Given that physicists are seriously studying whether the universe is a computer simulation, that joke might not be too far from the truth. You have been warned.
These theories have their own problems. As noted on Slashdot previously, neither exist around dwarf globular clusters or in the local region of the Milky Way. It is not altogether impossible that our models of gravity are flawed at supermassive scales at relativistic velocities, that there's corrections needed that would produce the same effect as currently theorized for this new kind of matter and energy.
Remembering that one should never multiply entities unnecessarily, one correction factor seems preferable to two exotic phenomena that cannot be directly observed by definition.
But only if such a correction factor is theoretically justified AND explains all related observations AND is actually simpler.
There is just as much evidence these criteria are true as there is for dark stuff - currently none.
so that's another reason to have school all year round; it will save money for parents who don't want to have to pay for summer camps and things like that.
No. Year-round schools still have the same number of days (180), they're just distributed differently. One lump sum, or spread-out?
Thanks. So. If you hang behind a firewall/OtherWare you can't control, you lose a lot of choices overall. Protocols, ports, etc. But for the rest of us, the ones who are actually free to choose our options, no reason, then?
So short answer, Yes. However no such force has been found or postulated in any realistic fashion.
So conceptually, a drive might exist, compliant with the science we know, that does not push stuff out the back of the ship, but instead, acts on something else, somewhere else. As long as it acts on *something*, yes?
That was also very helpful to my conceptual model. Thank you kindly.
There are some very sharp people on slashdot.
ok, I see it now -- you're exactly right, I was seeing it as two forces. Thank you!
Not sure if I would go as far as saying the best roads. They have fantastic main highways but the roads get pretty rough when you are in the far north or the east and not on a main highway. I drove from Bremen in the north to Frankfurt on backroads 3 years ago and there were a few roads where they weren't wide enough for cars to pass each other (going in opposite directions.)
I definitely second that.
As an aside, you can generally expect a router to support things it does properly, at least you should be able to. Haven't seen too many routers certified as IPv6-ready (there's a comprehensive test suite out there by TAHI, it's not like it would be hard to verify) or even IPv6-capable, although a good number are both. So you can't trust the advertised capabilities as being either complete or correct.
There may also be hardware weirdness that means a feature won't work as expected whether with the regular firmware or a replacement.
Getting just the brand and revision is great, if you only want basic stuff. Which is most people. For freaks and geeks, we could use knowing if there's any really big, ugly omissions.
(I've done compatibility testing between network cards. It is unbelievable - or, at least, it should be unbelievable - how many network chipsets are defective. It's mostly obscure stuff, but bad silicon is expensive to fix, so you'd expect halfway decent testing. It just means all routers will do weird shit, so it's handy to know if it's weird shit that's likely to be a problem.)
Comcast failed to implement the duck switch. They do support rat, pig and ferret, though.
You might want to check out NIST's page on authenticating+encrypting modes.
You might want to look at Diffe-Hellman key exchange, where nothing is provided that cannot be entrusted to a wiretapper.
You might want to look at the Byzantine class of problems and their use in encryption.
You might want to look at the reasons for and against random oracles.
I see very, very little in cryptography that has to do with trust. Almost everything is dedicated to assuming that nothing can be trusted. People are encouraged to compress data before encrypting it because even the maths isn't trusted.
Android is not Java. Android is Linux with a JVM set up as an "other binary format" engine.
Most of what you're complaining about is in the standard library, not the core language. The standard library is semi-open, you can alter the code, rip out what you don't want. Only the core language is Java, the rest is just a programming aid.
As for what COBOL has, Admiral Hopper was running software on a non-networked sequential architecture. This is rather different from operating in a multicore SMP-architectured server farm. There is nothing complicated about parallelism, but naivety and self-blinding are two great ways to make every mistake in the book - and then some.
Stability, predictability and reliability could be done with Erlang, Occam, Eiffel, Smalltalk or Ada.
Business could have build "enterprise" applications with any of these. Most existed before Java or, indeed, the web. Servlets could have churned out WAIS or Gopher data for businesses. Graphics, via SGI's VRML, Apple's Postscript or the ancient GKS standard, could have given you everything that Swing delivered. Not that businesses use Swing, as a rule.
Portable applications in the form of Tcl/Tk packages could have provided everything Java applets did. Not that anyone uses applets either.
It should be self-evident that absolutely bugger all of the usual explanations hold water. If the explanations were valid, the role would already have been filled and Java would have never taken off.
Businesses flocked to Java and not to any other technology. Even technologies pushed by very large corporations. Businesses liked, and like, Java. That is obvious. "Why" is not obvious, Java does nothing that couldn't be done better in other ways. It isn't done in other ways, it's done in Java. There will be a sound reason for this, but it won't involve stability, reliability or predictability.
For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!
