you have us all working 80 or 160 hours a week for you?
Not all just one.
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
you have us all working 80 or 160 hours a week for you?
Not all just one.
I think of all the times anyone has tried to explain it to me, this is the one that clicked. If I'm understanding correctly, they're (electrons, photons, et al) not really either a "particle", as I think of it (like you say, teeny tiny baseballs with well defined boundaries and positions), or a "wave", but entirely different animals that happen to have some, not even all, of the features of both.
Thanks (assuming I didn't misunderstand!)
As soon as any autonomous car advocates start talking about 'what actually happens'
Why yes! Just the other day a baby stroller magically appeared 2 feet in front of me while I was doing 90mph on the local autobahn, forcing me to make a snap decision between creamed baby or ramming the President's car which was carrying a gaggle of pregnant neurosurgeons to a peace conference that just happened to be in the other 5 lanes of the freeway and the shoulders and the sidewalks and the ditches, all at the same time (except for the lane the baby stroller was in, of course).
Fortunately being the superior human being that I am, I was not constrained by mere binary thinking and through a little ingenuity and physics, managed to lean my manly, manly physique across the vehicle just in time to ski past the baby and land safely on the other side. Not only that, but as it gracefully settled back onto four wheels, the breeze from the air displaced by my HMMWV (only the real ones are worthy of my leisure time) blew out a forest fire that was threatening to ignite a fireworks factory right next to a nuclear waste storage shed.
Let's see one of those auto-no-muss cars do that!
This weekend I saw a guy apparently picnicking across the road from my house. After a while I went over to see WTF, and turns out he was working for a mapping company (and the company drone was flying overhead, snapping photos). He told me that their maps are accurate to within 1/8th inch.
Or someone will figure they can tromp the pedal ALL the time because the car will take care of it... then when they get to a higher speed zone, the car will speed up inappropriately and run someone else off the road, or slide off the road because 45mph was okay on ice but 65mph is not. Or it will slow when doing so is dangerous (frex, when that truck behind you can't slow down that fast), but the sign said to. Situational awareness is not just the speed limit. It's a continuous series of judgment calls based on the whole damn road and everyone on it.
There are roads in California where the speed limit is different on opposite sides of the street, I shit you not. So on the same street, westbound the speed limit might be 40mph while eastbound it's 25mph. When I asked the highway department about this, I was told it's due to the street being on the boundary of different 'zones'.
No, it's completely understandable and shouldn't even be thought of as strange to seasoned programmers.
The critical issue is there's a difference between calling an I/O function like write, and actually manipulating the IDE control lines on a hard disk. Typically for the former, the operating system is sitting there buffering things up in a relatively simple, uncomplex, way - ie it has some memory allocated, a pointer, and when you call the function all it does is copy the bytes to the memory and increment the pointer as needed. Once either enough time has passed, a critical function has been called, or enough data has been written, the OS then starts manipulating the IDE control lines to write the data.
Now, the comparison becomes "the OS's buffer handling" vs "Your language of choice's string handling and garbage collection algorithms." For C, chances are you're as good as the OS as C's string handling is extremely uncomplicated and bare metal. For almost anything else - such as Python and Java, both tested in this scenario - you're likely to end up with the OS handling some situations more quickly than your language would.
Does it make sense now? It should. There are very few programmers this should surprise. Unfortunately, I know quote a few that will be...
You think you have problems? I'm still trying to get my head around "It's both a particle... AND a wave!". How the f--- does that work? It doesn't even make any sense! It's insane! Wave things are not particles, and particle things are not waves!
(Note: yes, I know, it's true, I've seen the double slit experiment et al, I'm not doubting the science, I'm just saying my brain is too small to understand it. So put me in a position where I have to understand that something is in every state possible until observed, and... well, the worst part is I can visualize it, but only in a way I know deep down is wrong...)
No. You make the baseline a point the child won't cross again. That way you don't have to ratchet up; indeed, you'll probably never have to repeat it. Think of the time you burned your finger on the stove... you didn't try that again, did you!
I'm a pro dog trainer, and it's the same way. If a dog bites (eg. egregious misbehavior), and you just tap 'em on the nose, pretty soon they figure out your response wasn't serious, so they try it again... a little harder tap, and they figure out they can handle that just fine too, bite again, and it becomes an arms race. (That's precisely how puppy nipping becomes adult biting.) So instead you deck 'em first time around, so they know with certainty that what they did was Dumb and absolutely won't be tolerated, and they never try it again. It may sound harsh, but it's a lot kinder in the long run -- especially it's psychologically kinder, because you've set the solid boundary that the dog (or child) was probing for, rather than making it a fuzzy thing to be challenged over and over in case it's not for real. And when the boundary is fuzzy you do have to punish over and over, and get harsher as they discover how much they can take, and the boundary never does get established because they learn that if only they can take a little more, it'll move again.
Friend had two kids that were different as night and day. The older boy responded to even mild displeasure -- he always wanted to please and never needed so much as a threat of any punishment. The younger boy was rather more willful, had to have it demonstrated to him that the adult was indeed serious, and didn't believe he'd be punished until he actually got spanked. (Timeout and the like was a waste of air.) Once he'd had that demonstration, so long as he knew the adult would follow through, he was a perfect angel. But if he knew he could game the adult, he'd misbehave however he liked.
Younger boy (who was 3 or 4 at the time) was in the habit of ignoring mom when she called (guess who didn't follow through in that household). One day this happened when he didn't realise I was in the ditch behind their house. Mom called, boy ran the other way, and I came raring up out of the ditch. Boy goes Ooops, the enforcer is here, and hitailed it for mom. After that he always came when called!!
Doesn't seem to bother people to be associated with fsck.
I vaguely recall that he quit Greenpeace because he wasn't happy with the direction it was taking.
And what he says in TFA actually makes sense, somewhat to my surprise.
I'm a pro dog trainer, specifically retrievers, which need to have good distance vision. I've noticed that if puppies around weaning age don't have a long line of sight available, they never really learn to see distance later on, either. (Incidentally, there once was a bloodline that was infamous for myopia, so there is an inherited component too. Those dogs are not improved by environment.)
I recall a study some years back that found if babies sleep in a lighted room, they are likely to become myopic.
I'm thinkin' there might be a stall point in eye development that can glitch if the eye lacks a certain cycle of stimulation and rest, and the result of this stall is that the eye never develops past the myopia that's normal in infants. (It's certainly normal in puppies from 2 to 4 weeks old; after that they need stimulation.)
Here in Houston, TX we've been solving it by making the exits that back up be two lanes wide instead of just one. Now twice as many cars can sit and wait for the stoplight at the intersection immediately after the exit to turn green.
That might actually be an artifact of the same bugs that caused Google recently to embarassingly change searches like "famous female scientists" into "Searching instead for 'famous male scientists'. Click here to search for 'famous female scientists'"
There appears to be a lot of crap in Google's algorithms they're still trying to dig out that assumes synonyms of completely opposite words. Which is one of the many reasons why Google's searches tend to be miss rather than hit nine times in ten these days.
Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it.