Comment Re:Shocking! (Score 1) 234
When asked for comment, I hear one of the lawyers replied "ORA-01337: Message 1337 not found".
When asked for comment, I hear one of the lawyers replied "ORA-01337: Message 1337 not found".
But how do they get the laser there? If it were near the surface, a laser could be used. But deeper in the body, liver, brain, etc., how do you get laser light in there to cause the drug bomb to be dropped?
It's been a while since I studied optical therapy (before dropping out a PhD program in medical biophysics), but I'm pretty sure I remember that you can use fiber-optics. I think it's relatively "easy" (and not too invasive) to poke the patient with a fine fiber-optic cable (guided by ultrasound, I suppose) that delivers the laser light at the target site. In theory, I suppose they might be able to leave the fiber-optics in the patient for a while to deliver treatment over a few days/weeks (like a sort of "optical catheter").
Now, I only had about four weeks of classes on optical therapy 6 years ago (as part of a course that also covered thermal and radiation therapies), so I'm only barely more qualified to write on the subject than most anonymous internet jackasses. That said, I do have a clear memory of slides from class with patients with fiber-optic cables poking into their heads or other parts of their bodies, so I remember that it can be done.
486 came in a DX model which ran at 33/66Mhz. The 1st Pentiums came in at 75Mhz. The only 286 i remember was a Unisys 8 or 10Mhz. I'm just sayin.
The 486DX4s ran at 75Mhz (with a 25Mhz bus, since despite the name, they only had a 3x multiplier. The DX4-100 had a 33Mhz FSB.). The first Pentiums were 60 or 66Mhz, with no multiplier (i.e. the CPU and FSB were clocked the same). The 75Mhz Pentiums came a year later and ran on a 50Mhz FSB (at 1.5x), and were cheaper (or at least the same price) compared to the 66Mhz model (since you had a faster CPU, but slower bus), if I recall correctly.
Perhaps because of 1984, but perhaps because that TV has become a major part of people's reality and has so far only been one way.
Or because TVs are more likely to be found in bedrooms and other places where people would very much not want to be seen by others. Unlike laptops (which can be closed and/or moved), those TVs are always pointed so that you can see them from the bed. This means that if it has a camera, it can watch you have sex, it can watch you watch porn (which, Slashdot readers notwithstanding, is more likely on a TV than a computer), and (if the angle is wide enough) it can watch you get dressed in the morning.
A TV in a common room with a camera is potentially acceptable, but making it a standard feature of every TV would be a catastrophically bad idea. There are some places that cameras just do not belong. Like my bathroom.
While I distlike the idea of TVs in bedrooms (unless you're a college kid whose only private space is the bedroom), I have to strongly disagree with the idea that a TV with a camera (that can watch you without your knowledge) in a common room is even remotely acceptable. Most of the time that I spend interacting with my child is in the living room, with the TV in plain sight, on standby (unless we're watching Sesame Street). I am strongly opposed to the very idea that someone could be watching or listening to what I'm teaching my children. (For what it's worth, I don't have anything to hide, assuming a secular upbringing loosely based on the "golden rule" isn't outlawed anytime soon, but if it were to be outlawed, I wouldn't want my TV ratting me out.)
To be honest, I would rather have a camera in the bedroom. I don't particularly care about shadowy figures watching me have sex with my wife. (We enjoy it, but we're not especially camera-friendly, and we don't do anything that you couldn't find much more professional "amateurs" doing online.) The values that we instill in our children are personal and way more important than our naked asses.
Who brought up the word "politician" (before you)?
The grandparent (and the referenced French law) talk about people "working in government" (i.e. bureaucrats + politicians, but the bureaucrats far outnumber the politicians).
Was Randall Long elected to his position at the FTC? No? So, he's not a politician. He's a former bureaucrat. Sure, many bureaucracies have generous pension plans, but they tend to be linked to the number of years served. Thus, your "serve a month and get payed for 40" example is completely irrelevant.
I am genuinely curious about how the law in France works, with regards to bureaucrats being able to support themselves after leaving their positions. Do they receive some sort of government compensation during this period? Or is it, as another post suggested, simply the case that the rule serves to keep people in the bureaucracy?
Do you really think politicians loose their income when they loose office? You are a moron.
Classic...
The American method of 'learning' is mostly rote learning. This does not help. As Einstein once said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
Really? As a Canadian living in Romania, I have to strongly disagree. The education system here appears to be heavily based on rote learning (much moreso than I saw in Canada or attending American schools in my childhood). The folks I have hired have had excellent imagination, in spite of, not because of, their education (and have generally been the ones who skipped a lot of classes at university and taught themselves the required material).
That said, I previously worked (in Canada) as a physics researcher in a hospital, and we would regularly "joke" about the MDs not being "real doctors" (in contrast to how most people view PhDs), since their main skill appeared to be rote memorization. (See also Richard Feynman's story about his diagram of cat anatomy when he gave a presentation to some med students.) Of couse, as a sibling post says, most medicine comes down to reproducing what is already known (as it should be).
I now look at doctors the way I look at lawyers. To get in, you don't need to be creative (and in fact, you probably shouldn't be, or should suppress it until you've already proven yourself), you just need to know the existing "case law" very very well. Mostly, your job is to identify stuff that has been seen before (taking into account quite a lot of subtle data) and go directly to the most successful known solution. If you want to be imaginative as a doctor, you can go the MD/PhD route (which, in my opinion, makes you a superstar), I suppose, or run the risk of losing your job by doing something no one else has done before (and hence is not "approved").
Incidentally, this is how "break" is implemented in Scala. There is no break keyword in the language, but it is implemented at the library level by throwing/catching an exception.
Here's the source code:
https://lampsvn.epfl.ch/trac/scala/browser/scala/tags/R_2_9_1_final/src//library/scala/util/control/Breaks.scala#L1
I agree. But I would prefer a puzzle to questions like "where do you see yourself in 5 years" and "what are your goals". I want to answer "My goal is to get hired. Why else would I answer such stupid questions?"
I believe Mitch Hedberg said that to "Where do you see yourself in 5 years?" in an interview, he replied, "Celebrating the fifth anniversary of you asking me that question!"
TL:DR? Novell had PLENTY of time to come out with a new product but instead hung onto the old code for too long and by the time they saw the train it ran them over.
They didn't hang onto the old code. Novell only owned WordPerfect between buying it in June 1994 and selling it to Corel in January 1996. (Technically, they did hold onto some of the WordPerfect libraries, which they integrated into GroupWoes.)
Personally, I find MathWorld pretty good for that purpose. Most articles are pretty encyclopedic in nature -- providing first a simple, general explanation, then diving deeper into the more complicated stuff (where the math gets more advanced by necessity).
Unfortunately, the article on floating-point arithmetic is just a one-liner (likely because it's more computer science than math).
There's a few main issues.
1) Angle.
2) Delay.
3) Controller.
The camera needs to be higher to give a better vantage point.
The camera has to be able to do real-time video. 30ms delay is good. 60ms is okay, 200ms is unacceptable. If you have a GeForce card, use nHancer to raise or lower the Prerender Limit. That's the number of frames that can or do get rendered/stored, to maintain a smooth framerate. Bigger number usually increases delay, making it difficult to play.
The wheel is another area where there's input delay. It takes time to spin it rather than just pressing a button.
It's possible that these people were playing with ~500ms delay. That's quite nasty. It'd take a few hours of playing to get used to it, but it'd still be a big problem compared to no delay.
But maybe that's just me. Maybe you'd stay out of harm's way and watch the poor guy bleed to death because you're suspicious of the Americans. Hell, this'll probably be used by terrorist recruiters. "Oh, you think the Americans are here to save you? Look at this! A family tried to save a wounded man, and they shot down the entire family and the wounded man! They justified it by calling it a battle zone!"
There is zero justification for being pumped full of adrenaline and begging to shoot at a vehicle that picked up a wounded man. They seriously couldn't wait half a second to see if the vehicle actually picked up any bodies or weapons?
Copyright that last forever is the problem here.
Current U.S. copyright for an individual is life plus 70 years and for a corporation 95 years. Since both of those are longer then the U.S. life expectancy, copyright is now infinite. I guess Jack Valenti got his wish.
I like to commute to work in (what is to me) a self-driving vehicle. I play on my DS while doing it.
I call it a subway. (Though buses and trains also work.)
A penny saved is a penny to squander. -- Ambrose Bierce
