Link to PDF version for those without access to Nature. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.2030
No, no, no. You divide the larger by the difference.
From Jargon File (4.4.4, 14 Aug 2003) [jargon]:
mung
[in 1960 at MIT, "Mash Until No Good"; sometime after that the
derivation from the {recursive acronym} "Mung Until No Good" became
standard; but see {munge}]
1. To make changes to a file, esp. large-scale and irrevocable
changes. See {BLT}.
2. To destroy, usually accidentally, occasionally maliciously. The
system only mungs things maliciously; this is a consequence of
{Finagle's Law}. See {scribble}, {mangle}, {trash}, {nuke}. Reports
from {Usenet} suggest that the pronunciation
speech, but the spelling `mung' is still common in program comments
(compare the widespread confusion over the proper spelling of
{kluge}).
3. In the wake of the {spam} epidemics of the 1990s, mung is now
commonly used to describe the act of modifying an email address in a
sig block in a way that human beings can readily reverse but that will
fool an {address harvester}. Example: johnNOSPAMsmith@isp.net.
4. The kind of beans the sprouts of which are used in Chinese food.
(That's their real name! Mung beans! Really!)
Like many early hacker terms, this one seems to have originated at
{TMRC}; it was already in use there in 1958. Peter Samson (compiler of
the original TMRC lexicon) thinks it may originally have been
onomatopoeic for the sound of a relay spring (contact) being twanged.
However, it is known that during the World Wars, `mung' was U.S.: army
slang for the ersatz creamed chipped beef better known as `SOS', and
it seems quite likely that the word in fact goes back to Scots-dialect
{munge}.
Charles Mackay's 1874 book Lost Beauties of the English Language
defined "mung" as follows: "Preterite of ming, to ming or mingle; when
the substantive meaning of mingled food of bread, potatoes, etc.
thrown to poultry. In America, `mung news' is a common expression
applied to false news, but probably having its derivation from mingled
(or mung) news, in which the true and the false are so mixed up
together that it is impossible to distinguish one from another."
See the third definition.
The problem with voting in people with strong principles is that they often expect everybody else to also have strong principles, and pass laws accordingly. For example, libertarianism in the strictest sense works if everybody has strong principles and foresight. In the long run, it is disadvantageous to be anticompetitive as a company because it prevents you from improving your product. Soon (or several years) after something significantly better arrives at a better price than you can give, it will take over. However, people in charge of companies do not think that way. They think in the short term, as does any competition they may have at the moment. Therefore, they cannot be trusted to not be anticompetitive.
This is only one example why strict libertarianism does not work, and also only one example why relying on politicians with strong principles does not work. Thinking of other examples is an exercise left to the reader.
Same sort of thing here. The only time I see even the beginning of my password is when I type too fast in the terminal, and start typing my password before sudo or login turns off echoing.
I would totally buy a pen that could do that! Let me know when you make it!
He said, "...invented to benefit the people...", not "...invented to benefit people..."
You are twisting his words instead of coming up with a real counter-argument.
Note: there are real counter-arguments, but you have not produced one here.
NOWPRINT. NOWPRINT. Clemclone, back to the shadows again. - The Firesign Theater