking a computer to divide by zero you've already fucked up somewhere else.
This seems more like an acknowledgement that ios and android are where the majority of new development jobs are right now than anything else.
Does that mean C# or.NET is on "the decline"? I suppose, strictly speaking yes. But it doesn't remotely mean its on the way to becoming like COBOL where its only used by legacy products. Windows destkop and servers are still being deployed in the millions, and.NET is an excellent platform for new development if you are targeting that market.
True but it seems kind of ridiculous to choose an entire platform based on some minor differences in syntax.
Wait, Is that why I should stop using c# and use Java? Or the other way around? I mean, your statement seems to have this built in assumption that java is the default choice; and not-java needs to justify itself relative to java. I really see no reason that Java is the default choice.
If anything Java's big corporate sponsor is worse than Microsoft.
But otherwise, it's a smaller ecosystem with fewer libraries, fewer developers, fewer choices, fewer large scale deployments to learn from.
I dunno; the windows ecosystem is pretty darn big after all. c# bindings for pretty much everything exist. There are definitely lots of situations where Java makes more sense... but its hardly as one sided as you make out.
When you're in public, anyone can recognize you whether it be man or machine. Anyone can take pictures of you and what you are doing. There is no concept of "privacy" when you are in public.
Yes. Actually there is.
If i sit down at a table with a restuarant with my friends,
I fully expect that the restaurant isn't going to record my conversation and put it online, sell it, or do anything else.
I fully anticipate that the waiter or other patrons might overhear snippets of our conversation. But if I catch them actually making a concerted effort to listen and record it; my entire party will be extremely pissed off.
Why? Because there is a concept of "privacy" when you are in public. Nearly all of us in society implicitly abide by this informal social contract.
When an entity moves from incidentally intruding on our privacy in public spaces to methodically and deliberately intruding and we NOTICE it, they get dealt with.
The current trend for corporations is to do it, but to do it beneath our notice. Everything from facial recognition cameras to advertising cookies... all do things that we'd vigorously object to if they weren't beneath our notice. If we noticed google employees snapping our pictures, following us around, taking notes, sitting behind us at our desks writing down everything we searched for and did, they'd be out on their ass in very short order.
But the cameras and the cookies are beneath our notice; that doesn't make it ethical or right. And the legal system SHOULD catch up to our expectations here.
We still have the BSDs that would have gotten some additional attention.
Maybe. Big maybe. I think there is a 'community' to GPL code that the BSDs wouldn't have necessarily "inherited" had GNU/Linux not happened. I think people were attracted to the GPL and its ideology who wouldn't have simply contributed to BSD if that were the only thing.
The BSDs might also have had a lot more trouble gaining commercial / enterprise viability without the GPL GNU/Linux out front. The BSDs are much more susceptible to embrace/extend than GPL is; and the BSDs are at greater risk of becoming closed source / proprietary than GPL code.
I don't doubt that the BSDs would have existed as student projects at universities etc, but I'm not convinced they'd be as strong as they are today without the GPL and GNU/Linux in the world; let alone stronger, which is what you suggest. I contend they might even be weaker.
In fact, ANYBODY who has earned significantly more money than Linus Travois
Once is a typo... but twice needs correcting: Torvalds not Travois.
in the last 20 years by definition has had more economic impact.
I disagree. How on earth do you rationalize defining ones economic impact in terms of simply earning more money than someone?
I define it as how much economic activity can trace back to the actions of that person. And I credit Linus writing Linux and releasing it under the GPL as having absolutely immense impact on business and enterprise around the world. I credit Stallman with that economic impact as well; for releasing the GPL.
Further, I think those events were relatively unique; I don't think that something else equivalent would have happened if Stallman and Torvalds hadn't taken those specific steps. For example, Red Hat doesn't exist; vMware doesn't exist; Xen doesn't exist... Would we have virtualization ? Sure but it might just be proprietary; and it might all belong to IBM and Sun. Assuming windows still happens, and we roll aorund to 2012 with HyperV... that comes out but its competing with IBM and Sun... its not free.
Meanwhile in another facet... SCO v IBM never happens... that right there is several lifetimes of economic activity for normal people...
He built Linux off the work of people and institutions that came before him or were even contemporaries.
Of course. To a point.
He also wasn't the only one working on a free or low cost "unix like" operating system, but his system is the one that took off.
GPL + Linux is why it took off. I give Stallman a lot credit; perhaps even more than Linus; because the GPL was a big deal. Still Linus chose to use it.
If there had been no Linus and no Linux, there would surely have been something else.
Surely? I'm not remotely convinced. GNU Hurd might have gotten off the ground if it had received the attention that went to linux... or it might still be a toy project in a university somewhere chasing ideological perfection rather than the practical.
It really is the unique blend of ideology + practicality that made GNU/Linux special and I'm not convinced it was inevitably going to happen.
Rick Perry and Chris Christy both managed states with large economies.
But they didn't create those economies. They were there when they got there. All they did was steer them for a few years. If Rick Perry hadn't run and been elected Governor, someone else would have been.
Most of the economy churns along entirely with or without him.
The rest of the elected officials, and the bureaucracy would have been the same. Therefore most of the policy decisions would have mostly been exactly the same if someone else had been elected.
At best Rick Perry put his personal touches on a few things here and there; and has a few signature bits that are - his influence. How much economic impact did those personal touches actually have? They're mostly just little rivulets and swirls on top of the larger economy that moves with its own momentum.
If you're claiming that Torvalds had more economic impact than Greenspan, Bernanke or Yellen, you, quite frankly are out of touch.
You are missing my point.
Torvalds and his Linux project planted a seed that otherwise might not have existed at all. The ramifications of that seed have been felt the world over.
Greenspan et al; someone was going to be sitting in his chair, doing his job. If it wasn't Greenspan, it would have been someone else. If it had been someone else it would have been someone else working within the same political landscape, with the same goals, and they would have been picked and vetted for the job by the same committees. Then they'd be faced with the same problems, and they'd have the same advisory committees working for them; they'd still just one voice on the federal reserve board; the rest of the board would have been the same; they'd be presented the same options, solutions, and recommendations.
Did Greenspan break the mold? Did he go in a bold and unexpected new direction? Or did he simply do, more or less, exactly what any of the other eligible candidate for his job would have done had they been appointed instead?
Would another chairman of the board caught the subprime crisis in 2007 before it hit? I mean there were ample committees, advisers, and other board members... was Greenspan personally a singular force of will in suppressing them all? Or was it a systemic failure of the entire bureaucracy there? I contend it was the latter.
If Greenspan had taken the year off for health reasons, and ets pick someone else... lets say then vice chair Donald Kohn sat as interim chair that year would the actions of the Fed in 2006 been significantly different? Would HE have seen the subprime mortgage collapse sitting as interim chair instead of merely being a board member? What would he have done differently? What makes you think anything at all would have been different?
If it doesn't really matter who is actually sitting in the chair, then how personal impact can you claim they had?
There's no question that the ramifications of the policy actions were felt the world over. BUT how much was *his* policy decisions vs the momentum of committee group-think set against nearly inexorable economic turbulence that reflected not just current policy but the accumulation of decades of momentum? The fact that he was even selected as the chair in itself is a self-fulfilling prophecy -- the fed got exactly exactly the leadership that it selected. Had Greenspan had dramatically different views Greenspan would not have been selected for the chair in the first place.
Most of those are only mildly influential in local (American spheres). Seriously... what did Rick Perry or Chris Christy ever do that affected the lives of people in Turkey? In Austria? In Australia?
Even Bernake, Greenspan, sure some fairly wild gyrations in the stockmarket but its debatable how much impact they personally REALLY had on it; and billions of people are really only tangentially affected by it.
Hell, I'm a home owner in north america with mortgage; and although its surely impacted my mortgage rate and home equity values and it really hasn't affected my life much.
As in would it have been much different with anyone else at the wheel? Or was it, to channel Asimov, predictable by 'pschohistory'; as a likely outcome of a systemic flaw; and all but inevitable; given the banking infrastructure, political landscapes, international dependencies, and so on...
and volume is an easier way to make sure you're going to have an acceptable chocolate chip density in your cookies than mass
In my experience, it equally easy either way when executing a recipe. Now when designing or modifying the recipe, by all means you will think in terms of chip quantity per cookie etc, and volume makes sense for that. But given that chips are sold by weight, not volume as soon as you move to food production it makes far more sense to use weight.
Further, in practice, as you would expect, people used to working with metric recipes know what a hundred grams of chocolate chips looks like.
So they design and improvise recipes with a mental association of what "100g chocolate chips" is as a "unit of volume". Or they select the quantity chips they want by eye, and then weigh them for the recipe.**
Meanwhile less experienced people working with the recipes have an easy time measuring and scaling them; and in many (most) recipes they don't need to actually weigh them either, since most recipes that call for chocolate chips are calibrated as easy fractions of the commonly sold bag sizes anyway.* So if you need 100g of chips and you have a 200g bag, you don't need to pull out your scale.
*Recipe to bag size fractions are common with imperial measurements as well of course. And most of the recipes that are difficult to measure out are the direct result of conversions from imperial to metric or vice versa... if we stopped having two competing systems; recipes and packaging would converge towards universally easy to work with quantities.)
What is arbitrary or inconvenient about using Fahrenheit from day to day?
Nothing.
What is inconvenient about using Celcius from day to day? Also nothing.
[Fahrenheit] only becomes inconvenient when you have [...] to do some science since all the numbers work out better [in Celsius].
So at BEST we have two systems; either is equally fine for day to day use; one is better for math and science. So... one is strictly better. QED.
Additionally, since everybody ELSE has already switched to the better one, switching would eliminate a variety of communication issues when dealing with international audiences.
Additionally, even in the US, its common, even generally preferred to use metric for science. So the ONLY reason you still do it is so grandma knows if its hot outside? Continue to report farenheit alongside celcius where grandma gets the temperature for the next 20 years. Then stop after that. Problem solved.
I'm perfectly happy either measuring my food in grams on a scale or with cups, half-cups and whatnot in volume, too.
Wait, so if a recipe calls for 1/2 cup and you literally have a plastic scoop labelled 1/2 cup; then you can manage to measure it easily. Wow./sarcasm
Now... lets say your hosting a party. 45 guests. The dessert receipe you wish to serve calls for 1 and 1/3 cups chocolate chips. Serves 3. You head to coscto... how many 3.5 lb bags of chocolate chips do you need?
So right out of the gate; there is no implicit volume to weight conversion so you go and look at volume -> weight conversion chart like this:
1 cup is 6 oz; so 1 1/3 cup is 8 oz (whew good thing it wasn't a quarter cup or this would have been even messier)... and then you need 45/3 (13) times that... 104 oz even; then convert to pounds... 6.5lbs, then 2x 3.5 lb bags will cover it.
Meanwhile in the rest of world... the recipe calls for 220 grams of chocolate chips. We need to multiply the recipe by 45/3 = 13; so 220 x 13 = 2860; large bags are are sold in kG. So you buy 3 1kG bags.
One of those was a lot more complicated than the other. And we haven't left the kitchen.
Because not only the code would need to be portable, but the build system too (makefiles). Also, in 25 years you don't want to re-qualify everything and risk introducing some new bugs because the new compiler doesn't behave like the old one. Too risky.
Are you planning on developing it today and then putting it in a box and forgetting about it until 2040 ?
Because if you actually expect to maintain it over the next 25 years you will maintain it organically. Compiler versions and build environments will come and go. And the kinks will be identified and solved as they arise. And then 25 years from now it will still all work just fine because you actually maintained it.
My prediction: Either they will be shamed into abandoning this despicable idea; or they will create a PAID "ransomware" tier for those who will pay $99 (or, knowing MS's burning desire for SaaS, more like $49/year) to "disable" the ads. Mark my words; you heard it here, first...
The sad and pathetic thing is that no advertiser is going to pay $49/year to show me ads so why should it cost me $49/year to 'outbid' them for the space.
I'd do this for other sites too. What are they paying? Fractional cents per click or something? I almost never click ads... so advertisers are paying, maybe $5 year for my attention. Why can't I simply pay $6 per year split between google and other major ad networks to outbid them for my own eyeballs. Google makes more of me than they would showing me ads. I'm happier. And the price is the market price. Win-win.
But for some reason, it is always as you say... free for the ad supproted version... and $50/year or $10/mo or something exorbitant by comparison for the ad free version. WTF... why do they need to charge me an order of magnitude more than they charge advertisers to determine what I see.
Because installing outlets is such a tricky operation, right?
Electrical code has a lot of details. And the gotchas tend to come from not knowing that you don't know something. (Yes, one can know that they don't know something. If you know you don't know something, you can look it up.)
What if you don't use a GFCI outlet where one was needed - do you know where GFCI outlets are needed and where they aren't? What if you decide to split an outlet so the top half can be operated by a switch; did you know code requires the two circuits to be on a two pole breaker?
Maybe you do know these things.
But if you don't know then you'll do it wrong, it will still work, and then it will fail an inspection when you sell your home; or your insurance will be void when a fire breaks out and they trace it to your modifications not being up to code.
And if you are in an older building; the electrical may be grandfathered as-is to the code at the time it was built, but as soon as you start making modifications it has to be brought up to modern day code so things can get hairy and expensive fast.
But the point is there is a LOT more to know than black/white/ground and one does not have to be a "moron" not to know.
"4K" was pretty widely used in the cinema world well before it really started to become something that came into the consumer market.
Yes. DCI 4K.
DCI 2K is also widely used in the cinema world. And 1080p is often conflated with 2K even though it is officially not recognized as a DCI 2K resolution; so its wrong to call 1080p 2K (even though the wikipedia page on 4K has it labelled as such... while the wikipedia page on 2K makes it explicit that its not considered 2K.)
So when marketing named UHD "4K" it was justified as 4x1080p -- the DCI still didn't recognize it; but naming it 4K UHD served to permanently conflate the consumer 4K UHD with the previously existing DCI 4K resolution. Despite it being well short of 4K horizontally.
Here you see the DCI 2K resolutions spelled out. 1080p in particular is not included and they even go on to say that it is officially not recognized as a 2K resolution by the DCI and in industry standards.
The same is sort of true for 4K. The DCI 4K is 4096x2160. The consumer 4K UHD is 4 x 1080p. However since they are both called 4K they are no thoroughly and inseparably conflated now.
4K UHD has nothing to do with horizontal resoution. 4K is because its exactly 4 x 1080p tiled 2 by 2. (see how the FHD fits exactly 4x into UHD).
So 4K UHD is 4x1080p =~> 4K
By sheer coincidence 4K UHD at 3840x2160 which is sort of close to 4k horizontally 3840 ~= 4000 so lots of people thought it meant horizontal resolution rather than 4 x 1080p. To further confuse the issue there actually is a DCI 4K resolution 4096x2160 which *IS* named 4K for the horizontal resolution, which is actually 4K (4096 is 4k in binary of course).
Then when it came time to make the next standard, they did the samething as the did to make 4K. They just tiled a 4K screen 2x2. (Again see how 8K UHD is exaclty one quadrant of 8K... )... so 8K is 4 x 4K tiled 2x2 or 16 x 1080p tiled 4x4... but by then most people including the dipshits in marketing thought the 4K was the approximate horizontal resolution, so they called it 8K UHD. because 7860 is ~= 8000.
There are some other resolution standards in the 8K family that are derived from the DCI 4K... so they actually have 8192 pixels horizontally... well most of them anyway. 8K "21:9" keeps the vertical fixed and expands the horizontal out to 10,240... because why not. (I mean, I get it... but then 16:10 should have just varied the vertical and kept the horitontal... but that's 8192x5120... which isn't really consistent with anything.
isn't the basic notion of copying or making available someone else's works, for which they fully wish to have a copyright, ethically wrong?
You tell me.
Person A writes a song and plays it on the radio.
Scenario 1 Person B hears it, likes it, and wishes to play it on the piano at home. He listens to it a few times, figures out the melody, etc (1) Is this ethically wrong?
Scenario 2,3,4 Person B hears it, likes it, and wishes to learn to play it on his piano at home. He's not as good as the person B in scenario 1 though and can't figure it out.
Person C however figures it it out, rights down a piano arrangement on sheet music for Person B to use Is that unethical? He realizes lots of people would like his sheet music so he posts it online. Is that unethical? Can the original artists wish that the arrangement not be distributed have force?
Scenario 4. Copyright is what... 75 years now? What if the original artist wants it to last 100 years. Is it unethical to copy his music after the copyright expires. Sure it would be LEGAL... but it still violates his -wishes-.
Scenario 5 What if he wishes to transfer copyright to an incorporated trust that lasts forever and the trust as the new copyright owner wishes for the copyright to last forever... is the basic notion of copying or making available the work, even 500 years from now, given the trust still exists and still fully wishes that you not copy it... is it ethically wrong to copy it?
If that was the case, the headline would be more like
Don't give them ideas.
"You'll Totally Believe Why These Startups Failed"
Is pretty click-bait too though. I clicked on the article only to see if they got called on it. They did. And deservedly so... but i had to scroll down much too far.:(
And of the 73 on a list somewhere; i bet only a fraction are even slightly a threat; and i hope they don't lose their job simply because some distant uncle who sends them a gift on their birthday attended a rally where some actual terrorists also went...
Slashdot Mirror
If you are dividing by zero in the first place you are doing it wrong. You should never be throwing divide by zero errors; because doing so means you've already failed.
You should know you have a valid denominator before you attempt the division.
In other words, ensure your denominator is non-zero before you divide rather than trapping divide by zero errors, because if your code is asking a computer to divide by zero you've already fucked up somewhere else.
This seems more like an acknowledgement that ios and android are where the majority of new development jobs are right now than anything else.
Does that mean C# or .NET is on "the decline"? I suppose, strictly speaking yes. But it doesn't remotely mean its on the way to becoming like COBOL where its only used by legacy products. Windows destkop and servers are still being deployed in the millions, and .NET is an excellent platform for new development if you are targeting that market.
True but it seems kind of ridiculous to choose an entire platform based on some minor differences in syntax.
Wait, Is that why I should stop using c# and use Java? Or the other way around? I mean, your statement seems to have this built in assumption that java is the default choice; and not-java needs to justify itself relative to java. I really see no reason that Java is the default choice.
If anything Java's big corporate sponsor is worse than Microsoft.
But otherwise, it's a smaller ecosystem with fewer libraries, fewer developers, fewer choices, fewer large scale deployments to learn from.
I dunno; the windows ecosystem is pretty darn big after all. c# bindings for pretty much everything exist. There are definitely lots of situations where Java makes more sense... but its hardly as one sided as you make out.
When you're in public, anyone can recognize you whether it be man or machine. Anyone can take pictures of you and what you are doing. There is no concept of "privacy" when you are in public.
Yes. Actually there is.
If i sit down at a table with a restuarant with my friends,
I fully expect that the restaurant isn't going to record my conversation and put it online, sell it, or do anything else.
I fully anticipate that the waiter or other patrons might overhear snippets of our conversation. But if I catch them actually making a concerted effort to listen and record it; my entire party will be extremely pissed off.
Why? Because there is a concept of "privacy" when you are in public. Nearly all of us in society implicitly abide by this informal social contract.
When an entity moves from incidentally intruding on our privacy in public spaces to methodically and deliberately intruding and we NOTICE it, they get dealt with.
The current trend for corporations is to do it, but to do it beneath our notice. Everything from facial recognition cameras to advertising cookies... all do things that we'd vigorously object to if they weren't beneath our notice. If we noticed google employees snapping our pictures, following us around, taking notes, sitting behind us at our desks writing down everything we searched for and did, they'd be out on their ass in very short order.
But the cameras and the cookies are beneath our notice; that doesn't make it ethical or right. And the legal system SHOULD catch up to our expectations here.
We still have the BSDs that would have gotten some additional attention.
Maybe. Big maybe. I think there is a 'community' to GPL code that the BSDs wouldn't have necessarily "inherited" had GNU/Linux not happened. I think people were attracted to the GPL and its ideology who wouldn't have simply contributed to BSD if that were the only thing.
The BSDs might also have had a lot more trouble gaining commercial / enterprise viability without the GPL GNU/Linux out front. The BSDs are much more susceptible to embrace/extend than GPL is; and the BSDs are at greater risk of becoming closed source / proprietary than GPL code.
I don't doubt that the BSDs would have existed as student projects at universities etc, but I'm not convinced they'd be as strong as they are today without the GPL and GNU/Linux in the world; let alone stronger, which is what you suggest. I contend they might even be weaker.
In fact, ANYBODY who has earned significantly more money than Linus Travois
Once is a typo... but twice needs correcting: Torvalds not Travois.
in the last 20 years by definition has had more economic impact.
I disagree. How on earth do you rationalize defining ones economic impact in terms of simply earning more money than someone?
I define it as how much economic activity can trace back to the actions of that person. And I credit Linus writing Linux and releasing it under the GPL as having absolutely immense impact on business and enterprise around the world. I credit Stallman with that economic impact as well; for releasing the GPL.
Further, I think those events were relatively unique; I don't think that something else equivalent would have happened if Stallman and Torvalds hadn't taken those specific steps. For example, Red Hat doesn't exist; vMware doesn't exist; Xen doesn't exist... Would we have virtualization ? Sure but it might just be proprietary; and it might all belong to IBM and Sun. Assuming windows still happens, and we roll aorund to 2012 with HyperV... that comes out but its competing with IBM and Sun ... its not free.
Meanwhile in another facet... SCO v IBM never happens... that right there is several lifetimes of economic activity for normal people...
He built Linux off the work of people and institutions that came before him or were even contemporaries.
Of course. To a point.
He also wasn't the only one working on a free or low cost "unix like" operating system, but his system is the one that took off.
GPL + Linux is why it took off. I give Stallman a lot credit; perhaps even more than Linus; because the GPL was a big deal. Still Linus chose to use it.
If there had been no Linus and no Linux, there would surely have been something else.
Surely? I'm not remotely convinced. GNU Hurd might have gotten off the ground if it had received the attention that went to linux... or it might still be a toy project in a university somewhere chasing ideological perfection rather than the practical.
It really is the unique blend of ideology + practicality that made GNU/Linux special and I'm not convinced it was inevitably going to happen.
Rick Perry and Chris Christy both managed states with large economies.
But they didn't create those economies. They were there when they got there. All they did was steer them for a few years. If Rick Perry hadn't run and been elected Governor, someone else would have been.
Most of the economy churns along entirely with or without him.
The rest of the elected officials, and the bureaucracy would have been the same. Therefore most of the policy decisions would have mostly been exactly the same if someone else had been elected.
At best Rick Perry put his personal touches on a few things here and there; and has a few signature bits that are - his influence. How much economic impact did those personal touches actually have? They're mostly just little rivulets and swirls on top of the larger economy that moves with its own momentum.
Ditto for Christie
If you're claiming that Torvalds had more economic impact than Greenspan, Bernanke or Yellen, you, quite frankly are out of touch.
You are missing my point.
Torvalds and his Linux project planted a seed that otherwise might not have existed at all. The ramifications of that seed have been felt the world over.
Greenspan et al; someone was going to be sitting in his chair, doing his job. If it wasn't Greenspan, it would have been someone else. If it had been someone else it would have been someone else working within the same political landscape, with the same goals, and they would have been picked and vetted for the job by the same committees. Then they'd be faced with the same problems, and they'd have the same advisory committees working for them; they'd still just one voice on the federal reserve board; the rest of the board would have been the same; they'd be presented the same options, solutions, and recommendations.
Did Greenspan break the mold? Did he go in a bold and unexpected new direction? Or did he simply do, more or less, exactly what any of the other eligible candidate for his job would have done had they been appointed instead?
Would another chairman of the board caught the subprime crisis in 2007 before it hit? I mean there were ample committees, advisers, and other board members... was Greenspan personally a singular force of will in suppressing them all? Or was it a systemic failure of the entire bureaucracy there? I contend it was the latter.
If Greenspan had taken the year off for health reasons, and ets pick someone else... lets say then vice chair Donald Kohn sat as interim chair that year would the actions of the Fed in 2006 been significantly different? Would HE have seen the subprime mortgage collapse sitting as interim chair instead of merely being a board member? What would he have done differently? What makes you think anything at all would have been different?
If it doesn't really matter who is actually sitting in the chair, then how personal impact can you claim they had?
There's no question that the ramifications of the policy actions were felt the world over. BUT how much was *his* policy decisions vs the momentum of committee group-think set against nearly inexorable economic turbulence that reflected not just current policy but the accumulation of decades of momentum? The fact that he was even selected as the chair in itself is a self-fulfilling prophecy -- the fed got exactly exactly the leadership that it selected. Had Greenspan had dramatically different views Greenspan would not have been selected for the chair in the first place.
Most of those are only mildly influential in local (American spheres). Seriously... what did Rick Perry or Chris Christy ever do that affected the lives of people in Turkey? In Austria? In Australia?
Even Bernake, Greenspan, sure some fairly wild gyrations in the stockmarket but its debatable how much impact they personally REALLY had on it; and billions of people are really only tangentially affected by it.
Hell, I'm a home owner in north america with mortgage; and although its surely impacted my mortgage rate and home equity values and it really hasn't affected my life much.
As in would it have been much different with anyone else at the wheel? Or was it, to channel Asimov, predictable by 'pschohistory'; as a likely outcome of a systemic flaw; and all but inevitable; given the banking infrastructure, political landscapes, international dependencies, and so on...
and volume is an easier way to make sure you're going to have an acceptable chocolate chip density in your cookies than mass
In my experience, it equally easy either way when executing a recipe. Now when designing or modifying the recipe, by all means you will think in terms of chip quantity per cookie etc, and volume makes sense for that. But given that chips are sold by weight, not volume as soon as you move to food production it makes far more sense to use weight.
Further, in practice, as you would expect, people used to working with metric recipes know what a hundred grams of chocolate chips looks like.
So they design and improvise recipes with a mental association of what "100g chocolate chips" is as a "unit of volume". Or they select the quantity chips they want by eye, and then weigh them for the recipe.**
Meanwhile less experienced people working with the recipes have an easy time measuring and scaling them; and in many (most) recipes they don't need to actually weigh them either, since most recipes that call for chocolate chips are calibrated as easy fractions of the commonly sold bag sizes anyway.* So if you need 100g of chips and you have a 200g bag, you don't need to pull out your scale.
*Recipe to bag size fractions are common with imperial measurements as well of course. And most of the recipes that are difficult to measure out are the direct result of conversions from imperial to metric or vice versa... if we stopped having two competing systems; recipes and packaging would converge towards universally easy to work with quantities.)
ah crap... 45/3= 15 not 13 lol.
So ... 8 * 15; so you need 120 oz, or 7.5lb; 3 3.5 lb bags (or perhaps 2.x3.5 lb bags, and 1 x 8oz bag)
Meanwhile on the metric side... you actually need 220g x15 = 3300g; which is again trivial to figure out.
What is arbitrary or inconvenient about using Fahrenheit from day to day?
Nothing.
What is inconvenient about using Celcius from day to day? Also nothing.
[Fahrenheit] only becomes inconvenient when you have [...] to do some science since all the numbers work out better [in Celsius].
So at BEST we have two systems; either is equally fine for day to day use; one is better for math and science. So ... one is strictly better. QED.
Additionally, since everybody ELSE has already switched to the better one, switching would eliminate a variety of communication issues when dealing with international audiences.
Additionally, even in the US, its common, even generally preferred to use metric for science. So the ONLY reason you still do it is so grandma knows if its hot outside? Continue to report farenheit alongside celcius where grandma gets the temperature for the next 20 years. Then stop after that. Problem solved.
I'm perfectly happy either measuring my food in grams on a scale or with cups, half-cups and whatnot in volume, too.
Wait, so if a recipe calls for 1/2 cup and you literally have a plastic scoop labelled 1/2 cup; then you can manage to measure it easily. Wow. /sarcasm
Now... lets say your hosting a party. 45 guests. The dessert receipe you wish to serve calls for 1 and 1/3 cups chocolate chips. Serves 3. You head to coscto... how many 3.5 lb bags of chocolate chips do you need?
So right out of the gate; there is no implicit volume to weight conversion so you go and look at volume -> weight conversion chart like this:
http://www.veg-world.com/artic...
1 cup is 6 oz; so 1 1/3 cup is 8 oz (whew good thing it wasn't a quarter cup or this would have been even messier)... and then you need 45/3 (13) times that... 104 oz even; then convert to pounds... 6.5lbs, then 2x 3.5 lb bags will cover it.
Meanwhile in the rest of world... the recipe calls for 220 grams of chocolate chips. We need to multiply the recipe by 45/3 = 13; so 220 x 13 = 2860; large bags are are sold in kG. So you buy 3 1kG bags.
One of those was a lot more complicated than the other. And we haven't left the kitchen.
Because not only the code would need to be portable, but the build system too (makefiles). Also, in 25 years you don't want to re-qualify everything and risk introducing some new bugs because the new compiler doesn't behave like the old one. Too risky.
Are you planning on developing it today and then putting it in a box and forgetting about it until 2040 ?
Because if you actually expect to maintain it over the next 25 years you will maintain it organically. Compiler versions and build environments will come and go. And the kinks will be identified and solved as they arise. And then 25 years from now it will still all work just fine because you actually maintained it.
My prediction: Either they will be shamed into abandoning this despicable idea; or they will create a PAID "ransomware" tier for those who will pay $99 (or, knowing MS's burning desire for SaaS, more like $49/year) to "disable" the ads. Mark my words; you heard it here, first...
The sad and pathetic thing is that no advertiser is going to pay $49/year to show me ads so why should it cost me $49/year to 'outbid' them for the space.
I'd do this for other sites too. What are they paying? Fractional cents per click or something? I almost never click ads... so advertisers are paying, maybe $5 year for my attention. Why can't I simply pay $6 per year split between google and other major ad networks to outbid them for my own eyeballs. Google makes more of me than they would showing me ads. I'm happier. And the price is the market price. Win-win.
But for some reason, it is always as you say... free for the ad supproted version... and $50/year or $10/mo or something exorbitant by comparison for the ad free version. WTF... why do they need to charge me an order of magnitude more than they charge advertisers to determine what I see.
(Ok... I know lots of reasons
Jebus Christ. Seriously?
HTTPS on government sites isn't to protect you snooping from the NSA. Its to protect you from the neighbors kids, and random hackers around the world.
Not everything is about the NSA all the time. This is a good thing; even if if doesn't shut down the NSA.
Because installing outlets is such a tricky operation, right?
Electrical code has a lot of details. And the gotchas tend to come from not knowing that you don't know something. (Yes, one can know that they don't know something. If you know you don't know something, you can look it up.)
What if you don't use a GFCI outlet where one was needed - do you know where GFCI outlets are needed and where they aren't? What if you decide to split an outlet so the top half can be operated by a switch; did you know code requires the two circuits to be on a two pole breaker?
Maybe you do know these things.
But if you don't know then you'll do it wrong, it will still work, and then it will fail an inspection when you sell your home; or your insurance will be void when a fire breaks out and they trace it to your modifications not being up to code.
And if you are in an older building; the electrical may be grandfathered as-is to the code at the time it was built, but as soon as you start making modifications it has to be brought up to modern day code so things can get hairy and expensive fast.
But the point is there is a LOT more to know than black/white/ground and one does not have to be a "moron" not to know.
"4K" was pretty widely used in the cinema world well before it really started to become something that came into the consumer market.
Yes. DCI 4K.
DCI 2K is also widely used in the cinema world. And 1080p is often conflated with 2K even though it is officially not recognized as a DCI 2K resolution; so its wrong to call 1080p 2K (even though the wikipedia page on 4K has it labelled as such... while the wikipedia page on 2K makes it explicit that its not considered 2K.)
So when marketing named UHD "4K" it was justified as 4x1080p -- the DCI still didn't recognize it; but naming it 4K UHD served to permanently conflate the consumer 4K UHD with the previously existing DCI 4K resolution. Despite it being well short of 4K horizontally.
Following the first link in the wikipedia article you cited
Lol, well if you read it wikipedia... :)
Here's the thing, 4K as a professional term means that.
4K as a consumer term originated from it being 4x1080p.
A good link to read would actually be the one on 2K
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Here you see the DCI 2K resolutions spelled out. 1080p in particular is not included and they even go on to say that it is officially not recognized as a 2K resolution by the DCI and in industry standards.
The same is sort of true for 4K. The DCI 4K is 4096x2160.
The consumer 4K UHD is 4 x 1080p.
However since they are both called 4K they are no thoroughly and inseparably conflated now.
For example, go back to the 4K link you provided:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The image there labels 1080p as 2K, despite it being explicitly excluded from being 2K on the 2K page.
But I'm curious as to why they'd change naming conventions. Is there any particular reason?
Short answer:
Because people in marketing are catastrophic idiots.
Longer answer:
This is the graphic to look at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
4K UHD has nothing to do with horizontal resoution. 4K is because its exactly 4 x 1080p tiled 2 by 2. (see how the FHD fits exactly 4x into UHD).
So 4K UHD is 4x1080p =~> 4K
By sheer coincidence 4K UHD at 3840x2160 which is sort of close to 4k horizontally 3840 ~= 4000 so lots of people thought it meant horizontal resolution rather than 4 x 1080p. To further confuse the issue there actually is a DCI 4K resolution 4096x2160 which *IS* named 4K for the horizontal resolution, which is actually 4K (4096 is 4k in binary of course).
Then when it came time to make the next standard, they did the samething as the did to make 4K. They just tiled a 4K screen 2x2. (Again see how 8K UHD is exaclty one quadrant of 8K... )... so 8K is 4 x 4K tiled 2x2 or 16 x 1080p tiled 4x4... but by then most people including the dipshits in marketing thought the 4K was the approximate horizontal resolution, so they called it 8K UHD. because 7860 is ~= 8000.
There are some other resolution standards in the 8K family that are derived from the DCI 4K... so they actually have 8192 pixels horizontally... well most of them anyway. 8K "21:9" keeps the vertical fixed and expands the horizontal out to 10,240... because why not. (I mean, I get it... but then 16:10 should have just varied the vertical and kept the horitontal... but that's 8192x5120... which isn't really consistent with anything.
isn't the basic notion of copying or making available someone else's works, for which they fully wish to have a copyright, ethically wrong?
You tell me.
Person A writes a song and plays it on the radio.
Scenario 1
Person B hears it, likes it, and wishes to play it on the piano at home. He listens to it a few times, figures out the melody, etc (1) Is this ethically wrong?
Scenario 2,3,4
Person B hears it, likes it, and wishes to learn to play it on his piano at home. He's not as good as the person B in scenario 1 though and can't figure it out.
Person C however figures it it out, rights down a piano arrangement on sheet music for Person B to use Is that unethical? He realizes lots of people would like his sheet music so he posts it online. Is that unethical? Can the original artists wish that the arrangement not be distributed have force?
Scenario 4. ... 75 years now? What if the original artist wants it to last 100 years. Is it unethical to copy his music after the copyright expires. Sure it would be LEGAL... but it still violates his -wishes-.
Copyright is what
Scenario 5
What if he wishes to transfer copyright to an incorporated trust that lasts forever and the trust as the new copyright owner wishes for the copyright to last forever... is the basic notion of copying or making available the work, even 500 years from now, given the trust still exists and still fully wishes that you not copy it... is it ethically wrong to copy it?
If that was the case, the headline would be more like
Don't give them ideas.
"You'll Totally Believe Why These Startups Failed"
Is pretty click-bait too though. I clicked on the article only to see if they got called on it. They did. And deservedly so... but i had to scroll down much too far. :(
This.
And of the 73 on a list somewhere; i bet only a fraction are even slightly a threat; and i hope they don't lose their job simply because some distant uncle who sends them a gift on their birthday attended a rally where some actual terrorists also went...
It's an embarrassment to have a ask Slashdot featuring Kim Dotcom.
Touche.
Still.... we're just being represented by the idiots and trolls on this one.
Yup; its an embarrassment to associated with this site right now.