Tower Topics: Fill & Download for Free

I did this a few years ago by just CONFIGURATION, no extra software needed!In the setup I put together, I had 6 'terminals' all running off a sub $500 desktop tower, with relatively isolated environments--each 'terminal' had a monitor, a USB hub with mouse/keyboard/audio, which was (I think) 100% controlled through the xorg conf file.One desktop user could restart X with ctrl-alt-esc, while another client could be running Warcraft 3 through WINE, and no one would be able to interfere with anyone else's desktop (without running a root command of course:))It actually ran quite well! One of the advantages of not being virtualized I suppose.relevant links on the topic:concept: Extreme Multiheadcommercial implementation if you don't have time to learn how to setup your config: http://userful.com/

Nearly every single one ever.1: Burmuda TriangleI remember as a boy watching a history channel special on the Bermuda triangle. I learned about flight 19 and other missing planes and ships. I remember being mystified by it and thinking it was so cool.Then I turned 8The Bermuda Triangle is not a mystery- at all. It is one of those fictional mysteries people think are real.The whole concept began in the 1950s with an article in Fate Magazine. Fate Magazine is mostly fictional- it is meant to create mystery and horror by appearing real when in reality, it is all fiction.After that, the legend steadily grew into what it is today. But here are the factThere are not an inordinate amount of disappearances in the Bermuda Triangle. Any similarly sized (and similarly well-traveled) piece of the ocean has as many (if not more) disappearances.Disappearances in the ocean are not unusual. The ocean is very large and very deep. One rouge way is all it takes to make a large ship disappear forever.Flight 19 is easily explainable. I don’t mean I can find a rational explanation, I mean all the evidence supports the conclusion that it was just pilot error. This goes for every “mystery”2: RoswellI love Roswell if only for the fact people still cling to it as proof of alien life.The story goes that an alien spacecraft crashed, was found by a local, and then the government came in to cover it up- later stating it was a weather balloon.Well here is what ACTUALLY happened from declassified documents.At this time the US had found a way to measure sounds across the globe. They could deploy sensors way high in the atmosphere and when a certain someone tested a nuclear weapon we could use these sensors to estimate the size of the blast and its location.In a world before satellites, this was super crucial and top-secret technology. The US obviously did not want Russia knowing we had this technology.So when one of them crashed the US said it was a weather balloon. People, living in a world without computers in every pocket, dreamed up an alien craft and the government was fine with that, as long as nobody actually discovered the full truth.3: GhostsGhosts are a tricky topic because people struggle with viewing death and life after death. To us humans ghosts make sense but in reality, they are not real.There are serious problems with ghosts likeDespite billions of video cameras around the globe, there has never been any significant proof of ghosts or any proof at all. Never a video or verified recording or even a photo.The “science” is super shakey. You use EVP to detect ghost voices, why? How does that make sense? Why can’t ghost communicate normally? Or why do ghosts change the temperature, that also does not add up.There are paranormal scholars that spend their careers looking for proof of ghosts and have always come up empty.Like Bigfoot, little green men, the Lochness monster (who needs $3.50), and demons, ghosts remain alive only in our imagination.Are Ghosts Real? — Evidence Has Not MaterializedThe Large Hadron Collider has proved the truth about ghosts, claims Brian Cox4: Who was behind 9/11Be rational for a second and answer me this- what scenario sounds more plausible.A: A terrorist network previously attached to the US lead by an extremist is able to attack the US by Hijacking civilian aircraft which have minimal security in place to prevent such an action. 2 planes are flown into the World Trade Centers, 1 into the Pentagon, and 1 crashes in a field when the passengers take it over.The World Trade Center towers burn for hours. The increased heat causes the steel beams that run laterally to sag thus pulling the building in from the middle. Debris rains down causing fires in other buildings like WTC7 where the sprinkler system fails.Eventually, those steal beans cannot take the stress and snap.. This snap causes the top portion of the town to fall down on the lower portion, thus beginning a tower collapse. In around 20 seconds the first Tower collapses and a while later the second follows suit.B: The Bush administration wants a war in the Middle East so they engineer a plan to attack the US and thus enrage the population to justify the coming war.First, they hire suicidal army pilots to fly 2 planes into the Twin Towers. The Towers begin to burn but the government also had men disguised as repair staff secretly place bombs inside the building to demolish it.Then they take a cruise missile and make it look like a plane (because 300 witnesses saw it) and fly that weird missile into the Pentagon. The people on the flight the supposedly crashed are rerouted to an army base and mass executed by confused army personnel.Then they hijack another plane and tell the passengers to call their loved ones and say Muslims took the plane over- they then kill all these passengers.Honestly now- is this really a question?I mean how dumb would the government have to be? I get the concept of false flags and agree the government is capable of such an action. But why not just put a bomb in a van and blow it up. That would be as effective and super simple.This government conspiracy is so complicated and detailed (and stupid) it makes no sense. It’s the dumbest plan ever because it was never a plan. It’s just people trying to make the pieces fit into this conspiracy narrative.

There are many reasons:We (as a community) don’t really know how to “sell” functional programming to the people who may use it. Showing one-line examples of a Fibonacci definition or the popular-and-incorrect definition of Quicksort certainly isn’t it. Nor is talking about the joys of the monad;Sadly the functional programming community still has many people who look down on other programmers, and insult them for not using functional programming. The idea people have that the FP community is elitist and live in ivory-towers isn’t unwarranted. Of course, that’s not the entire FP community. We do have some nice people, and nice subcommunities, but the vocal jerks certainly aren’t making it easy for people to have a better image of us;There are a lot of problems where functional programming has worse solutions than other paradigms of programming today. And a lot of problems in functional programming for which we don’t have a good solution yet (e.g.: pure functional programming is an active research topic, and not everyone agrees it’s worth pursuing even Quildreen Motta's answer to What is your opinion on purely functional programming?);Type Errors are the worst, and it really feels like nobody cares about good user experience in functional programming (we do have some research on better error messages, and Elm has shown that you can sacrifice type system expressiveness for more accessible error reporting blog/compiler-errors-for-humans). It’s fine to care about correctness, but it’s hard to “sell” that at the expense of everything else.This doesn’t mean that functional programming is doomed, of course. Despite all of these problems, there are concepts in functional programming that are solving real problems that people care about today. It’s because these concepts are useful that programming languages are adopting some of them (e.g.: Lambdas and Streams in Java 8, LINQ, Observables, and comonadic tasks in C#, Promises in JavaScript, etc).Because these languages only adopt some concepts of the paradigm, and not the whole thing, it’s hard to optimise these concepts. You could say that FP is a second-class citizen in many languages. It’s there, but you pay a price to use it. Sometimes, it makes sense to pay this price because what you get out of those features makes up for the performance/awkwardness (e.g.: in concurrent programming).Hillel has a thread on Twitter discussing some of these points:_Why don't_ these accomplishments make it into the mainstream? Two easy answers are "they aren't that great" or "people don't know what's good for them". I see both used all the time.A harder answer: we are REALLY bad at persuading people. https://t.co/gdqL9gDdZD— Hillel (@Hillelogram) August 23, 2018As Sam Tobin-Hochstadt notes in this reply, most accomplishments we think of as “good” end up in mainstream programming one way or another. Often in ways that are very different or less expressive than the original, but the concepts are there none the less.For a more data-driven, formal discussion of the topic of adoption of programming language ideas in general, Leo Meyerovich did some research on this problem specifically: