So what you're looking for is a financially conservative party that doesn't give a crap about what you do for entertainment, as long as those involved are consenting adults.
Is that correct?
Aren't those people called "libertarians?" I hear that they actually do exist. You can vote for them, and if their isn't a libertarian on the ballot in your district, then you could run yourself.
You don't have to win the election to make a difference: Ross Perot and Ralph Nader have both demonstrated that third party candidates can have a huge impact in the result even when they don't win.
(BTW: "You" in this post doesn't refer to Beardo even though I'm replying to his post)
Is this a fad that probably SHOULD pass? Maybe. Is it being overused now? Definitely. Is it going anywhere, as long as the studios can reap big money off of it? Almost certainly not.
I hope that BAD 3D passes quickly. I find that imperfect 3D gives me a headache. Avatar was fine for me, but other 3D films that I've seen have me constantly squinting as my eyes try to resolve the slight blurs and imperfections in the image, so I often leave with a headache.
And, yes, I am aware that 3D viewing requires that one pay attention only to the main element of the scene (trying to look at the background when only the foreground is in focus will always result in blurring even with the best 3D).
... and our understanding of how to effectively teach appears to be stuck in the middle ages. (I rather suspect it isn't, rather that there are so many conflicting requirements of any education system that it's more-or-less impossible to meet them all without some serious compromises).
I would venture to say that our understanding of how to effectively teach needs to reach back further than the middle ages. I'd pick ancient Greece as a good starting point. Socrates had a really good system: small groups of students with a very competent and engaged educator. The best way to teach hasn't changed in several thousand years.
Many of our current education problems would be quickly solved if we hired the best and brightest to be teachers, gave them small classes so they could work individually with each student, and paid them enough that they want to keep the job. Anyone who looks at the best private schools can see that this is exactly what they do. (Giving the teacher the ability to permanently eject disruptive students would be helpful, too, but that's a different political debate.) The dilemma is that this approach is expensive.
All of the dancing around that we see with people finding "new approaches" for calculus education every couple years is really just a game to avoid the honest, expensive, solution. Instead of paying teachers more to keep the best ones around, we keep the salaries low to encourage the brightest ones to find other jobs. Then we pretend like using a new textbook that introduces set notation with car analogies will solve the education problem.
By the way, I speak as a college math professor who graduates a lot of "future teachers." Many of our students in the "Math Education" track are friendly, caring, motivated students who really want to be good high school math teachers. What I have observed is that four years out from graduation the best ones have usually left teaching careers for more lucrative jobs in industry. Occasionally, some of our star Math Ed. students land nice jobs teaching at private schools which have salaries comparable to industry.
Did they not have any time on the ground to destroy it or did they bug out the moment it touched down?
The crew stalled for as long as they could, but the Chinese gave them an ultimatum: come out right now or we will come in shooting.
The US learned with Gary Powers that giving people suicide orders is a very unreliable way to keep a secret. That's why I wouldn't expect thermite bricks on the equipment in a confined space in a pressurized airplane.
... Yet, syntactic matching appears to be exactly what this program is doing.
What constitutes "plagiarism" in a scientific paper is very different from plagiarism in journalism or English literature. In scientific writing, it is expected that authors will use the same flat, impersonal style and repeat definitions and the results of others to save the reader the time of having to look them up. So, simple pattern matching between science papers will result in a great many false positives. In science (and math) writing what matters is the new result which the author is claiming. It seems to me that it would be nearly impossible for a computer program to detect the distinction.
Hours of speculation and typing can save one minute of reading TFA. From the article:
"Unlike other plagiarism detectors, it does not use phrases or similar words to check for copying. Helio Text actually looks at the entirety of the text."
So no, it does not. It uses instead some sort of similarity metric computed from analyzing the entire text. This is possibly similar to the text distance metrics used in vector space search engine models (see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_space_model ). They will be publishing a paper online in PLoS ONE.
I did RTFA. However, there is no code, no algorithm description, no indication whatsoever in TFA describing exactly how their program operates. From the vague references in TFA it appears that this is nothing more than a glorified, article+abstract-wide, pattern matcher. Perhaps it is a little more clever and uses something similar to Google's page ranking algorithm via applying distance metrics to textual spaces. However, that is also a form of syntactic analysis rather than a context analysis. Barring further information on the algorithm, I can't see how your description invalidates my previous point.
I once had an English teacher who said, "If you have more than five consecutive words matching a source, without a citation then it's plagiarism." Perhaps that's how freshman writing assignments are graded, but it's silly when applied to scientific papers. Pick up any math paper on number theory, and you're bound to find the sentence "Let p be an odd prime number." without citation, but that would hardly qualify as plagiarism. Yet, syntactic matching appears to be exactly what this program is doing.
What constitutes "plagiarism" in a scientific paper is very different from plagiarism in journalism or English literature. In scientific writing, it is expected that authors will use the same flat, impersonal style and repeat definitions and the results of others to save the reader the time of having to look them up. So, simple pattern matching between science papers will result in a great many false positives. In science (and math) writing what matters is the new result which the author is claiming. It seems to me that it would be nearly impossible for a computer program to detect the distinction.
Thanks to both of you (AdmiralXyz and blueg3) for posting the recommendation. I'm a mathematician who has always wanted to know more physics, so this looks like a great reference for me.
I'm assuming that the architect will consult with the appropriate engineers before building the structure, but still I wonder how a house with airplane wings for roofs will fair in a major storm?
His tradeoff was he believed that he had to control the entire system. He made every decision. The boxes were locked.
It wasn't only back then, it's especially true today. I don't know why everyone on slashdot seems to give him a free pass but say DRM, locked-down hardware, restrictions, end user licenses and so on are bad. Apple and Steve Jobs is basically everything that we should be against. Even Windows is open, even if you don't get the source code. Linux is obviously the best choice.
Not really feasible for a 10 year old kid who is just starting to learn programming.
I think the reason that Apple is so celebrated here is that OS X provides what many long-time Linux users/developers have wanted: a highly functioning unix-like system under the hood with a nice polished user interface.
I do all of my "real work" on Linux systems, but my desktop and laptop are Macs because for most needs, it just works and I get a full bash shell and unix OS when needed. Yes, I pay a premium for that shiny hardware, but for me it's worth it not to have to deal with finding device drivers or re-compiling kernels, and it's nice to be able to view all forms of media, too.
Don't get me wrong. I still believe that Apple's DRM is evil and I wish that ever format was open and non-proprietary. I used to fight that fight when I was younger. But, now that I'm old, working full time, and have a family, I just don't have any energy left to get into fights with my desktop OS just to get some Dora The Explorer video to play for my kids.
But one problem is that the thread might be updating while you're typing. I've several times thought that I was the first person to present a particular idea only to watch it get modded redundant because another post shows up 5 seconds earlier (because it was posted while I was typing mine).
I was running Linux back in the early 1990's and even submitting bug reports and fixes for the kernel. Over the course of my career I've admined numerous *nix boxes of all flavors. I'd always dreamed of the great and glorious future where the Linux desktop would reign supreme. I used to make fun of Macs and declare them "worse than Windows".
Then OS X came out. It was what I had envisioned for the Linux desktop, and for most of my needs it just worked without me having to spend hours reading poorly written man pages, struggling to find device drivers, or fixing code myself. I was willing to pay the premium to have that tedious work done for me.
Now, all my servers and big number-crunching machines are running Linux, but my desktop (and laptop) is a Mac. Pretty to look at, easy to use, and I can drop to a *nix environment anytime.
All of the characters except River and the Preacher could've been fed to the wraiths and the show would've been better for it.
the show sucked. bad.
Besides, you didn't counter the whole, low ratings and the fact that Dollhouse sucked too AND the Fox network did everything fans asked(Consistent timeslot, no preemption for sports, etc etc).
There's a reason why House is still on the air despite the so-bad-it-might-as-well-be-scifi take on medicine. Plus we totally got to see Lisa Edelstein nearly naked this season.
Clearly you didn't even watch the show. It was Reavers, not wraiths.
Besides, this is slashdot, you know, the website for nerds. If you don't like Firefly, then you should be posting on pompousliterarycritic.com not slashdot.
Thanks for posting that link. I was ignorant of Stanislav Petrov and of how close the US and USSR came to a full nuclear exchange. That was a sobering read.
I certainly understand your annoyance with C++. I also find it to be a "dirty" language with lots of kludging to get around defects. But, then I find something to grumble about with every language I've used.
FORTRAN was perfect for number crunching on machines that don't exist anymore. I never found any other use for it.
With C I used to get annoyed with its inconsistent handling of carry flags, endianness, floating point standards, default int sizes, etc., so I often found myself building huge #ifdef trees to handle platform and compiler idiosyncrasies.
Ada is great to read, but it's the most burdensome language to write that I have ever encountered.
Perl is great to write, but it's the most burdensome language to read that I have ever encountered.
Python could be really nice to code, but what's with the significant whitespace?
Java is a good language for beginners, but it's a little too Ada-like for my taste.
Lisp is a good language for masters, but it's a little too parenthetical for my taste.
I could go on... the point is, it's easy to grumble about any language, but all of the popular languages exist and are widely used because they solved a particular set of problems well enough that it was worthwhile for a large number of people to use them. When the problem set changes, then we see the balance shift (how may FORTRAN or Ada programmers do you know?) and new languages come along.
Now I hear the young kids talking about this rubies on train tracks thing... guess I better go look at it.
No, but providing someone with a unit to calculate (for example) a transformation doesn't mean that you give them an efficient way of computing FFTs. Of course if you give them a general purpose matrix-vector multiplier then it does. In 2004 a graphics card used a fixed function unit, and today it uses a general purpose one. Assumptions about how obvious it is that other applications can be performed don't carry back to previous generations of the hardware.
I do believe that you are arguing in good faith and that you are not a troll, and I understand your argument. Here are the things which I believe were obvious (to general practitioners in the field) in the 1990s:
1. Video display and video (de)compression are essentially large linear algebra problems which lend themselves to vector processing.
2. Video display hardware will continue to improve.
3. Eventually video display hardware will become sufficiently powerful to perform video (de)compression.
The reason I believe that those were all obvious to practitioners in the field in the 1990s is because they were obvious to me in the 1990s and I wasn't even a specialist in the field. (I was, however, working on large number-crunchy stuff). I would suspect that the true experts in those fields were well aware of all three of the above points even in the 1980s.
I'll have to end my participation in this thread, now, and get back to real work...
[me] If something is obvious to an expert in the field, then it shouldn't be patentable.
[westlake] A patent is awarded for a clearly described and working implementation of an idea. It isn't enough to say - in a vague sort of way - that the idea alone seems obvious enough in retrospect.
[prgrmr] Under the current patent law in the US, the obviousness tests hinges upon "a person having ordinary skill in the art"; so if it takes an expert to realize how to take an idea and make it real (i.e., the transformative part), then, by definition in the law, it's NOT obvious.
I was asserting what should be, not what actually is:-)
So again I'll ask you; why is it obvious that units designed to do transformation, lighting and rasterisation (not general vector operations) should be good at encoding video?
Because (linear) transformations, lighting and rasterisation are just large matrix-vector operations... as is the FFT which is central to every video compression algorithm. Just because the words are different doesn't mean that the math is different.
Why would it be obvious that hardware designed to accelerate 3d rendering - transformation, lighting and rasterisation - can accelerate the compression of video frames?
It seems that you are 'obviously' wrong.
It's seems incredibly obvious to me. Of course, I've worked on FFT code for Cray vector units which were around a long time before 2004. If you can't see the relationship between vector processing, FFTs, and any form of video compression/display, then perhaps you shouldn't be in charge of determining what is "obvious" regarding this particular patent.
I have long felt that our patent system is ridiculous because it allows such silly patents. If something is obvious to an expert in the field, then it shouldn't be patentable.
Wrong website. Although, I am curious about how many computer geeks get this reference. Most of the ones I encounter (I'm in academia) would assume that you've misspelled "grams" and were talking about a mood stabilizing drug.
Unless a miracle occurs and I find a job in November, I'm going to earn a third degree in Public Policy. Or possibly Business Administration. Haven't really decided which is the best course yet but I know hardware/digital design has reached a dead end. The stuff is getting outsourced to low-cost Indians (and I don't blame the managers; I'd do the same).
Good luck and best wishes on the tech job hunt. The MBA might lead to a larger salary, but it leads to the dark side. (Then again, I've secretly wanted to spray lightning from my fingertips for quite a while...)
Consider a country with ten people, one making $1M and nine making $1k. If the first guy's income doubles and the other nine are halved, then the mean, median, and total all go up, while the average quality of life goes down. This may sound silly, but the situation in the USA is *worse* than this, proportionally.
Actually, the median would go down in the example you are describing. That's why we often care more about the median than the mean in population statistics. The median is less sensitive to outliers.
Whoa! I was just teasing!! I actually thought you wrote a very nice review. I read the whole thing, and I even thought, "that sounds like a really cool book to get if I ever do any more kernel hacking."
Good job. And thanks for the other insightful posts that you often make. I think you're one of the best contributors to slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
So what you're looking for is a financially conservative party that doesn't give a crap about what you do for entertainment, as long as those involved are consenting adults.
Is that correct?
Aren't those people called "libertarians?" I hear that they actually do exist. You can vote for them, and if their isn't a libertarian on the ballot in your district, then you could run yourself.
You don't have to win the election to make a difference: Ross Perot and Ralph Nader have both demonstrated that third party candidates can have a huge impact in the result even when they don't win.
(BTW: "You" in this post doesn't refer to Beardo even though I'm replying to his post)
There are dozens of stipulations to how the freedom of speech works. SCOTA has direct and pertinent domain over deciding what free speech is...
What exactly is SCOTA?
Is this a fad that probably SHOULD pass? Maybe. Is it being overused now? Definitely. Is it going anywhere, as long as the studios can reap big money off of it? Almost certainly not.
I hope that BAD 3D passes quickly. I find that imperfect 3D gives me a headache. Avatar was fine for me, but other 3D films that I've seen have me constantly squinting as my eyes try to resolve the slight blurs and imperfections in the image, so I often leave with a headache.
And, yes, I am aware that 3D viewing requires that one pay attention only to the main element of the scene (trying to look at the background when only the foreground is in focus will always result in blurring even with the best 3D).
... and our understanding of how to effectively teach appears to be stuck in the middle ages. (I rather suspect it isn't, rather that there are so many conflicting requirements of any education system that it's more-or-less impossible to meet them all without some serious compromises).
I would venture to say that our understanding of how to effectively teach needs to reach back further than the middle ages. I'd pick ancient Greece as a good starting point. Socrates had a really good system: small groups of students with a very competent and engaged educator. The best way to teach hasn't changed in several thousand years.
Many of our current education problems would be quickly solved if we hired the best and brightest to be teachers, gave them small classes so they could work individually with each student, and paid them enough that they want to keep the job. Anyone who looks at the best private schools can see that this is exactly what they do. (Giving the teacher the ability to permanently eject disruptive students would be helpful, too, but that's a different political debate.) The dilemma is that this approach is expensive.
All of the dancing around that we see with people finding "new approaches" for calculus education every couple years is really just a game to avoid the honest, expensive, solution. Instead of paying teachers more to keep the best ones around, we keep the salaries low to encourage the brightest ones to find other jobs. Then we pretend like using a new textbook that introduces set notation with car analogies will solve the education problem.
By the way, I speak as a college math professor who graduates a lot of "future teachers." Many of our students in the "Math Education" track are friendly, caring, motivated students who really want to be good high school math teachers. What I have observed is that four years out from graduation the best ones have usually left teaching careers for more lucrative jobs in industry. Occasionally, some of our star Math Ed. students land nice jobs teaching at private schools which have salaries comparable to industry.
Did they not have any time on the ground to destroy it or did they bug out the moment it touched down?
The crew stalled for as long as they could, but the Chinese gave them an ultimatum: come out right now or we will come in shooting.
The US learned with Gary Powers that giving people suicide orders is a very unreliable way to keep a secret. That's why I wouldn't expect thermite bricks on the equipment in a confined space in a pressurized airplane.
... Yet, syntactic matching appears to be exactly what this program is doing.
What constitutes "plagiarism" in a scientific paper is very different from plagiarism in journalism or English literature. In scientific writing, it is expected that authors will use the same flat, impersonal style and repeat definitions and the results of others to save the reader the time of having to look them up. So, simple pattern matching between science papers will result in a great many false positives. In science (and math) writing what matters is the new result which the author is claiming. It seems to me that it would be nearly impossible for a computer program to detect the distinction.
Hours of speculation and typing can save one minute of reading TFA. From the article:
"Unlike other plagiarism detectors, it does not use phrases or similar words to check for copying. Helio Text actually looks at the entirety of the text."
So no, it does not. It uses instead some sort of similarity metric computed from analyzing the entire text. This is possibly similar to the text distance metrics used in vector space search engine models (see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_space_model ). They will be publishing a paper online in PLoS ONE.
I did RTFA. However, there is no code, no algorithm description, no indication whatsoever in TFA describing exactly how their program operates. From the vague references in TFA it appears that this is nothing more than a glorified, article+abstract-wide, pattern matcher. Perhaps it is a little more clever and uses something similar to Google's page ranking algorithm via applying distance metrics to textual spaces. However, that is also a form of syntactic analysis rather than a context analysis. Barring further information on the algorithm, I can't see how your description invalidates my previous point.
I once had an English teacher who said, "If you have more than five consecutive words matching a source, without a citation then it's plagiarism." Perhaps that's how freshman writing assignments are graded, but it's silly when applied to scientific papers. Pick up any math paper on number theory, and you're bound to find the sentence "Let p be an odd prime number." without citation, but that would hardly qualify as plagiarism. Yet, syntactic matching appears to be exactly what this program is doing.
What constitutes "plagiarism" in a scientific paper is very different from plagiarism in journalism or English literature. In scientific writing, it is expected that authors will use the same flat, impersonal style and repeat definitions and the results of others to save the reader the time of having to look them up. So, simple pattern matching between science papers will result in a great many false positives. In science (and math) writing what matters is the new result which the author is claiming. It seems to me that it would be nearly impossible for a computer program to detect the distinction.
Thanks to both of you (AdmiralXyz and blueg3) for posting the recommendation. I'm a mathematician who has always wanted to know more physics, so this looks like a great reference for me.
I'm assuming that the architect will consult with the appropriate engineers before building the structure, but still I wonder how a house with airplane wings for roofs will fair in a major storm?
His tradeoff was he believed that he had to control the entire system. He made every decision. The boxes were locked.
It wasn't only back then, it's especially true today. I don't know why everyone on slashdot seems to give him a free pass but say DRM, locked-down hardware, restrictions, end user licenses and so on are bad. Apple and Steve Jobs is basically everything that we should be against. Even Windows is open, even if you don't get the source code. Linux is obviously the best choice.
Not really feasible for a 10 year old kid who is just starting to learn programming.
I think the reason that Apple is so celebrated here is that OS X provides what many long-time Linux users/developers have wanted: a highly functioning unix-like system under the hood with a nice polished user interface.
I do all of my "real work" on Linux systems, but my desktop and laptop are Macs because for most needs, it just works and I get a full bash shell and unix OS when needed. Yes, I pay a premium for that shiny hardware, but for me it's worth it not to have to deal with finding device drivers or re-compiling kernels, and it's nice to be able to view all forms of media, too.
Don't get me wrong. I still believe that Apple's DRM is evil and I wish that ever format was open and non-proprietary. I used to fight that fight when I was younger. But, now that I'm old, working full time, and have a family, I just don't have any energy left to get into fights with my desktop OS just to get some Dora The Explorer video to play for my kids.
But one problem is that the thread might be updating while you're typing. I've several times thought that I was the first person to present a particular idea only to watch it get modded redundant because another post shows up 5 seconds earlier (because it was posted while I was typing mine).
Same here.
I was running Linux back in the early 1990's and even submitting bug reports and fixes for the kernel. Over the course of my career I've admined numerous *nix boxes of all flavors. I'd always dreamed of the great and glorious future where the Linux desktop would reign supreme. I used to make fun of Macs and declare them "worse than Windows".
Then OS X came out. It was what I had envisioned for the Linux desktop, and for most of my needs it just worked without me having to spend hours reading poorly written man pages, struggling to find device drivers, or fixing code myself. I was willing to pay the premium to have that tedious work done for me.
Now, all my servers and big number-crunching machines are running Linux, but my desktop (and laptop) is a Mac. Pretty to look at, easy to use, and I can drop to a *nix environment anytime.
All of the characters except River and the Preacher could've been fed to the wraiths and the show would've been better for it.
the show sucked. bad.
Besides, you didn't counter the whole, low ratings and the fact that Dollhouse sucked too AND the Fox network did everything fans asked(Consistent timeslot, no preemption for sports, etc etc).
There's a reason why House is still on the air despite the so-bad-it-might-as-well-be-scifi take on medicine. Plus we totally got to see Lisa Edelstein nearly naked this season.
Clearly you didn't even watch the show. It was Reavers, not wraiths.
Besides, this is slashdot, you know, the website for nerds. If you don't like Firefly, then you should be posting on pompousliterarycritic.com not slashdot.
Thanks for posting that link. I was ignorant of Stanislav Petrov and of how close the US and USSR came to a full nuclear exchange. That was a sobering read.
I certainly understand your annoyance with C++. I also find it to be a "dirty" language with lots of kludging to get around defects. But, then I find something to grumble about with every language I've used.
FORTRAN was perfect for number crunching on machines that don't exist anymore. I never found any other use for it.
With C I used to get annoyed with its inconsistent handling of carry flags, endianness, floating point standards, default int sizes, etc., so I often found myself building huge #ifdef trees to handle platform and compiler idiosyncrasies.
Ada is great to read, but it's the most burdensome language to write that I have ever encountered.
Perl is great to write, but it's the most burdensome language to read that I have ever encountered.
Python could be really nice to code, but what's with the significant whitespace?
Java is a good language for beginners, but it's a little too Ada-like for my taste.
Lisp is a good language for masters, but it's a little too parenthetical for my taste.
I could go on... the point is, it's easy to grumble about any language, but all of the popular languages exist and are widely used because they solved a particular set of problems well enough that it was worthwhile for a large number of people to use them. When the problem set changes, then we see the balance shift (how may FORTRAN or Ada programmers do you know?) and new languages come along.
Now I hear the young kids talking about this rubies on train tracks thing... guess I better go look at it.
No, but providing someone with a unit to calculate (for example) a transformation doesn't mean that you give them an efficient way of computing FFTs. Of course if you give them a general purpose matrix-vector multiplier then it does. In 2004 a graphics card used a fixed function unit, and today it uses a general purpose one. Assumptions about how obvious it is that other applications can be performed don't carry back to previous generations of the hardware.
I do believe that you are arguing in good faith and that you are not a troll, and I understand your argument. Here are the things which I believe were obvious (to general practitioners in the field) in the 1990s:
1. Video display and video (de)compression are essentially large linear algebra problems which lend themselves to vector processing.
2. Video display hardware will continue to improve.
3. Eventually video display hardware will become sufficiently powerful to perform video (de)compression.
The reason I believe that those were all obvious to practitioners in the field in the 1990s is because they were obvious to me in the 1990s and I wasn't even a specialist in the field. (I was, however, working on large number-crunchy stuff). I would suspect that the true experts in those fields were well aware of all three of the above points even in the 1980s.
I'll have to end my participation in this thread, now, and get back to real work...
[me] If something is obvious to an expert in the field, then it shouldn't be patentable.
[westlake] A patent is awarded for a clearly described and working implementation of an idea. It isn't enough to say - in a vague sort of way - that the idea alone seems obvious enough in retrospect.
[prgrmr] Under the current patent law in the US, the obviousness tests hinges upon "a person having ordinary skill in the art"; so if it takes an expert to realize how to take an idea and make it real (i.e., the transformative part), then, by definition in the law, it's NOT obvious.
I was asserting what should be, not what actually is :-)
So again I'll ask you; why is it obvious that units designed to do transformation, lighting and rasterisation (not general vector operations) should be good at encoding video?
Because (linear) transformations, lighting and rasterisation are just large matrix-vector operations... as is the FFT which is central to every video compression algorithm. Just because the words are different doesn't mean that the math is different.
Why would it be obvious that hardware designed to accelerate 3d rendering - transformation, lighting and rasterisation - can accelerate the compression of video frames?
It seems that you are 'obviously' wrong.
It's seems incredibly obvious to me. Of course, I've worked on FFT code for Cray vector units which were around a long time before 2004. If you can't see the relationship between vector processing, FFTs, and any form of video compression/display, then perhaps you shouldn't be in charge of determining what is "obvious" regarding this particular patent.
I have long felt that our patent system is ridiculous because it allows such silly patents. If something is obvious to an expert in the field, then it shouldn't be patentable.
Okay, that's two!
(Yeah, 40gr seems a bit lite to me, but it is sufficient... and substantially cheaper for practice purposes than your suggestions.)
40 grains cures it just fine...
Wrong website. Although, I am curious about how many computer geeks get this reference. Most of the ones I encounter (I'm in academia) would assume that you've misspelled "grams" and were talking about a mood stabilizing drug.
I know I gave up.
Unless a miracle occurs and I find a job in November, I'm going to earn a third degree in Public Policy. Or possibly Business Administration. Haven't really decided which is the best course yet but I know hardware/digital design has reached a dead end. The stuff is getting outsourced to low-cost Indians (and I don't blame the managers; I'd do the same).
Good luck and best wishes on the tech job hunt. The MBA might lead to a larger salary, but it leads to the dark side. (Then again, I've secretly wanted to spray lightning from my fingertips for quite a while...)
Consider a country with ten people, one making $1M and nine making $1k. If the first guy's income doubles and the other nine are halved, then the mean, median, and total all go up, while the average quality of life goes down. This may sound silly, but the situation in the USA is *worse* than this, proportionally.
Actually, the median would go down in the example you are describing. That's why we often care more about the median than the mean in population statistics. The median is less sensitive to outliers.
Whoa! I was just teasing!! I actually thought you wrote a very nice review. I read the whole thing, and I even thought, "that sounds like a really cool book to get if I ever do any more kernel hacking."
Good job. And thanks for the other insightful posts that you often make. I think you're one of the best contributors to slashdot.
"To keep this review relatively concise, I'll only fully cover the content in the first half of the book."
Yeah, I only read the first half of my assignments before writing the reports, too :-)