It's non-radiative only as long as there's no object in the vicinity which happens (by chance of it's structure) to resonate with it and form an antenna.
If Witricity used something like coded spread-spectrum for it's magnetic waveform, that would be very unlikely, and make stealing power more difficult too. But from the little description in the articles, it looks like it depends on a simple narrow band resonance. An unlucky mechanical structure could resonate with that and radiate.
I don't agree. I'm working on a product which uses the Linux 2.4.26 kernel. That's more than 5 years old. I see products come out which use even older kernels.
The games developer next door to me tells me about 10% of games turn a profit, and the rest make a loss. Publishers don't know which ones are the 10%, of course.
If they aren't smiling, perhaps the problem is their job
Perhaps the problem is something else in their life. Sad things happen. Family members die, that sort of thing.
Forcing people who are sad for a reason to pretend to be happy seems like it would lead to depression. It's forcing if you have to do it to keep your job.
(Encouring smiles for well-being as a personal choice, on the other hand, may be of benefit as some studies have shown).
I think that when I'm sad for a reason, I'm happier being sad than pretending or "trying" to be happy, and I'm happier with a sad face for some of the time than a "happy" face, because it better reflects what I'm dealing with inside.
I too have typically about 100 tabs open. But they represent work in progress - branches in a topic I'm researching. I need to keep them around to come back to them, usually to condense some part of each page into a few notes eventually. Until that job is done, 100+ tabs open.
Since following a topic like that takes a few months, I keep the tabs open for that long as I open new ones and finish up with old ones.
RSS feeds don't help with that.
Bookmarks aren't very good either. Bookmarks which behaved like little tabs - keeping a big thumbnail (enough to read why I'm holding on to that page) might be better.
Yes. Linux kernel is in the process of having VFAT support restricted, precisely due to a patent lawsuit from Microsoft and expectation of more. Due to legal fears, developers cannot even talk about the patches openly. Next question?
C# version 2 is an ECMA standard. But the current version of C# is not.
C# is covered by patents. You can tell because ECMA has a letter from Microsoft promising to license any patents under reasonable terms.
But Microsoft does not promise to license C# patents under royalty-free terms. So they retain the right to block any free / open source implementation, at any time in the future until the patents expire.
.NET is not a standard at all..NET is much like Windows, but better documented.
Betamax was about contributory copyright infringement, not contributory patent infringement which is a different beast - there's no "fair use" with patents.
But yeah I agree there are some parallels.
(Pity those who were in favour of the right to record back then (Sony) re fighting on the opposite side these days.)
You're right about the bulk of time and effort, but really Theora just isn't that good a codec compared with H.264.
Dirac, on the other hand, looks very promising.
Doesn't something about contributory infringement come into play? I.e. Google providing a web browser with video is pretty much ensuring users will use it...
What's to stop me from writing a program that makes use of the copy of the codec installed by Chrome? I'm only using what the patent license said I could...
While you might be right, it would be unenforceable, and therefore irrelevant and meaningless. Kinda like the injunctions against DeCSS.
Similarly, what's to stop me embedding Chrome in a window with no decorations and a single full-window <video> tag in my favourite video player user interface?
It's all but indistinguishable from using FFmpeg directly.
Can I distribute the combination as my own video player based on FFmpeg and Chrome?
Where is the line between "using Chrome" and "using Chrome discretely"? Do I have to show Chrome menu bars to avoid losing a lawsuit? Do I have to show Google's trademarks?
If I can embed it in a window, can I change Chrome's source code to make the process more efficient? How far am I allowed to go with changing Chrome's source code?
Individual people don't switch easily, but individuals come and go. What matters is what new people decide to use.
I like TeX algorithms a lot, to the extent that I've written implementations of them in other settings, but even for mathematics the available fonts do look a bit dated, and I often found you need a bit of tweaking - a little extra thin space or negative thing space here and there - to make maths look good in LaTeX.
So while it's good for some things, LaTeX is far from perfect even at the things it's good at.
And I've found LaTeX is surprisingly easy to forget how to use it, when not writing anything for a few years. My CV (resume) is written in LaTeX, but since I haven't updated it for a few years, I've forgotten how the formatting tweaks work:-)
Yeah, there's Uncle Bill's war for control of your aesthetic mind.
But also, styles change, tastes change, and (perhaps suprisingly) so does what is found to be easier to read, because it depends what the neural net in your head is used to seeing.
In a nutshell, ligatures are used because they can look nice, add a bit of variety and aesthetic subtlety, and because good ligatures can improve legibility (alongside other obvious things like kerning and serifs).
Text on a computer screen is quite different to printed text in terms of what works for optimal legibility, and ligatures are probably much less useful on a screen.
Also, we are used to text without them these days, which makes it easier to read than it used to be.
It's not obvious, but typography and font design has a significant effect on how easy it is to read, how tiring, how fast, how many errors, and the mood invoked. Think of road signs and TV subtitles - both use fonts designed specifically for fast legibility in particular circumstances. A lot of fonts you can easily read on paper would be hard to read in those circumstances.
The progress of people who are learning to read (usually young) is affected by the fonts used to teach reading.
Ligatures like other typographic features play a role in legibility. Not for road signs or TV subtitles, but for large quantities of small text in books, they help a little bit.
As I said they're less relevant on computer screens, and what we're surrounded by determines, to some extent, what is easier to read. So now that we're all getting used to reading a lot of ligature-free text on computer screens, they're probably becoming less useful.
Serifs are following a similar trend. They help with legibility of large bodies of small text in particular. But they're less effective on screen, so they're used less on screen than on paper.
When we have very high resolution" digital paper" displays (which we don't yet), who knows if these things will make a comeback.
Eh no, your straw man imaginary version of me has nothing at all to do with my worldview. More to do with the inside of your reply-button adrenalined-brain.
The parent (#27701125) to your comment (#27702525) raises a legitimate QUESTION about reporting - are these reports motivated by something else. It's a reasonable thing to ask, because things like that have occurred before - in all countries.
You responded by telling the author he was a fuckwit for asking questions because it implies he must be on a pro-China nationalistic tirade for asking.
Have you any idea what a nationalistic mouthpiece "you are a fuckwit for asking questions" makes you sound like?
Sure, China's propaganda pieces would say the same thing. Of course they would. they'll say anything to make them look better, like any country.
And American propaganda pieces would say exactly what you just did: "You must be a paranoid/propagandist for asking if something is not what it seems".
Damn fine reverse psychology if anything the "others" would say you'll automatically assume the opposite must be true, just because.
Critical thinking involves not believing propaganda/bullshit from ANYONE. You know that better than most around here. When did your standards slip so low?
"in your worldview, everyone is just acting on a nationalistic agenda. no one can be motivated on principles. you're fucking retarded"
The very fact you believe that has anything at all to do with my worldview, tells me you have no insight whatsoever into it.
Physical fibre is cheap - cheaper than copper. The expensive part is the labour of installing it, digging trenches and such.
So why would you waste money on installing 2Mb/s connections to people who currently have nothing, when you could install 100Mb/s connections or faster for the same cost?
Slashdot Mirror
If it's only 45% efficient, and powering a 20W light bulb (guessed), and apparently doesn't radiate or heat people...
Where is it dumping the remaining 55% (11W)? Does the transmitter just get hot safely?
Try UV lasers to ionise a path through the air and send your taser pulse down that.
It's non-radiative only as long as there's no object in the vicinity which happens (by chance of it's structure) to resonate with it and form an antenna.
If Witricity used something like coded spread-spectrum for it's magnetic waveform, that would be very unlikely, and make stealing power more difficult too. But from the little description in the articles, it looks like it depends on a simple narrow band resonance. An unlucky mechanical structure could resonate with that and radiate.
I don't agree. I'm working on a product which uses the Linux 2.4.26 kernel. That's more than 5 years old. I see products come out which use even older kernels.
The games developer next door to me tells me about 10% of games turn a profit, and the rest make a loss. Publishers don't know which ones are the 10%, of course.
On the other hand, that survey doesn't rank happiness.
It ranks happiness divided by environmental footprint.
A worthy ranking, but it's not ranking happiness.
If they aren't smiling, perhaps the problem is their job
Perhaps the problem is something else in their life. Sad things happen. Family members die, that sort of thing.
Forcing people who are sad for a reason to pretend to be happy seems like it would lead to depression. It's forcing if you have to do it to keep your job.
(Encouring smiles for well-being as a personal choice, on the other hand, may be of benefit as some studies have shown).
I think that when I'm sad for a reason, I'm happier being sad than pretending or "trying" to be happy, and I'm happier with a sad face for some of the time than a "happy" face, because it better reflects what I'm dealing with inside.
I too have typically about 100 tabs open. But they represent work in progress - branches in a topic I'm researching. I need to keep them around to come back to them, usually to condense some part of each page into a few notes eventually. Until that job is done, 100+ tabs open.
Since following a topic like that takes a few months, I keep the tabs open for that long as I open new ones and finish up with old ones.
RSS feeds don't help with that.
Bookmarks aren't very good either. Bookmarks which behaved like little tabs - keeping a big thumbnail (enough to read why I'm holding on to that page) might be better.
Watt = Joules per second.
They want 50 gigaflops per Watt.
50 x 10^9 floating point operations per second per (Joules per second).
= 50 x 10^9 floating point operations per Joule.
That part of the specification does not have a time dimension.
Enjoy :-)
(Ok, then they specify the Wattage which brings time back in...)
Yes. Linux kernel is in the process of having VFAT support restricted, precisely due to a patent lawsuit from Microsoft and expectation of more. Due to legal fears, developers cannot even talk about the patches openly. Next question?
C# version 2 is an ECMA standard. But the current version of C# is not.
C# is covered by patents. You can tell because ECMA has a letter from Microsoft promising to license any patents under reasonable terms.
But Microsoft does not promise to license C# patents under royalty-free terms. So they retain the right to block any free / open source implementation, at any time in the future until the patents expire.
.NET is not a standard at all. .NET is much like Windows, but better documented.
Betamax was about contributory copyright infringement, not contributory patent infringement which is a different beast
- there's no "fair use" with patents.
But yeah I agree there are some parallels.
(Pity those who were in favour of the right to record back then (Sony) re fighting on the opposite side these days.)
You're right about the bulk of time and effort, but really Theora just isn't that good a codec compared with H.264. Dirac, on the other hand, looks very promising.
Doesn't something about contributory infringement come into play? I.e. Google providing a web browser with video is pretty much ensuring users will use it...
What's to stop me from writing a program that makes use of the copy of the codec installed by Chrome? I'm only using what the patent license said I could...
While you might be right, it would be unenforceable, and therefore irrelevant and meaningless. Kinda like the injunctions against DeCSS.
Similarly, what's to stop me embedding Chrome in a window with no decorations and a single full-window <video> tag in my favourite video player user interface?
It's all but indistinguishable from using FFmpeg directly.
Can I distribute the combination as my own video player based on FFmpeg and Chrome?
Where is the line between "using Chrome" and "using Chrome discretely"? Do I have to show Chrome menu bars to avoid losing a lawsuit? Do I have to show Google's trademarks?
If I can embed it in a window, can I change Chrome's source code to make the process more efficient? How far am I allowed to go with changing Chrome's source code?
In a deeply censored regime, there are no unblocked ports, and all traffic which looks encrypted is blocked, and perhaps illegal.
There are many to choose from and you can easily invent new ones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-filling_curve
No, all four of your examples have the same cardinality, which is R.
Well if you want to be picky, you can give it's position in 3-d space as a single number: the distance along a space-filling curve.
Can you name a "real" n-dimensional system in which this is not possible?
Individual people don't switch easily, but individuals come and go. What matters is what new people decide to use.
I like TeX algorithms a lot, to the extent that I've written implementations of them in other settings, but even for mathematics the available fonts do look a bit dated, and I often found you need a bit of tweaking - a little extra thin space or negative thing space here and there - to make maths look good in LaTeX.
So while it's good for some things, LaTeX is far from perfect even at the things it's good at.
And I've found LaTeX is surprisingly easy to forget how to use it, when not writing anything for a few years. My CV (resume) is written in LaTeX, but since I haven't updated it for a few years, I've forgotten how the formatting tweaks work :-)
What looks better does vary with the times.
Yeah, there's Uncle Bill's war for control of your aesthetic mind.
But also, styles change, tastes change, and (perhaps suprisingly) so does what is found to be easier to read, because it depends what the neural net in your head is used to seeing.
In a nutshell, ligatures are used because they can look nice, add a bit of variety and aesthetic subtlety, and because good ligatures can improve legibility (alongside other obvious things like kerning and serifs).
Text on a computer screen is quite different to printed text in terms of what works for optimal legibility, and ligatures are probably much less useful on a screen.
Also, we are used to text without them these days, which makes it easier to read than it used to be.
It's not obvious, but typography and font design has a significant effect on how easy it is to read, how tiring, how fast, how many errors, and the mood invoked. Think of road signs and TV subtitles - both use fonts designed specifically for fast legibility in particular circumstances. A lot of fonts you can easily read on paper would be hard to read in those circumstances.
The progress of people who are learning to read (usually young) is affected by the fonts used to teach reading.
Ligatures like other typographic features play a role in legibility. Not for road signs or TV subtitles, but for large quantities of small text in books, they help a little bit.
As I said they're less relevant on computer screens, and what we're surrounded by determines, to some extent, what is easier to read. So now that we're all getting used to reading a lot of ligature-free text on computer screens, they're probably becoming less useful.
Serifs are following a similar trend. They help with legibility of large bodies of small text in particular. But they're less effective on screen, so they're used less on screen than on paper.
When we have very high resolution" digital paper" displays (which we don't yet), who knows if these things will make a comeback.
Eh no, your straw man imaginary version of me has nothing at all to do with my worldview. More to do with the inside of your reply-button adrenalined-brain.
The parent (#27701125) to your comment (#27702525) raises a legitimate QUESTION about reporting - are these reports motivated by something else. It's a reasonable thing to ask, because things like that have occurred before - in all countries.
You responded by telling the author he was a fuckwit for asking questions because it implies he must be on a pro-China nationalistic tirade for asking.
Have you any idea what a nationalistic mouthpiece "you are a fuckwit for asking questions" makes you sound like?
Sure, China's propaganda pieces would say the same thing. Of course they would. they'll say anything to make them look better, like any country.
And American propaganda pieces would say exactly what you just did: "You must be a paranoid/propagandist for asking if something is not what it seems".
Damn fine reverse psychology if anything the "others" would say you'll automatically assume the opposite must be true, just because.
Critical thinking involves not believing propaganda/bullshit from ANYONE. You know that better than most around here. When did your standards slip so low?
"in your worldview, everyone is just acting on a
nationalistic agenda. no one can be motivated on principles. you're fucking retarded"
The very fact you believe that has anything at all to do with my worldview, tells me you have no insight whatsoever into it.
So you really believe the steady increase of articles on the subject is due to entirely objective reporting without a dirty agenda?
Good luck!
Physical fibre is cheap - cheaper than copper. The expensive part is the labour of installing it, digging trenches and such.
So why would you waste money on installing 2Mb/s connections to people who currently have nothing, when you could install 100Mb/s connections or faster for the same cost?