 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 20 May 2010 18:07:20 -0700, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> 10e8
Sounds more like 100 million to me, unless I can't count. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/05/2010 2:12 AM, Darren New wrote:
> We don't have a word for ten thousand as such, or I'm sure it would get
> even more confusing instead of just a pause while the translation goes on.
Try Myriad that can be used for 10,000 as well as a very large number.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 10e8
>
> Sounds more like 100 million to me, unless I can't count. ;-)
I think you (and I) can't count!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> When your entire life has taught you that expending almost unbounded
>> amounts of effort always produces no results, it becomes increasingly
>> hard to find motivation...
>
> BTDTGTTS.
I wonder if it's possible to use some kind of Markov-chain method to
probabalistically determine what random initialisms mean?
> Taking control takes effort, and it is/can be a trial-and-
> error process. Doesn't mean it's impossible.
Sure. If some things worked and some things didn't, I could handle that.
But when *nothing* works, where do you go next?
>> Required XKCD link: http://xkcd.com/187/
>
> That's a good one and extremely relevant. :-)
That's why I chose it. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> A lot of the theory behind information processing, and especially on
> finding the most efficient algorithm to accomplish a specific task,
> comes from this era. When a single clock cycle of computer time costs
> enough money to show up on a balance sheet, efficiency in computing
> becomes something of interest.
I'l bet it does...
Of course, today efficiency has nothing to do with how many instructions
it takes and depends *only* on how good its cache behaviour is.
> In the early 80s my high school went and bought a card reader for use in
> quickly tallying input from the 2000+ students on things like student
> council elections and so forth. They wanted me to help get the system
> going, but I never spent more than an hour or so with it.
Man, I had no idea card readers persisted so long!
> The US military had 50s-era cryptologic equipment, using vacuum tubes
> and magnetic cores, in active service until the late 80s. The
> transmitter and receiver together took up an entire equipment rack.
Ah yes, but that's military equipment. It takes a lot of time, money and
effort to design mil spec equipment. If it still works, why change it?
(Or rather, "who's going to pay to redesign it?")
> It
> was widely rumored among Air Force crypto technicians that the designer
> of the system had been committed to an insane asylum, and that nobody
> else fully understood how it worked.
That totally sounds like something the Air Force would rumour. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/21/2010 3:00 AM, Invisible wrote:
>
> Man, I had no idea card readers persisted so long!
>
What? You don't remember the whole US Election "hanging chad" debacle of
2000? Those were punch cards... :)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Man, I had no idea card readers persisted so long!
>
> What? You don't remember the whole US Election "hanging chad" debacle of
> 2000? Those were punch cards... :)
...there was a US Election in 2000?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/21/2010 8:59 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> Man, I had no idea card readers persisted so long!
>>
>> What? You don't remember the whole US Election "hanging chad" debacle
>> of 2000? Those were punch cards... :)
>
> ...there was a US Election in 2000?
There's one every 4 years ... the last one was in 2008.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> What? You don't remember the whole US Election "hanging chad" debacle
>>> of 2000? Those were punch cards... :)
>>
>> ...there was a US Election in 2000?
>
> There's one every 4 years ... the last one was in 2008.
My point being that the rest of the world probably doesn't take as much
notice as the US itself does. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 21 May 2010 08:56:32 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>> When your entire life has taught you that expending almost unbounded
>>> amounts of effort always produces no results, it becomes increasingly
>>> hard to find motivation...
>>
>> BTDTGTTS.
>
> I wonder if it's possible to use some kind of Markov-chain method to
> probabalistically determine what random initialisms mean?
http://tinyurl.com/24egq37
>> Taking control takes effort, and it is/can be a trial-and- error
>> process. Doesn't mean it's impossible.
>
> Sure. If some things worked and some things didn't, I could handle that.
> But when *nothing* works, where do you go next?
Ask for advice from someone with more experience. And then follow that
advice. Iterate until success is achieved.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
