Comment Re:I guess that robot can finally get off it's but (Score 1) 87
For the same reason the Canadarm does... to anchor it to various points on the vehicle.
For the same reason the Canadarm does... to anchor it to various points on the vehicle.
Like the Canadarm?
Gee, maybe the agency that needed it's services and couldn't do it itself?
I don't believe that anybody actually believes all that claptrap about Xenu.. L Ron Hubbard made it all up to bilk money out of desparate people, and plenty of other folk are happy to continue the premise and keep the money flowing.. but does anybody actually believe it? I doubt it..
Does anybody actually believe it? Given the tenacity of the Co$, sadly I'd have to say the answer is yes. Not everyone involved in that group is exchanging winks off-stage. Some have actually drunk the kool-aid.
Is it in either the Kerbal Space Program or Elite: Dangerous?
If I can't launch it or blow it up, how can I know if it really exists?
Ok, the envelope game. You can rework it to say the second envelope contains the next vulnerability in the queue of vulnerabilities. An empty queue is just as valid as a non-empty one, so if there are no further flaws then the envelope is empty. That way, all states are handled identically. What you REALLY want to do though is add a third envelope, also next item inquire, from QA. You do NOT know which envelope contains the most valuable prize but unless two bugs are found simultaneously (in which case you have bigger problems than game theory), you absolutely know two of the envelopes contain nothing remotely as valuable as the third. If no bugs are known at the time, or no more exist - essentially the same thing as you can't prove completeness and correctness at the same time, then the thousand dollars is the valuable one.
Monty Hall knows what is in two of the envelopes, but not what is in the third. Assuming simultaneous bug finds can be ignored, he can guess. Whichever envelope you choose, he will pick the least valuable envelope and show you that it is empty. Should you stick with your original choice or switch envelopes?
Clearly, this outcome will differ from the scenario in the original field manual. Unless you understand why it is different in outcome, you cannot evaluate a bounty program.
Now, onto the example of the car automotive software. Let us say that locating bugs is in constant time for the same effort. Sending the software architect on a one-way trip to Siberia is definitely step one. Proper encapsulation and modularization is utterly fundamental. Constant time means the First Law of Coding has been broken, a worse misdeed than breaking the First Law of Time and the First Law of Robotics on a first date. You simply can't produce enough similar bugs any other way.
It also means the architect broke the Second Law of Coding - ringfence vulnerable code and validate all inputs to it. By specifically isolating dangerous code in this way, a method widely used, you make misbehaviour essentially impossible. The dodgy code may be there but it can't get data outside the range for which it is safe.
Finally, it means the programmers failed to read the CERT Secure Coding guidelines, failed to test (unit and integrated!) correctly, likely didn't bother with static checkers, failed to enable compiler warning flags and basically failed to think. Thoughtlessness qualifies them for the Pitcairn Islands. One way.
With the Pitcairns now overrun by unemployed automotive software engineers, society there will collapse and Thunderdome v1.0a will be built! With a patchset to be released, fixing bugs in harnesses and weapons, in coming months.
I'd think most expensive satellites have some form of thruster on them for retasking, station adjustment, and debris avoidance...?
Or, one could fall back on terrestrial radio for all of these examples...
Please define "organic food."
All food is organic, because our metabolism is organic chemistry.
Just checked with Firefox, Safari, and IE. The only thing special is that Firefox has adblock plus on it.
The reason two year old kids can use an iPad and aren't ready for standard Legos is because the latter requires more skill. TFA claims claims that exposing kids to technology is causing our civilization to spiral down the drain, but provides no evidence whatsoever, other than anecdotes and conjecture.
While no hyperbole such as civilization spiraling down the drain or even anything close to it TFA say that:
Children are arriving at nursery school able to "swipe a screen" but lacking the manipulative skills to play with building blocks, teachers have warned. They fear that children are being given tablets to use "as a replacement for contact time with the parent" and say such habits are hindering progress at school.
While as you write there is little support for what is written beyond anecdotes and conjecture it most definitely is something that deserve attention and scientific studies not people getting their panties in a bundle over imaginary luddites.
Do you really think that private school is the only alternative to public school?
No. But I know that whenever you have more than 1 child spending significant part of their time together bullying will occur. A lot can be done to limit the extent and severity of it but beyond keeping kids completely separated from other kids until they reach adulthood (as complete social disasters) nothing can be done to completely eliminate bullying. Even then there is no guarantee as there are cases of adult bullying kids, something I experienced between the ages of 9-12 when my teacher had me singled out as outlet for his personal failures.
No, that's dumb. Electrical appliances don't work without electricity. 2+2=4.
Computer Science is merely the post-Turing decline in formal systems theory.
