Dollars to donuts you don't read it in the original Hebrew.
I did/do.:)
The bible is a compilation of texts
No, the Old Testament is a compilation of texts. The Bible was dictated by G-d to Moses (and Joshua, according to some for the last eight verses). For those who do not believe in the divinity of the Bible, it has been specualated that the four different tones of the verses (basically, the Keirseian four types) were most likely four different authors (though, they could have been in the same room at the same time). For timing, differing terminologies point infer different time periods.
and the records of the compiling process exist (hence we know that the book of Esther, for example, was considered and rejected for inclusion.)
Ehem? Doest thou know what you are talking about?
The Book of Esther is part of the Bible, all 10 chapters of it, and we read it publically on Purim, just like it says to do. The only book that was "considered and rejected" was Ben Sira (Sirach, Ecclesiasticus, or whatever you prefer to call it). Ezekial was considered for rejection, but was included in the end.
The only records we have of the Cannonization of the Old Testament are recorded in the Talmud well over half a millenium later.
This process leads to the myriad inconsistencies (or continuity errors, if you want to be glib) in the text. The seven days of creation comes from a different author than the Adam and Eve story, and still other rejected stories exist where Eve is Adam's second wife, etc.
The idea of Adam having a second wife is well recveived, and some say even a third. It is not stated expliclty, but the MIdrash points it out from inference.
The Apple ][e's when fully loaded were 16k rom, 48k ram, 64k expanded memory (standard in ][c.)
Heh. We had the "enhanced" sticker on ours because of the extra memory.:)
Anyway a high end 286 (the kind that was used for OS2 1.3 for example) might have had 4 megs. But going to 4 megs as part of a 286->386 upgrade would have been reasonable.
Makes sense.
Anyway if that's the case the time for the memory was a bios setting. You didn't have to live with it:-(. There were 3 settings: full, quick and none. You were probably doing a full check and yes that would have taken over a minute.
I hang my head in shame. I knew nearly nothing about computers at the time. I remeber purchasing a mouse and thinking it was a cool new toy.
Where did you get the 8086 with 4 megs of ram? Especially since it could only address 1 meg (excluding expanded memory which were nowhere near that big). 4 megs was pretty unusual even for 80286s (which were generally 1 meg) the low end 386s didn't have 4 megs until around the time of the 80486-33; because it was the arrival of the the 4 meg sims that dropped the price on 1 meg sims to a level where joe average buyer wanted enough ram to run more than Dos apps.
Oh my, it was a 80286, that we "upgraded" to a 80386, unless it was the 8086 to the 80286, coming from the Apple ][e, it was all terribly confusing to me.:) My mother won it at an auction so we got what we got, then my brother helped with the upgrade.
I seem to remember having 4 MB of memory, and it being expensive, and then watching those numbers crawl during the POST.
I don't think 4 meg was unusual, because the slots were there for it on the motherboard. But you've cast doubt on my memory.
Regardless, bootup times now area breeze compared to then.
The person who asked this question is a moron. A computer is a piece of electroniuc equipment that can do billions of operations every second. We're down from a few minutes of boot time (remember how long it took an 8086 to boot? Counting through *all* four meg of ram!) to some seconds and he wants to know why it isn't instant.
Go read a book on how computers work. An old one such as Norton's Inside the 8086 should suffice (or whatever the name is.) The documentation is out there, if you really care, find it and read it.
But please, don't ask stupid questions. What next? Will people ask what acronyms stand for?
The beauty of that "troll" is, you didn't even read the rest of my comment! I mentioned good ol Al as a side swipe, In reality, he had nothing to do with my comment.
Can you imagine the world without the Web? (It was only about 10 years ago.)
The web was created by Al Gore in 1996?
My word ignorance has passed on even to our elders./me cries.
Just a quick look at AltaVista's about pages shows they *indexed* the web in 95. Of course, the Internet wasn't there before Google, so it must be bogus.
RFC 1580/FYI23 which was published in March 1994, contains a definition of the web.
In actuality, the World Wide Web came about in 1992 about 15 years ago.
Now, had Bjorn meant that slashdotters wouldn't remember before ten years ago because that's about how old most moderators are, i could understand, but he should have been more clear on the matter.
This technology allows to record and store at least 1,000 GB of data on multiple layers of a single disc...this technique will increase the storage capacity of a standard DVD to more than a terabyte.
Now, this becomes especially noticeable if we take the "1000" thing all the way through:
1 Terabyte (according to this cockamamie 1000 scheme) = 1,000,000,000,000 bytes 1 Terabyte (in reality) = 1,099,511,627,776 bytes
The difference is 99,511,627,776 bytes or 92 (rounded down) Gigabytes. That's a loss of just under 10%. It used to be a stupid marketing trick, can please we be serious about it now?
In our day, with mad corporations charging for everything, where air, dirt, and water are sold for high prices, where ideas are protected by law, and fighting for things to be free marks you as a unsociable freak, finding a particle--no matter how small--that comes at no charge, is very significant.
That the discoverer did not immediately take ownership shows great humanitarian value.
The only issues i see now are, giving her an award that is worth more than the particle would seem to add ulterior motives to not owning it. And, being a lone free particle, it shall surely be sold at auction for its unqiueness, as long as James Tiberias does not point out the very contradiction in its own existence, which would cause it to implode.
Twenty years from now, experts doubt that America will remain a dominant force in science as it was during the last century.
/me cries. Do they actually enforce bad writing now?
That sentence tells me that in a score of years henceforth, beebo famulus's appointed "experts" will doubt if America will remain a dominant force within 100 years of the Earth's destruction.
Utter rubbish, as usual. Just like those idiotic programmers who start counting from zero.
Repeat after me: Zero is not a number. I didn't hear you, say it again.
Let's get this straight. A number is representative of a quantity.
Zero represent "nothing". "Nothing" is not a quantity. It is, well...nothing. Ergo, zero is not representative of a quantity, which means Zero is not a number.
Why is is so hard for people to understand that?
Anyway, math works with numbers, not programmers' fallacious ideas.
It's good that as a rule division by zero is not allowed. Adding this programmers' idea of division by zero would surely add a bug to the system. Yes, and some moron is bound to give us a patch, as this one just did. But guess what, it was wrong in the first place, and should be removed from any support whatsoever.
"IBM is working with European astronomy organization Astron to design a chip that will be used to help gather billions-of-years-old radio signals from deep space in the hopes of learning more about the origins of the universe.
IBM blew past the idea to go by the book and use OCR on a Bible to get an old testament about this instead of channeling their radical (radiocal) efforts to chip away at this spacey idea of extratextual evidence.
Just a thought, don't write the code yourself right away. As on the mailing list if some pseudo-code would help implement some feature. Afterwards, code it.
Besides having submitted at least pseudocode (which someone else may just write for you) you'll be able to hear if its already beenm done.
being selected from approximately 2,500 entrants is nothing to sneeze at.
Sysadmin of the Year: Hey Mr. Judge man, pick a winner. Judge: Huh, choose? Sysadmin of the Year: You have a cold? Judge: I am not old! Sysadmin of the Year: That's what the guy in the yarn store said. Judge: What story are trying to spin? Sysadmin of the Year: Great, now we know who will win. Judge: What? Sysadmin of the Year: Thanx so much.
It seems like they could spend money on so many different things. . . . They need to catch speeders more than tailgaters."
Umm, no. Tailgaters are worse. There can be a smart speeder. There is no such thing as smart tailgater. Becauses, it is not speeding that causes accidents, it's the person speeding needs to take extra caution. It can be done, even if it usually is not. Tailgating in-and-of-itself is dangerous.
"I've seen people at 0.04 seconds. That is less than half a second," he said.
Talk about enlightening comments.:)
Some of the comments there say that someone else will just pull ahead of you. Ahem, they will then get tickets. That's the point. Then they complain that they're close for a minute and get tickets, well, this complaint and the first complaint are opposites.
I hope these tickets work. Next we can take on gawkers.
The BBC itself is not considered the most open form of media without some bias. How do we know that when they say they received no credible counter-claims, that they indeed are telling the truth?
is making more of the counter-claims then they are
Repeat after me: Effect amongst men, requires a then. Comparative man, will then use than.
The "essay" is nothing but speculation with a few facts, no references, and no actual testing or experience. I'm sure this is an amusing blog entry, but why is it on Slashdot? There's nothing to discuss.
Slashdot Mirror
Dollars to donuts you don't read it in the original Hebrew.
:)
I did/do.
The bible is a compilation of texts
No, the Old Testament is a compilation of texts. The Bible was dictated by G-d to Moses (and Joshua, according to some for the last eight verses). For those who do not believe in the divinity of the Bible, it has been specualated that the four different tones of the verses (basically, the Keirseian four types) were most likely four different authors (though, they could have been in the same room at the same time). For timing, differing terminologies point infer different time periods.
and the records of the compiling process exist (hence we know that the book of Esther, for example, was considered and rejected for inclusion.)
Ehem? Doest thou know what you are talking about?
The Book of Esther is part of the Bible, all 10 chapters of it, and we read it publically on Purim, just like it says to do. The only book that was "considered and rejected" was Ben Sira (Sirach, Ecclesiasticus, or whatever you prefer to call it). Ezekial was considered for rejection, but was included in the end.
The only records we have of the Cannonization of the Old Testament are recorded in the Talmud well over half a millenium later.
This process leads to the myriad inconsistencies (or continuity errors, if you want to be glib) in the text. The seven days of creation comes from a different author than the Adam and Eve story, and still other rejected stories exist where Eve is Adam's second wife, etc.
The idea of Adam having a second wife is well recveived, and some say even a third. It is not stated expliclty, but the MIdrash points it out from inference.
Heh. Very cute. :)
The Apple ][e's when fully loaded were 16k rom, 48k ram, 64k expanded memory (standard in ][c.)
:)
:-(. There were 3 settings: full, quick and none. You were probably doing a full check and yes that would have taken over a minute.
Heh. We had the "enhanced" sticker on ours because of the extra memory.
Anyway a high end 286 (the kind that was used for OS2 1.3 for example) might have had 4 megs. But going to 4 megs as part of a 286->386 upgrade would have been reasonable.
Makes sense.
Anyway if that's the case the time for the memory was a bios setting. You didn't have to live with it
I hang my head in shame. I knew nearly nothing about computers at the time. I remeber purchasing a mouse and thinking it was a cool new toy.
Where did you get the 8086 with 4 megs of ram? Especially since it could only address 1 meg (excluding expanded memory which were nowhere near that big). 4 megs was pretty unusual even for 80286s (which were generally 1 meg) the low end 386s didn't have 4 megs until around the time of the 80486-33; because it was the arrival of the the 4 meg sims that dropped the price on 1 meg sims to a level where joe average buyer wanted enough ram to run more than Dos apps.
:) My mother won it at an auction so we got what we got, then my brother helped with the upgrade.
Oh my, it was a 80286, that we "upgraded" to a 80386, unless it was the 8086 to the 80286, coming from the Apple ][e, it was all terribly confusing to me.
I seem to remember having 4 MB of memory, and it being expensive, and then watching those numbers crawl during the POST.
I don't think 4 meg was unusual, because the slots were there for it on the motherboard. But you've cast doubt on my memory.
Regardless, bootup times now area breeze compared to then.
I read it... I just missed the point. My fault, and apologies for the rant.
:)
Heh.
Mod me down, i don't care.
The person who asked this question is a moron. A computer is a piece of electroniuc equipment that can do billions of operations every second. We're down from a few minutes of boot time (remember how long it took an 8086 to boot? Counting through *all* four meg of ram!) to some seconds and he wants to know why it isn't instant.
Go read a book on how computers work. An old one such as Norton's Inside the 8086 should suffice (or whatever the name is.) The documentation is out there, if you really care, find it and read it.
But please, don't ask stupid questions. What next? Will people ask what acronyms stand for?
The beauty of that "troll" is, you didn't even read the rest of my comment! I mentioned good ol Al as a side swipe, In reality, he had nothing to do with my comment.
Can you imagine the world without the Web? (It was only about 10 years ago.)
/me cries.
The web was created by Al Gore in 1996?
My word ignorance has passed on even to our elders.
Just a quick look at AltaVista's about pages shows they *indexed* the web in 95. Of course, the Internet wasn't there before Google, so it must be bogus.
RFC 1580/FYI23 which was published in March 1994, contains a definition of the web.
In actuality, the World Wide Web came about in 1992 about 15 years ago.
Now, had Bjorn meant that slashdotters wouldn't remember before ten years ago because that's about how old most moderators are, i could understand, but he should have been more clear on the matter.
Dupe
Talk about old news.
This technology allows to record and store at least 1,000 GB of data on multiple layers of a single disc...this technique will increase the storage capacity of a standard DVD to more than a terabyte.
1000GB != 1 Terabyte.
1024GB = 1 Terabyte
More specifically:
1 Terabyte = 1,099,511,627,776 bytes
1 Gigabyte = 1,073,741,824 bytes
Therefore
1000 Gigabyte = 1,073,741,824,000 bytes
1,099,511,627,776 - 1,073,741,824,000 = 25,769,803,776 or, well, 24G.
Now, this becomes especially noticeable if we take the "1000" thing all the way through:
1 Terabyte (according to this cockamamie 1000 scheme) = 1,000,000,000,000 bytes
1 Terabyte (in reality) = 1,099,511,627,776 bytes
The difference is 99,511,627,776 bytes or 92 (rounded down) Gigabytes. That's a loss of just under 10%. It used to be a stupid marketing trick, can please we be serious about it now?
Mod parent up!
:)
Silly moderators don't understand a good pun when the see it.
deplane
deplane, deplane!
I keep having this fantasy where i land on a midget heralding my visit with a roar kind of.
Tiny Particle With No Charge Discovered
In our day, with mad corporations charging for everything, where air, dirt, and water are sold for high prices, where ideas are protected by law, and fighting for things to be free marks you as a unsociable freak, finding a particle--no matter how small--that comes at no charge, is very significant.
That the discoverer did not immediately take ownership shows great humanitarian value.
The only issues i see now are, giving her an award that is worth more than the particle would seem to add ulterior motives to not owning it. And, being a lone free particle, it shall surely be sold at auction for its unqiueness, as long as James Tiberias does not point out the very contradiction in its own existence, which would cause it to implode.
Twenty years from now, experts doubt that America will remain a dominant force in science as it was during the last century.
/me cries. Do they actually enforce bad writing now?
That sentence tells me that in a score of years henceforth, beebo famulus's appointed "experts" will doubt if America will remain a dominant force within 100 years of the Earth's destruction.
Does anyone know who to write anymore?
Utter rubbish, as usual. Just like those idiotic programmers who start counting from zero.
Repeat after me: Zero is not a number. I didn't hear you, say it again.
Let's get this straight. A number is representative of a quantity.
Zero represent "nothing".
"Nothing" is not a quantity. It is, well...nothing.
Ergo, zero is not representative of a quantity, which means Zero is not a number.
Why is is so hard for people to understand that?
Anyway, math works with numbers, not programmers' fallacious ideas.
It's good that as a rule division by zero is not allowed. Adding this programmers' idea of division by zero would surely add a bug to the system. Yes, and some moron is bound to give us a patch, as this one just did. But guess what, it was wrong in the first place, and should be removed from any support whatsoever.
"IBM is working with European astronomy organization Astron to design a chip that will be used to help gather billions-of-years-old radio signals from deep space in the hopes of learning more about the origins of the universe.
IBM blew past the idea to go by the book and use OCR on a Bible to get an old testament about this instead of channeling their radical (radiocal) efforts to chip away at this spacey idea of extratextual evidence.
IPCop is famed for letting users setup a sophisticated firewall for ones network
It is "one's" not "ones". And, it would have been better to say "for their network".
Is *any* editting done?
Having recently being passed in the Senate by only 2 votes
You think they had a fever of 30c?
/me cries. Why could not noone speech English no more?
Just a thought, don't write the code yourself right away. As on the mailing list if some pseudo-code would help implement some feature. Afterwards, code it.
Besides having submitted at least pseudocode (which someone else may just write for you) you'll be able to hear if its already beenm done.
This whole idea sounds pretty shaky.
Time to wrap myself in Microwave Popcorn Bags.
mmmmmm.....popcorn.
being selected from approximately 2,500 entrants is nothing to sneeze at.
Sysadmin of the Year: Hey Mr. Judge man, pick a winner.
Judge: Huh, choose?
Sysadmin of the Year: You have a cold?
Judge: I am not old!
Sysadmin of the Year: That's what the guy in the yarn store said.
Judge: What story are trying to spin?
Sysadmin of the Year: Great, now we know who will win.
Judge: What?
Sysadmin of the Year: Thanx so much.
It seems like they could spend money on so many different things. . . . They need to catch speeders more than tailgaters."
:)
Umm, no. Tailgaters are worse. There can be a smart speeder. There is no such thing as smart tailgater. Becauses, it is not speeding that causes accidents, it's the person speeding needs to take extra caution. It can be done, even if it usually is not. Tailgating in-and-of-itself is dangerous.
"I've seen people at 0.04 seconds. That is less than half a second," he said.
Talk about enlightening comments.
Some of the comments there say that someone else will just pull ahead of you. Ahem, they will then get tickets. That's the point. Then they complain that they're close for a minute and get tickets, well, this complaint and the first complaint are opposites.
I hope these tickets work. Next we can take on gawkers.
The BBC itself is not considered the most open form of media without some bias. How do we know that when they say they received no credible counter-claims, that they indeed are telling the truth?
is making more of the counter-claims then they are
Repeat after me: Effect amongst men, requires a then. Comparative man, will then use than.
The "essay" is nothing but speculation with a few facts, no references, and no actual testing or experience. I'm sure this is an amusing blog entry, but why is it on Slashdot? There's nothing to discuss.
Just like your comment?