> What a nice surprise to see my project turn up here
Same!
380 karma · joined February 28, 2011
Same!
That said, the document needs work - the syntax highlighting got very confused at some point, and a bunch of the lines are much longer than the width of the document, and don't wrap.
Tcl looks like a nice little language that makes it really easy to write really horrible code. Probably with some discipline you could keep it tidy and comprehensible though.
My totally uninformed speculation is they're in with a shot if they can get the production volume high enough. But I'd like to see the question explored.
Something I'm not clear on is the licencing of the code. Is it open-source? For trust reasons I'd want to be able to read it.
Not really. Claire Perry was elected as Conservative Member of Parliament for the constituency of Devizes in Wiltshire. Devizes has elected a Conservative candidate in every single election since 1924, so running for election there as a Conservative is kind of a formality.
She was then appointed to the position of Parliamentary Private Secretary to Philip Hammond, the Secretary of Defence. My understanding is she has no official position, qualifications, expertise, or mandate with regards to technology, the internet, or children's welfare.
A lot of supermarkets, at least in the UK, sell various basic foodstuffs as loss leaders[1], so they are making a significant loss on each one they sell. They do this to get you into the shop, in the hopes that you'll buy other more profitable items once there. Also, in university towns supermarkets are prepared to take a loss in order to secure the long-term brand loyalty of students who are shopping at supermarkets for the first time and forming their opinions, and will go on to become professionals who can afford the more profitable products.
If you are smart you can take advantage of these to get food very cheaply indeed.
It really doesn't. Whatever knowledge we do have can be applied, with whatever degree of certainty we have, and that is likely to be better than what we do currently, because what we do currently is basically nothing. Most people, most of the time, eat what they feel like, combined with some vague ideas about calories and fat, and whatever they read in a magazine last week if they're particularly conscientious. In other words, guesswork. Except this is guesswork that's almost totally uninformed. No, we can't be certain about this stuff yet, but what you call "guesswork" i.e. Our best hypothesis given all the information we have about the functioning of the human digestive system, is almost certainly going to be better than the current state of affairs, which is pretty much stab-in-the-dark randomness. It's really not hard to beat.
> any 100% simulated food diet will only prove to be "better" by a stroke of luck.
If you manage to find an optimal diet by choosing foods you think of as 'healthy' and trying to avoid cookies, well that's a stroke of luck. Deliberate scientific optimisation by adjustment, experimentation and measurement? That's not luck.
We invented vaccination more than half a century before we had even accepted the Germ Theory of disease, and the history of science is full of such things. You don't need full understanding with no uncertainty in order to figure out what works. Science is neat like that.
What's it called when a person has an irrational preference for the current state of affairs? Look it up, because you have it.
> "On a Stanford or MIT keyboard in raw mode, use of four shift keys while typing a fifth character, where the four shift keys are the control and meta keys on both sides of the keyboard. This was very difficult to do! One accepted technique was to press the left-control and left-meta keys with your left hand, the right-control and right-meta keys with your right hand, and the fifth key with your nose."
> "They specifically name three: showing irrelevant ads, using pop-ups or other annoying gimmicks, and selling off actual search results. Hardly the stuff of comic books. But what do these three have in common? They’re all instances of refusing to make things worse for your users in order to make more money"
This is just about the first time I've seen Google unambiguously break their own definition of 'evil'.
[1] http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/googevil
Edit: On reflection... not the first time.
See also:
Probably 'pattern', I guess. I agree, I think it's a very practical new usage which doesn't introduce much ambiguity elsewhere, so I'm all for it.
Edit: Almost 60% of android users, in fact. [1]
[1]: http://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/index.html
I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Do not take advice from Sherlock Homes, because he is fictional and thus can be no smarter than his creator, a man who quite literally believed in fairies, and could not be persuaded that Houdini was not actually magic.
http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/collaboration_made_simple_wi...
(High resolution imagery + many many human eyes) > Human eyes
Never mind that Curiosity has now been operating for 6 months without food, water, or sleep, and is expected to continue doing so for years.