I know it's off-topic, but I've found one place in which it's hard to make a standards-compliant page. How are you supposed to start a numbered list at a value other than 1? The simple solution is , but the start tag has been deprecated. Thus, for example, this page doesn't quite validate.
I was thinking the same thing... until I came in this morning and discovered that some Firefox bug had caused it to consume 99% of the CPU all night long. Thus, none of the usual overnight maintenance stuff had completed. I killed the process and restarted Firefox. It instantly cranked back up to 99%. I had to reboot the machine. (I installed the Flash plugin yesterday, so I'm guessing it's some interaction between Firefox and Flash.)
I think it's more than nostalgia. How many times have you looked at your watch and then been asked, "What time is it?" only to realize you need to look at your watch to answer the question. I know that I've experienced this phenomenon several times.
I believe that one of the biggest reasons we look at a watch or clock is to determine how long until some future timepoint. (For example, how long until my favorite show is on? How soon do I get to leave? Etc.) From that perspective, a mechanical timepiece is quite valuable because there is a natural correspondence between area and time. When you look at a digital clock that reads 3:19, you have to do some math to determine that there's 11 minutes until your 3:30 meeting. Based on this observation, I'm not giving up my mechanical watch.
"Banks shouldn't be using email for anything serious..."
I get valid email from my bank all the time. Most importantly it lets me know that I have an online bill that's due soon. If I didn't receive the message, the bill might switch from being due, to being overdue. From my perspective there is a danger in marking valid banking email as spam. Of course, the bank doesn't provide a link to click on. Instead, the email instructs me to login to billpay.
Good luck with that defense when you get hauled into court for sexual harassment. Whether your holiness wants to admit it or not, people have legally protected rights.
Cluster computing is better, to a point. A Google employee gave a presentation at the University of Washington describing the problems that arise with massive clusters. As an example, the mean time to failure for a hard drive is a few years (let's say 4). There are (roughly) 1461 days in four years. Let's say you have 10,000 PCs in your cluster. Every day you expect to see 6 or 7 hard drives crash. To sustain this failure rate, you need custom software to identify the machine that went down. You then need to either swap out the hard drive or the entire machine. In effect, your application software will need to mimic the error-checking provided by the mainframe. Or, you will need to develop a custom OS to provide these services. Google chose the latter, but it wasn't cheap in terms of labor and innovation.
Despite the patent, TFA claims, "It goes without saying that the top secret formula is a closely guarded secret." Color me confuselated*, you can't patent a secret. That's the whole point of a patent!
*The author reserves the right to invent words to suit his mood.
It's not necessarily Friday. You could, for example, bank your project time for four months, and then spend a solid month working on your project, provided your manager approved the setup.
National health care is not about a specific individual. It's about overall life expectancy, infant mortality, etc. Moreover, there's absolutely no way you can say for certain that your FIL would be dead had he lived in Canada. To know this, you would need to recreate the circumstances and test the hypothesis.
Universal health care is, in fact, a desirable goal. It is crucial to the US notion of equality of opportunity. We provide a free education because without an education, there is (almost) no opportunity to improve one's lot in life. Inadequate access to health care produces similar barriers. We can't guarantee equal outcomes (since people have different innate qualities), but we should endeavor to provide equal footing, including access to health care and education.
This is rubbish, humans are omnivorous primates. There's nothing inherently unhealthy about eating meat. The natural state is to consume a combination of meat and plant products; that's what it means to be omnivorous. Now, it may be the case that many people consume too much meat, but that's a different issue.
The Japanese also have one of the highest incidences of smoking (among industrial nations). Japanese health was apparently much worse before WWII when they were ruled by an emporer. Their society was restructured after the war into something more akin to a social democracy. Better health ensued.
The answer is indeed simple: among industrial nations one of the most significant predictors of health is the gap between rich and poor. The larger this gap, the worse the health of both groups. It is not surprising that poor people have worse health, but it is interesting that riches don't buy better health. More information is available here, and here's a related editorial from Newsweek.
In short, the study looked at the following health factors: life expectancy, infant mortality, death rates, disability, quality of life, self-assessed health, happiness and well-being. The high-level summary from the linked article: "Populations whose income is below a threshold (about $5,000 - $10,000 in US per capita income) generally have poorer health. Increasing income in such societies leads to better health. Above the threshold, national health is not necessarily related to absolute income, but rather to the gap between rich and poor. Studies in the past 15 years found that where income gaps are smaller, health appears to be better."
The researchers' hypothesis is that societies with a large gap between the rich and poor have a more hierarchical organization. Such an organization is based on coercion and resignation. More egalitarian societies do not engender the negative emotions needed to sustain a hierarchy.
Perhaps what is most surprising is that despite the maturity of this research, it seems (at least to me) that very few people are aware of it.
Of course, when you see one of those rare "Red" trailers, you know the movie itself is gonna be badass.
That's not necessarily true. The last few "Red" trailers I've seen were "Red" because they mentioned homosexuality. That you can show sex and violence in a "Green" trailer, but not mention homosexuality really irks me.
According to this site, we may have up to 1000 years worth of uranium. Now, this article clearly has an agenda to push, but that figure does not include recycling the uranium. According to the original article, uranium retains 95% of its energy and can be recycled. Thus, even if we assume that 1000 years is an exaggeration, once we factor in the benefits of recycling, a millenium doesn't seem so outrageous.
Out of curiousity, I googled these three. In each case, the Wikipedia article was in the top 10 results. I followed these links. In the case of Brian Peppers, the article had been replaced by a note indicating that the article had been taken down. However, the other two (Justin Berry and Paul Barresi) seemed to be valid articles.
You don't have to be a US citizen to get a CA driver's license, but you do have to have an SSN, which means you 1) are a citizen or 2) have DHS permission to work in the country.
Moreover, the feds have threatened that if states don't collect SSN information, you won't be allowed to use that state's DL to board a plane or enter a federal office building. There is a definite push towards linking one's legal ability to operate a motor vehicle with citizenship.
Behind virtually every keyword retrieval system is some form of an inverted word index. You first probe the index using the search term. By chopping the index up into pieces (for example one piece for each letter of the alphabet) and replicating each piece across a large number of machines, you can massively parallelize this lookup. The inverted index returns a list of documents identifiers (URLs) containing the keyword, probably pre-sorted in descending Page rank. If you provide multiple keywords, you need to compute the intersection of these lists.
I'm going with the former. Google can do really well when there's textual information. Google hasn't addressed the ability to retrieve data based on numeric constraints. Relational databases, however, do quite well with numbers. For example, how would you query Google for medical databases containing patients with ICD9 code 12345 between the ages of 16 and 18?
Thank you for stating what should be painfully obvious. By the time MySQL had gotten around to supporting nested queries and CREATE VIEW I had long since written it off as a toy (one that wasn't even fun to play with).
Of course, to get back on topic, the article discusses a comparison of Postgres and Oracle. Until this week I never saw any need to use Oracle. But, they now have native RDF-store and some support for graph queries. Larry is still a colassal a$$, but I am now forced to concede the existence of some smart developers at Oracle.
Slashdot Mirror
, but the start tag has been deprecated. Thus, for example, this page doesn't quite validate.
I was thinking the same thing... until I came in this morning and discovered that some Firefox bug had caused it to consume 99% of the CPU all night long. Thus, none of the usual overnight maintenance stuff had completed. I killed the process and restarted Firefox. It instantly cranked back up to 99%. I had to reboot the machine. (I installed the Flash plugin yesterday, so I'm guessing it's some interaction between Firefox and Flash.)
I think it's more than nostalgia. How many times have you looked at your watch and then been asked, "What time is it?" only to realize you need to look at your watch to answer the question. I know that I've experienced this phenomenon several times.
I believe that one of the biggest reasons we look at a watch or clock is to determine how long until some future timepoint. (For example, how long until my favorite show is on? How soon do I get to leave? Etc.) From that perspective, a mechanical timepiece is quite valuable because there is a natural correspondence between area and time. When you look at a digital clock that reads 3:19, you have to do some math to determine that there's 11 minutes until your 3:30 meeting. Based on this observation, I'm not giving up my mechanical watch.
"Banks shouldn't be using email for anything serious..."
I get valid email from my bank all the time. Most importantly it lets me know that I have an online bill that's due soon. If I didn't receive the message, the bill might switch from being due, to being overdue. From my perspective there is a danger in marking valid banking email as spam. Of course, the bank doesn't provide a link to click on. Instead, the email instructs me to login to billpay.
They have NO RIGHTS beyond what is on that paper.
Good luck with that defense when you get hauled into court for sexual harassment. Whether your holiness wants to admit it or not, people have legally protected rights.
Cluster computing is better, to a point. A Google employee gave a presentation at the University of Washington describing the problems that arise with massive clusters. As an example, the mean time to failure for a hard drive is a few years (let's say 4). There are (roughly) 1461 days in four years. Let's say you have 10,000 PCs in your cluster. Every day you expect to see 6 or 7 hard drives crash. To sustain this failure rate, you need custom software to identify the machine that went down. You then need to either swap out the hard drive or the entire machine. In effect, your application software will need to mimic the error-checking provided by the mainframe. Or, you will need to develop a custom OS to provide these services. Google chose the latter, but it wasn't cheap in terms of labor and innovation.
Despite the patent, TFA claims, "It goes without saying that the top secret formula is a closely guarded secret." Color me confuselated*, you can't patent a secret. That's the whole point of a patent!
*The author reserves the right to invent words to suit his mood.
It's not necessarily Friday. You could, for example, bank your project time for four months, and then spend a solid month working on your project, provided your manager approved the setup.
National health care is not about a specific individual. It's about overall life expectancy, infant mortality, etc. Moreover, there's absolutely no way you can say for certain that your FIL would be dead had he lived in Canada. To know this, you would need to recreate the circumstances and test the hypothesis.
Universal health care is, in fact, a desirable goal. It is crucial to the US notion of equality of opportunity. We provide a free education because without an education, there is (almost) no opportunity to improve one's lot in life. Inadequate access to health care produces similar barriers. We can't guarantee equal outcomes (since people have different innate qualities), but we should endeavor to provide equal footing, including access to health care and education.
This is rubbish, humans are omnivorous primates. There's nothing inherently unhealthy about eating meat. The natural state is to consume a combination of meat and plant products; that's what it means to be omnivorous. Now, it may be the case that many people consume too much meat, but that's a different issue.
Partially, this seems to be the ethos of Google labs, where a third (I think) of developers' time is given over to their own projects.
It's at most 20%, and you have to be able to justify that the project might somehow help Google.
The Japanese also have one of the highest incidences of smoking (among industrial nations). Japanese health was apparently much worse before WWII when they were ruled by an emporer. Their society was restructured after the war into something more akin to a social democracy. Better health ensued.
The answer is indeed simple: among industrial nations one of the most significant predictors of health is the gap between rich and poor. The larger this gap, the worse the health of both groups. It is not surprising that poor people have worse health, but it is interesting that riches don't buy better health. More information is available here, and here's a related editorial from Newsweek.
In short, the study looked at the following health factors: life expectancy, infant mortality, death rates, disability, quality of life, self-assessed health, happiness and well-being. The high-level summary from the linked article: "Populations whose income is below a threshold (about $5,000 - $10,000 in US per capita income) generally have poorer health. Increasing income in such societies leads to better health. Above the threshold, national health is not necessarily related to absolute income, but rather to the gap between rich and poor. Studies in the past 15 years found that where income gaps are smaller, health appears to be better."
The researchers' hypothesis is that societies with a large gap between the rich and poor have a more hierarchical organization. Such an organization is based on coercion and resignation. More egalitarian societies do not engender the negative emotions needed to sustain a hierarchy.
Perhaps what is most surprising is that despite the maturity of this research, it seems (at least to me) that very few people are aware of it.
It's probably worth mentioning that the only relationship between java and javascript is a common prefix.
"I'll hunt you down, skin you alive and burn you to a crisp!"
Or perhaps, '[Threat/harassment] wants to be free' (sorry, I couldn't resist).
Of course, when you see one of those rare "Red" trailers, you know the movie itself is gonna be badass.
That's not necessarily true. The last few "Red" trailers I've seen were "Red" because they mentioned homosexuality. That you can show sex and violence in a "Green" trailer, but not mention homosexuality really irks me.
There are no stupid questions
Is this a stupid question?
According to this site, we may have up to 1000 years worth of uranium. Now, this article clearly has an agenda to push, but that figure does not include recycling the uranium. According to the original article, uranium retains 95% of its energy and can be recycled. Thus, even if we assume that 1000 years is an exaggeration, once we factor in the benefits of recycling, a millenium doesn't seem so outrageous.
Thanks for the clarification. I interpreted the cries of censorship to indicate that the articles had been removed.
Out of curiousity, I googled these three. In each case, the Wikipedia article was in the top 10 results. I followed these links. In the case of Brian Peppers, the article had been replaced by a note indicating that the article had been taken down. However, the other two (Justin Berry and Paul Barresi) seemed to be valid articles.
Ooh, ooh, pick me, pick me!
Looks around. Oh, wait, you mean we're not the majority? But, everybody I know is a geek!
You don't have to be a US citizen to get a CA driver's license, but you do have to have an SSN, which means you 1) are a citizen or 2) have DHS permission to work in the country.
Moreover, the feds have threatened that if states don't collect SSN information, you won't be allowed to use that state's DL to board a plane or enter a federal office building. There is a definite push towards linking one's legal ability to operate a motor vehicle with citizenship.
Behind virtually every keyword retrieval system is some form of an inverted word index. You first probe the index using the search term. By chopping the index up into pieces (for example one piece for each letter of the alphabet) and replicating each piece across a large number of machines, you can massively parallelize this lookup. The inverted index returns a list of documents identifiers (URLs) containing the keyword, probably pre-sorted in descending Page rank. If you provide multiple keywords, you need to compute the intersection of these lists.
I'm going with the former. Google can do really well when there's textual information. Google hasn't addressed the ability to retrieve data based on numeric constraints. Relational databases, however, do quite well with numbers. For example, how would you query Google for medical databases containing patients with ICD9 code 12345 between the ages of 16 and 18?
Thank you for stating what should be painfully obvious. By the time MySQL had gotten around to supporting nested queries and CREATE VIEW I had long since written it off as a toy (one that wasn't even fun to play with).
Of course, to get back on topic, the article discusses a comparison of Postgres and Oracle. Until this week I never saw any need to use Oracle. But, they now have native RDF-store and some support for graph queries. Larry is still a colassal a$$, but I am now forced to concede the existence of some smart developers at Oracle.
Sigh!