Unless you have serious brain damage, you need at least around 8h/day (there is some variation, but not much) on average. When you get them doesn't matter. If you try to sleep less, your body will accumulate a "sleep debt" until you catch up (say, on the weekend); while you have a sleep debt, you'll perform progressively worse.
If you don't catch up on your sleep debt, you'll start having microsleep episodes--you'll black out for seconds at a time and not even notice it; if that happens while driving, you may die. (Microsleep episodes are insufficient to catch up on your sleep--they are just an emergency measure. If you still don't catch up with a real sleep, you'll start having hallucinations.)
Since you need at least 8h anyway, and since there is nothing to be gained by splitting it up, it's simplest to do them at one stretch, although in some environments, people find it convenient to split it up into two separate periods.
Note that 8h/day is a minimum. When you're catching up with a sleep debt, you may sleep much longer. Even when you don't have a sleep debt, it's normal to sleep longer if you don't have anything on your mind. But while you can go into sleep debt, you can't "save up" sleep for later use.
A correct prediction is not necessarily evidence for a theory; the prediction might be a tautology or it might be true of many other theories as well.
For example, my hypothesis might be that Donald Trump's social security number is 666-66-6666. Now, I conduct an experiment in which I test the prediction that his social security number is not 123-45-6789 and the experiment succeeds. I have gotten a tiny bit of evidence for my original hypothesis, but it's so small as to be negligible.
Well, with scientific theories, it's even worse because there are not just 1 billion of them but an infinite number--unless you do things exactly right, a successful prediction gives you no evidence for a scientific theory at all.
I'd say a fair majority of commercial developers have already taken your advise. Hey, thanks!
You don't have to thank them--they are not porting to Linux because they know they can't compete with the open source offerings. I mean, most Linux users don't use Acoread because it's so slow and awful, and that one is free even.
X11, X.org, [...] Apache, MySQL, Perl, PHP, Python, Ruby, GCC, the GNU utilities and Exim
For practical purposes, those are UNIX apps that have been ported to Windows and OS X. No problem there for Linux users.
KDE [...] Mozilla
Yes, those two are poster children for why cross platform software sucks: KDE breaks a lot of Linux and X11 functionality, and the Mozilla apps are bloated, slow, and inconsistent with Linux, X11, KDE, Gnome, and OS X.
People put up with the Mozilla apps for now only because they have so much useful functionality. But make no mistake: native apps on Linux and OS X are increasingly replacing them.
Gnome
Gnome isn't really a cross platform system, it's Linux software that's been ported to Windows and OS X. Gnome has significant technical limitations, but they are not due to being cross-platform, and it's the best desktop you can get for Linux right now.
The existence of the entire shuttle program was the result of political interference: an overpriced, showy way of getting people into space that served little practical purpose. A rational, cost-effective space program would not have relied on such technology in the first place and would have used manned spaceflight very sparingly and mostly for medical tests that required humans.
Makes sense... And after all, people porting code to run on other OS's *really* enjoy re-writing huge chunks of Linux specific junk...
Contrary to what you may think, Linux users don't want Linux to be a dumping ground for Windows, Solaris, and Macintosh applications. The primary thing that ports and (so-called) cross platform applications do is degrade the user experience on Linux.
If you aren't willing to rewrite huge chunks of your application to make it work well in a Linux/X11 environment, do us all a favor and don't bother porting it to Linux at all.
Unfortunately, despite all the advantages of breeder reactors, the first thing the public and especially the eco-freaks think when you say breeder is nuclear weapons material.
"Eco-freaks" don't particularly care about proliferation, they care about the environment.
The people who worry about proliferation are people like Bush, people who want to maintain a nuclear monopoly in the hands of the US and a few others.
Why don't they stop publishing content altogether? Then nobody can steal it anymore, and the rest of us can go on with our lives. The independent stuff is a lot better anyway, and I'm happy to finance that by going to concerts.
Sun almost created several great desktop window systems. Sun almost set a standard for web-based application delivery with Java. Apple almost picked Sun's SPARC architecture. Sun almost set the standard for server operating sytems. And then there are things that Sun achieved, briefly, and lost, like dominance of university departments.
I leave it to others to diagnose the exact causes of Sun's repeated failures. I can say this much for myself: I won't buy another Sun product again, ever, nor will I ever trust any of Sun's promises again.
I doubt you'd get the same reactions if you were wearing a small Star of David pendant, which would indicate your religion just as clearly as wearing a Yarmulke.
I think what you sense is that a Yarmulke is not just an indication of your religion, it suggests (rightly or wrongly) to others that you feel strongly about religion and that you may be rather conservative. And I think that's what people are likely to react to. The reaction isn't specific to your religion--it would be the same if someone wore a ceremonial dagger, an oversized cross, or even a soccer scarf.
Ultimately, you have to decide what kind of person you want to portray through the symbols you display and the clothes you wear.
I hear it all the time "We want someone young, energetic" - because old people are not worth the effort.
No, that's not usually it. Companies are not stupid and they know that older workers often are experienced, reliable, and skilled, and those are big plusses.
When they are looking for someone "young", there may be a number of reasons for it, like wanting someone who has time to grow into leadership roles over a couple of decades, someone where it is possible to recoup the investment in an extended training period, someone who is specifically not familiar with a field and can take a fresh approach, someone who fits socially into an already young team, or someone who a young supervisor would feel comfortable supervising.
Age discrimination in hiring is wrong--you should not reject applicants based on their age. But it's an illusion to think that factors that strongly correlate with age don't matter for hiring, and whether taking into account such factors constitutes age discrimination is something one has to look at on a case-by-case basis. In different words, yes, you can legitimately be overqualified for a job.
If you read the fine print on their web page, it can display PDF and other open formats but only if you run them through their converter. Sorry, no go.
Basically, yes. It took 20 years of searching to find the first one in 1995, and that's looking for any brown dwarf anywhere.
Astronomers have a pretty good handle of what parts of the sky they have surveyed and what kinds of objects they can detect, and there is still a lot of surveying to do before a stellar companion to the sun can be excluded. Given the high frequency of brown dwarfs in the galaxy, until the survey is completed and excludes the possibility, it is reasonable to believe that a companion may exist.
Much as Ellerman is wrong, so is Turney: Latent Relational Analysis is not a plausible mechanism for human semantic learning. Learning semantics is possible, and there has been some work on it, but it requires much deeper models of the world.
The proposed distance for Nemesis is of the order of 1 light year, so it isn't exactly "close".
Given bounds on its probable mass, brightness, and distance, it is a reasonable possibility that such an object wouldn't have been observed yet. However, there also aren't strong reasons to postulate its existence either, so most people assume nothing's there.
Dr Ellerman claims that "after several decades of debate, a definitive differentiation between minds and machines seems to be emerging into view."
Maybe that's the latest fashion in philosophy, but I'm afraid philosophers are a bit out of touch with reality there: machines have no problem assigning semantics to symbols, and even learning semantics from experience.
The Republic I grew up loving is on life support, at best.
I think the Republic you thought you grew up loving was an illusion. Today, the US government probably has fewer ways of getting away with screwing you, screwing other nations, or restricting your speech than ever before. That doesn't keep them from trying, but that's what governments always do--it's part of the package. Furthermore, you have more ready access to education and information and more social mobility than ever before.
The debt is real, but ultimately not due to any particular policy--it's just that the rest of the world is starting to recover from colonialism and WWII and become serious competition again; Americans will have to get used to being less wealthy relative to the rest of the world.
This effect is impossible to create to anything near this level of detail or clarity using traditional digital tools.
You can buy a high-resolution scanning digital camera off the shelf, which gives you exactly the same distortions but actually produces excellent still images. You can buy a used Horizon camera and get the same effect on film, minus the banding, stuttering, and poor focus. You can look on the web for "slit-scan photography" (used, among other things, in the film "2001"). You can do this sort of thing with any old large format camera. Or you might look around the web for the same hack done in the mid-1990's, multiple times.
Finally, I really, really, really don't understand why these types of comments are made. It's so infuriating - do you have any sense of exploration and experimentation? Or understand the desire to tell others about your experiences?
No, what's infuriating is when people do the same "hack" over and over again. At some point, it ceases to be a hack and just is a pathetic display of inexperience.
If you rtfa it's because the distortion from a camera like this is because it captures the image in a series of scan lines, each scanline is a small
But it is the same way existing digital line cameras work, and it's the same way film-based line cameras work, yielding, not surprisingly, the same effects.
It's an original idea,
No, it's not. Even the consumer-scanner-as-large-format-camera is old.
I'd be interested to see if color filters on the lens would allow you to take multiple exposures for red/green/blue and mix them in the computer to create a color image. I think it could make some very interesting pieces of art.
You mean like Technicolor? Or like Autochrome? Or like three-CCD analog camcorders, digital cameras, and digital camcorders?
How would you know what effect to strive for in Photoshop unless you've already built something like this and found out what it looks like?
I suppose it's a question of whether you consider photography as something where you visualize something and then create it, or whether you randomly snap things until you get something that looks cool.
In this particular case, however, the effect itself is quite old--far older than digital; you get the same effect, for example, with panoramic film cameras, which work by moving a slit across a piece of film. Any reasonably experienced photographer should know this type of image since it's pretty classic.
And if you want to replicate it with digital, it's pretty easy (see other message).
For the scanning effects, you take a video or continuous shooting (most digital cameras support both) and simulate the scanning by taking scanlines sequentially from successive frames.
Homework usually doesn't count for a big part of a course, it's preparation for the test. Outsourcing homework makes about as much sense as outsourcing physical exercise or outsourcing an appendectomy--it may avoid short term unpleasantness, but it fails to achieve its long term purpose.
(In contrast, when companies outsource, they may just care about the product, so outsourcing is arguably a correct strategy for them.)
While it's a neat (if not original) hack, why bother making actual photographs with it? The point of large format digital is very high quality, and it doesn't look like you're getting that.
If it's the look and effect you are going for, you can achieve that more easily with a regular digital camera and a bit of post-processing.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you have serious brain damage, you need at least around 8h/day (there is some variation, but not much) on average. When you get them doesn't matter. If you try to sleep less, your body will accumulate a "sleep debt" until you catch up (say, on the weekend); while you have a sleep debt, you'll perform progressively worse.
If you don't catch up on your sleep debt, you'll start having microsleep episodes--you'll black out for seconds at a time and not even notice it; if that happens while driving, you may die. (Microsleep episodes are insufficient to catch up on your sleep--they are just an emergency measure. If you still don't catch up with a real sleep, you'll start having hallucinations.)
Since you need at least 8h anyway, and since there is nothing to be gained by splitting it up, it's simplest to do them at one stretch, although in some environments, people find it convenient to split it up into two separate periods.
Note that 8h/day is a minimum. When you're catching up with a sleep debt, you may sleep much longer. Even when you don't have a sleep debt, it's normal to sleep longer if you don't have anything on your mind. But while you can go into sleep debt, you can't "save up" sleep for later use.
Here is some more info.
A correct prediction is not necessarily evidence for a theory; the prediction might be a tautology or it might be true of many other theories as well.
For example, my hypothesis might be that Donald Trump's social security number is 666-66-6666. Now, I conduct an experiment in which I test the prediction that his social security number is not 123-45-6789 and the experiment succeeds. I have gotten a tiny bit of evidence for my original hypothesis, but it's so small as to be negligible.
Well, with scientific theories, it's even worse because there are not just 1 billion of them but an infinite number--unless you do things exactly right, a successful prediction gives you no evidence for a scientific theory at all.
I'd say a fair majority of commercial developers have already taken your advise. Hey, thanks!
You don't have to thank them--they are not porting to Linux because they know they can't compete with the open source offerings. I mean, most Linux users don't use Acoread because it's so slow and awful, and that one is free even.
X11, X.org, [...] Apache, MySQL, Perl, PHP, Python, Ruby, GCC, the GNU utilities and Exim
For practical purposes, those are UNIX apps that have been ported to Windows and OS X. No problem there for Linux users.
KDE [...] Mozilla
Yes, those two are poster children for why cross platform software sucks: KDE breaks a lot of Linux and X11 functionality, and the Mozilla apps are bloated, slow, and inconsistent with Linux, X11, KDE, Gnome, and OS X.
People put up with the Mozilla apps for now only because they have so much useful functionality. But make no mistake: native apps on Linux and OS X are increasingly replacing them.
Gnome
Gnome isn't really a cross platform system, it's Linux software that's been ported to Windows and OS X. Gnome has significant technical limitations, but they are not due to being cross-platform, and it's the best desktop you can get for Linux right now.
The existence of the entire shuttle program was the result of political interference: an overpriced, showy way of getting people into space that served little practical purpose. A rational, cost-effective space program would not have relied on such technology in the first place and would have used manned spaceflight very sparingly and mostly for medical tests that required humans.
Frankly, booting Linux on one of these is a whole lot more important to me than booting Windows.
Makes sense... And after all, people porting code to run on other OS's *really* enjoy re-writing huge chunks of Linux specific junk...
Contrary to what you may think, Linux users don't want Linux to be a dumping ground for Windows, Solaris, and Macintosh applications. The primary thing that ports and (so-called) cross platform applications do is degrade the user experience on Linux.
If you aren't willing to rewrite huge chunks of your application to make it work well in a Linux/X11 environment, do us all a favor and don't bother porting it to Linux at all.
Unfortunately, despite all the advantages of breeder reactors, the first thing the public and especially the eco-freaks think when you say breeder is nuclear weapons material.
"Eco-freaks" don't particularly care about proliferation, they care about the environment.
The people who worry about proliferation are people like Bush, people who want to maintain a nuclear monopoly in the hands of the US and a few others.
Why don't they stop publishing content altogether? Then nobody can steal it anymore, and the rest of us can go on with our lives. The independent stuff is a lot better anyway, and I'm happy to finance that by going to concerts.
Sun almost created several great desktop window systems. Sun almost set a standard for web-based application delivery with Java. Apple almost picked Sun's SPARC architecture. Sun almost set the standard for server operating sytems. And then there are things that Sun achieved, briefly, and lost, like dominance of university departments.
I leave it to others to diagnose the exact causes of Sun's repeated failures. I can say this much for myself: I won't buy another Sun product again, ever, nor will I ever trust any of Sun's promises again.
I doubt you'd get the same reactions if you were wearing a small Star of David pendant, which would indicate your religion just as clearly as wearing a Yarmulke.
I think what you sense is that a Yarmulke is not just an indication of your religion, it suggests (rightly or wrongly) to others that you feel strongly about religion and that you may be rather conservative. And I think that's what people are likely to react to. The reaction isn't specific to your religion--it would be the same if someone wore a ceremonial dagger, an oversized cross, or even a soccer scarf.
Ultimately, you have to decide what kind of person you want to portray through the symbols you display and the clothes you wear.
I hear it all the time "We want someone young, energetic" - because old people are not worth the effort.
No, that's not usually it. Companies are not stupid and they know that older workers often are experienced, reliable, and skilled, and those are big plusses.
When they are looking for someone "young", there may be a number of reasons for it, like wanting someone who has time to grow into leadership roles over a couple of decades, someone where it is possible to recoup the investment in an extended training period, someone who is specifically not familiar with a field and can take a fresh approach, someone who fits socially into an already young team, or someone who a young supervisor would feel comfortable supervising.
Age discrimination in hiring is wrong--you should not reject applicants based on their age. But it's an illusion to think that factors that strongly correlate with age don't matter for hiring, and whether taking into account such factors constitutes age discrimination is something one has to look at on a case-by-case basis. In different words, yes, you can legitimately be overqualified for a job.
If you read the fine print on their web page, it can display PDF and other open formats but only if you run them through their converter. Sorry, no go.
Basically, yes. It took 20 years of searching to find the first one in 1995, and that's looking for any brown dwarf anywhere.
Astronomers have a pretty good handle of what parts of the sky they have surveyed and what kinds of objects they can detect, and there is still a lot of surveying to do before a stellar companion to the sun can be excluded. Given the high frequency of brown dwarfs in the galaxy, until the survey is completed and excludes the possibility, it is reasonable to believe that a companion may exist.
Much as Ellerman is wrong, so is Turney: Latent Relational Analysis is not a plausible mechanism for human semantic learning. Learning semantics is possible, and there has been some work on it, but it requires much deeper models of the world.
The proposed distance for Nemesis is of the order of 1 light year, so it isn't exactly "close".
Given bounds on its probable mass, brightness, and distance, it is a reasonable possibility that such an object wouldn't have been observed yet. However, there also aren't strong reasons to postulate its existence either, so most people assume nothing's there.
As far as I'm concerned, the NYT and Washington Post are obsolete.
Dr Ellerman claims that "after several decades of debate, a definitive differentiation between minds and machines seems to be emerging into view."
Maybe that's the latest fashion in philosophy, but I'm afraid philosophers are a bit out of touch with reality there: machines have no problem assigning semantics to symbols, and even learning semantics from experience.
The Republic I grew up loving is on life support, at best.
I think the Republic you thought you grew up loving was an illusion. Today, the US government probably has fewer ways of getting away with screwing you, screwing other nations, or restricting your speech than ever before. That doesn't keep them from trying, but that's what governments always do--it's part of the package. Furthermore, you have more ready access to education and information and more social mobility than ever before.
The debt is real, but ultimately not due to any particular policy--it's just that the rest of the world is starting to recover from colonialism and WWII and become serious competition again; Americans will have to get used to being less wealthy relative to the rest of the world.
This effect is impossible to create to anything near this level of detail or clarity using traditional digital tools.
You can buy a high-resolution scanning digital camera off the shelf, which gives you exactly the same distortions but actually produces excellent still images. You can buy a used Horizon camera and get the same effect on film, minus the banding, stuttering, and poor focus. You can look on the web for "slit-scan photography" (used, among other things, in the film "2001"). You can do this sort of thing with any old large format camera. Or you might look around the web for the same hack done in the mid-1990's, multiple times.
Finally, I really, really, really don't understand why these types of comments are made. It's so infuriating - do you have any sense of exploration and experimentation? Or understand the desire to tell others about your experiences?
No, what's infuriating is when people do the same "hack" over and over again. At some point, it ceases to be a hack and just is a pathetic display of inexperience.
If you rtfa it's because the distortion from a camera like this is because it captures the image in a series of scan lines, each scanline is a small
But it is the same way existing digital line cameras work, and it's the same way film-based line cameras work, yielding, not surprisingly, the same effects.
It's an original idea,
No, it's not. Even the consumer-scanner-as-large-format-camera is old.
I'd be interested to see if color filters on the lens would allow you to take multiple exposures for red/green/blue and mix them in the computer to create a color image. I think it could make some very interesting pieces of art.
You mean like Technicolor? Or like Autochrome? Or like three-CCD analog camcorders, digital cameras, and digital camcorders?
How would you know what effect to strive for in Photoshop unless you've already built something like this and found out what it looks like?
I suppose it's a question of whether you consider photography as something where you visualize something and then create it, or whether you randomly snap things until you get something that looks cool.
In this particular case, however, the effect itself is quite old--far older than digital; you get the same effect, for example, with panoramic film cameras, which work by moving a slit across a piece of film. Any reasonably experienced photographer should know this type of image since it's pretty classic.
And if you want to replicate it with digital, it's pretty easy (see other message).
The grayscale, banding, and vignetting are easy.
For the scanning effects, you take a video or continuous shooting (most digital cameras support both) and simulate the scanning by taking scanlines sequentially from successive frames.
Homework usually doesn't count for a big part of a course, it's preparation for the test. Outsourcing homework makes about as much sense as outsourcing physical exercise or outsourcing an appendectomy--it may avoid short term unpleasantness, but it fails to achieve its long term purpose.
(In contrast, when companies outsource, they may just care about the product, so outsourcing is arguably a correct strategy for them.)
While it's a neat (if not original) hack, why bother making actual photographs with it? The point of large format digital is very high quality, and it doesn't look like you're getting that.
If it's the look and effect you are going for, you can achieve that more easily with a regular digital camera and a bit of post-processing.