Composition != performance, humans can still perform the music live to us.

They played video of him dying repeatedly on CTV here in Canada, I'm sure the American networks had it too. They linked video from their webpage. Is the IOC doing anything about that? I tend to think they should all stop showing it out of respect, but really the IOC aren't doing the right thing, they're just protecting the value of official Olympic coverage.

Not at my school either, typically 50% is a pass, and you need an average of 65+ in required courses to stay in the program.

Because it's unnecessary for the small projects you do in school and is orthogonal to the concepts they're teaching you typically. Also, it's very easy to pick up on your own.

+1 Insightful

Monitoring a person, their family, friends and the place they live is not the same as monitoring the computer. Giving someone permission to monitor my computer usage does not imply permission to monitor anything else.

And how are the IT workers not responsible? They would have known best the technical potential of the system. I have no sympathy for them. Aiding the administration in violating the rights of the students (see 4th amend.) is a serious offence. I'm usually willing to give people a break for not quitting jobs when they're asked to do questionable things, but monitoring students at home is way beyond questionable.

The disk cache is part of the OS, not the application. If an application loads some images from your HDD it's the OS that decides to cache them in memory, independent of anything your app does with them. Because disk caching is transparent to the app, the OS can free cache whenever it wants to.

Of course, historically IE would be a special case, as it was so tightly tied to the OS that the normal rules of transparent OS services didn't apply. Anyone know if this is still true?

About that 17 year old bug...

Last place I worked had 25 employees (give or take) with Windows machines. We certainly didn't have a full-time admin, and it still worked very well. My doctor's office is also a mac land. Strangely one of the exam rooms had a PowerMac in it...

The onus is on the researcher to demonstrate/argue that for the inputs given the code produces meaningful results. If you don't like that then stop doing research with computations? Idiots can always misrepresent you, no matter how you publish. Most of us understand that simulations are limited.

What makes you think that there will be more people trying out that code and not understanding it, than currently there are people reading the paper and not understanding it? Personally I'm not going to waste my spare time downloading complex simulations that I know nothing about and try to invalidate them.

So make it available and reference it in your paper. No one's asking you to tell everyone on the planet about it.

If I find code that will cause heap corruption in your code (e.g. you wrote past the end of an array in C), then there is a bug in that code whether you do fluid simulations, or make 3D games. I worked as an undergraduate RA under some guys doing ocean modelling, and found several small bugs before I had the foggiest idea what most of the code was meant to do. Yes there will be many problems someone without your background can't find in your model, but that is not an argument for closed source science.

A more important concern is that someone else who does have your background should have access to your code. That would be part of "peer review". Otherwise they're taking your computations on faith, with no way to reproduce.

IIRC, the bird dropped its bread on something a little more innocuous sounding than a reactor. The bird escaped unharmed but lost its bread.

I'll be outraged when this somehow costs me something. That said, even if I was helping pay for this, what they're doing hasn't been done before (at this scale anyway). It is a high risk investment by nature. If you never want to read about things going wrong, don't read about science.

Not playing/buying the game at all has exactly the same effect. If I'm not willing to pay for DRM'd content then the developers get $0 from me if I don't play, and still $0 if I do.

I agree, the developers get the shitty end of this. But that's how it works. If a company has a poor business model and lose money, it's always the staff that get screwed. It won't help anyone in the long run to pay for content that comes with invasive DRM.