Put a sock in it. Your government discriminates against unmarried people of all sexualities, Gogole discriminates against unmarried heterosexual people.

I think what happens is that health benefits to your spouse are tax free. Health benefits to your partner to whom you're not married are not - and gay couples can't get married. Of course this screws over the non-married heterosexual couples - maybe Google should just pay the tax for everyone who gets charged it.

Spelling errors yes, syntax errors no. So do please read the whole tree of the comment thread above the post you wish to dissect.

If the raw physical limits of machines are taken into account, every algorithm becomes O(1).

Your logic is an exact analogy to "Bubblesort is O(1) - a naive analysis says O(n^2), but because n is bounded to 2^64 on 64 bit machines, it's actually O(2^128) which is actually O(1)".

O(1) *is* O(100000). The point of the article is that memory access is not O(1) - it's O(n) or worse.

He does know what he's talking about.

Where, n is the number of items stored, the lookup time is given by log(n)*COMPARRISON_COST + log(n)*MEMORY_ACCESS_COST.
That gives O(logn) only if COMPARRISON_COST and MEMORY_ACCESS_COST are *constant* - the entire point of the article is that MEMORY_ACCESS_COST is not constant, but increases as n increases.

Most geeks I know have both - they have a desktop for the reasons you mentioned, and a laptop because they never go anywhere without a computer and desktops aren't very portable. Most non-geeks I know only have a laptop. They care mostly about email, web browsing, word processing and iPlayer. A modern laptop is more than capable of handling that.

It doesn't matter what they want - you're in a much stronger position than them.
The copyright on the original, developed before you were employed by them, very probably belongs to you. The final project is a derived work of this original. Distribution of a derived work requires the consent of the copyright holder of both the original and derived work - you can prevent them from distributing the project at all (even internally) by refusing to grant a license of the original work. Simply 'remind' them that they do not currently have the right to use the final project at all.

Exactly the same number who would have gone with the torrent if this DRM system hadn't been used. So they haven't gained anything. However, they will irritate customers who don't connect to the internet when playing games - for example, people who take their laptops on flights for entertainment.

Blanket email the entire company pointing out that the Department of Homeland Security recommends against using Internet Explorer for reasons of National Security.

Opposition to the abolishment of the slave trade was also mainly carried out by Christians, as was the slave trade itself. And would there really be so many child rape victims if the Catholic Church didn't exist, or didn't have a dogmatic requirment that priests not marry?

Except laptops capable of playing games are more popular than ever - and laptops are frequently taken to locations with no internet access.

To play one of these games in a moral and convienient way, you'd need to buy a genuine copy and then download a pirated version that allows you to play when you're on a plane, when Ubisoft's servers go down, when your connection goes down etc. The stated intent of DRM is to make it easy for gamers to do the right thing - but they achieve exactly the opposite, as users who do the wrong thing get a better gameplay experience.

By contrast, Liberal Arts grads. are trained to see both sides of the story and to offer a 'balanced' perspective. But they're unable to cope with issues that aren't a template of 'there are two sides to every story and they're both equally valid' - which is a problem because most situations do not have two valid 'sides' and because the media, and news in paticular, is dominated by Liberal Arts grads.

Which is why science reporting is so crap - no, saying that the LHC will create a black hole the will destroy the earth is not an 'equally valid viewpoint' that the BBC should report in the interest of balance.