The physics is the same, but instead of a ball you have a grenade, instead of a paddle you have walls, and you have an extra dimension. Rigid body mechanics hasn't changed much in the last thirty years.
The physics model is the same, except instead of a ball you have grenades, and instead of the paddle you have walls. Rigid body mechanics hasn't changed that much in the last thirty years.
How does it harm you if some people complain about NVIDIA's drivers?
The complaining makes the prospect of releasing a Linux driver undesirable for a lot of companies. When all they hear from the other side is that open source is a virus that will steal all their code, and all they hear from our side is that a driver is unacceptable unless it's open source, what are they supposed to think?
It really starts harming me when the developers in charge of the driver interface in the kernel deliberately make it difficult for non-GPL drivers to work, then suggesting that open sourcing drivers is the only solution. I understand the idealism of discouraging binary blob drivers, but *nix users are not in a position to dictate software policies to hardware manufacturers. Given the choice between open sourcing a driver and not supporting Linux, most companies will choose to not support Linux.
But will we have the wherewithal to go back in time to get Jean Claude Van Damme's help when rogue agents start abusing the technology for their own gain?
Whether this is because people still view scientists as nerds or outcasts of society, I cannot comment on.
I can only speak to the situation in the United States; I hope it's different in other parts of the world. I think it's due to a growing feeling by the average person that scientists and academics are a condescending, intellectual elite. The situation is exacerbated by the crumbling foundations of science education, the general lack of emphasis on critical thinking in primary schools, and wholesale replacement of natural causes with superstition in the minds of a disturbing majority of people.
When you think about it, it's entirely understandable. A person whose only understanding of "science" is germinating a bean in seventh grade, or that hard physics class they took in college, doesn't have a hope of understanding the subtleties of something like evolutionary biology or general relativity by reading a few popular science books. The misunderstandings and first-order conceptual explanations in almost every piece of science journalism, not to mention the "documentaries" on Discovery and ABC, don't make sense at all, but most people don't have the background to know why.
Of course, when you try to explain this to someone, or to explain why "God did it" is not a valid theory, it sounds like you're telling them they're stupid. So the real question becomes, is there a good way to get people back on the track to at least basic scientific understanding without completely turning them off the message?
if they have kids whom it's negatively impacting, take them and give them to someone who can take care of them.
What a fabulous idea. Hey, everybody is decrying childhood obesity now too, so let's take kids away from fat people. The majority of Americans think that same sex couples are unfit parents, so we'll have to take their kids.
Yes, this is a ridiculous extension of what you suggested, but I think it illustrates the problem with the idea of taking children from bad parents and giving them to good parents: for the most part, nobody can really say which parents are good and which are bad until the kids are grown up.
It's a problem in Flash player. It wasn't designed to keep audio synced with frames over a long period. Maybe the next version will fix the problem, but for now FLV seems like a bad format to standardize on.
Come on! It shows kids of different colors living in the same neighborhood, and {shudder} playing together! Not to mention the adults who spend all day with the kids (they're probably fraudulently on welfare), and the overt acceptance of furry illegal aliens! What's not to hate about this trash?
I think pretty much everyone has long ago figured out the scheme where they hype one single good song on a CD and you buy it only to find out the rest is crap.
Personally, I just don't patronize businesses that have a well known intention to screw me. If I'm particularly bothered by it I might even send a letter explaining why they will no longer be screwing me. You might call me old fashioned, but I think that the sacrifice of not enjoying a product is a big part of boycotting it. Imagine if, instead of saying, "Copyright is so twentieth century," 69% of teenagers said, "Avril who?"
I honestly do not care whether SONY/BMG or Universal miss out on my 16$
And that's the whole problem. You don't care because you get to hear the music you want anyway. Why bother trying to change the way they do business if you can just circumvent them completely? As long as the majority of disaffected customers are being satisfied by what amounts to a black market, they won't be angry enough to change the system.
If you want modern distribution systems, make it happen. But for some reason I doubt your resolve. You can't simultaneously infringe copyright and say, "I'd buy your music if only you'd..."
They should just be deprived of it. What, do you think you have some inalienable right to have a constantly updated playlist?
Copyright infringement is not analogous to stealing, and whether it's morally right or wrong is up to your spiritual advisor. It's just how the economy works; if you are unwilling or unable to pay the price that a person asks for his product, you don't get the product. Period. If you don't think that a CD is worth $17.99 (and I'd agree with you), you should choose to not own it. You vote with your dollars, and by going outside the system you undermine it.
If you so desperately need to hear new songs, skip lunch twice a month and subscribe to Yahoo Music.
Exploring the characters and ideas that other authors have created should be encouraged.
To a point. The problem is that there is a big difference between exploring existing characters and cashing in on popular characters, but it's not an easily defined difference. It is generally good for the culture to have the freedom to use characters in contexts not blessed by the creator. On the other hand, it is incredibly easy to use the popularity of a character to sell mediocre merchandise (like the unauthorized Calvin windshield stickers). If an author has done the work of constructing a character and associating it with certain ideologies in the popular mind, why should he not be compensated when a third party capitalizes on that work? More importantly where and how do you draw the line legally?
I totally agree with you. The NES graphics sucked, but I'm still nostalgic for games like Zelda, Contra, and Double Dragon, not because they looked great, but because they were so much damn fun to play. My Genesis looked pretty crappy compared to my friends' Super Nintendos, but I've never spent more time on a game than on Phantasy Star 3, because after I beat it I just had to go through it again and see the other endings.
Hopefully someday game developers will realize that they don't need a Hollywood production team. Those 8-bit sidescrolling platformers were a hell of a lot more fun than just about any HD, million polygon, celebrity voice acted crapfest they've released in the last five years.
Re:This requires not storing in insulators?
on
Halving Half Lives
·
· Score: 1
You don't need lead to stop gamma particles. Most any substance will absorb them, but the percentage absorbed per meter is proportional to the atomic mass of the absorbing substance. So while you only need a small thickness of lead to safely block gamma particles, you need a whole lot more aluminum.
Slashdot Mirror
The physics is the same, but instead of a ball you have a grenade, instead of a paddle you have walls, and you have an extra dimension. Rigid body mechanics hasn't changed much in the last thirty years.
The physics model is the same, except instead of a ball you have grenades, and instead of the paddle you have walls. Rigid body mechanics hasn't changed that much in the last thirty years.
Why pay them? Just fill out an application and make a few extra bucks while you prepare for your big heist.
sometimes a small item is behind a large item and I just don't see it.
You, sir, need a wife to nag^H^H^Hremind you to move the milk when you're looking for stuff. That would also take care of your bare bathroom issue.
Hmmm, out-of-town girlfriend. Ya know, like "my girlfriend lives in Canada."
Haven't they both been hired by Google?
How does it harm you if some people complain about NVIDIA's drivers?
The complaining makes the prospect of releasing a Linux driver undesirable for a lot of companies. When all they hear from the other side is that open source is a virus that will steal all their code, and all they hear from our side is that a driver is unacceptable unless it's open source, what are they supposed to think?
It really starts harming me when the developers in charge of the driver interface in the kernel deliberately make it difficult for non-GPL drivers to work, then suggesting that open sourcing drivers is the only solution. I understand the idealism of discouraging binary blob drivers, but *nix users are not in a position to dictate software policies to hardware manufacturers. Given the choice between open sourcing a driver and not supporting Linux, most companies will choose to not support Linux.
Just don't use it while you're on a conference call. All that heavy breathing sounds a lot different over the phone.
But will we have the wherewithal to go back in time to get Jean Claude Van Damme's help when rogue agents start abusing the technology for their own gain?
I'm intrigued by your suggestion of putting Vaseline on toast, but I won't try it unless you bet me a dollar.
I thought they slept while they hung around the necks of old sailors.
Whether this is because people still view scientists as nerds or outcasts of society, I cannot comment on.
I can only speak to the situation in the United States; I hope it's different in other parts of the world. I think it's due to a growing feeling by the average person that scientists and academics are a condescending, intellectual elite. The situation is exacerbated by the crumbling foundations of science education, the general lack of emphasis on critical thinking in primary schools, and wholesale replacement of natural causes with superstition in the minds of a disturbing majority of people.
When you think about it, it's entirely understandable. A person whose only understanding of "science" is germinating a bean in seventh grade, or that hard physics class they took in college, doesn't have a hope of understanding the subtleties of something like evolutionary biology or general relativity by reading a few popular science books. The misunderstandings and first-order conceptual explanations in almost every piece of science journalism, not to mention the "documentaries" on Discovery and ABC, don't make sense at all, but most people don't have the background to know why.
Of course, when you try to explain this to someone, or to explain why "God did it" is not a valid theory, it sounds like you're telling them they're stupid. So the real question becomes, is there a good way to get people back on the track to at least basic scientific understanding without completely turning them off the message?
if they have kids whom it's negatively impacting, take them and give them to someone who can take care of them.
What a fabulous idea. Hey, everybody is decrying childhood obesity now too, so let's take kids away from fat people. The majority of Americans think that same sex couples are unfit parents, so we'll have to take their kids.
Yes, this is a ridiculous extension of what you suggested, but I think it illustrates the problem with the idea of taking children from bad parents and giving them to good parents: for the most part, nobody can really say which parents are good and which are bad until the kids are grown up.
You talk purdier than a two dollar whore.
Seriously though, your explanation is a lot easier to understand than Kittel's.
Also, while these hardware manufacturers are at it, they might give a thought to setting up a cross-platform codebase for their drivers
Hehe, that's a good one.
It's a problem in Flash player. It wasn't designed to keep audio synced with frames over a long period. Maybe the next version will fix the problem, but for now FLV seems like a bad format to standardize on.
Come on! It shows kids of different colors living in the same neighborhood, and {shudder} playing together! Not to mention the adults who spend all day with the kids (they're probably fraudulently on welfare), and the overt acceptance of furry illegal aliens! What's not to hate about this trash?
I think pretty much everyone has long ago figured out the scheme where they hype one single good song on a CD and you buy it only to find out the rest is crap.
Personally, I just don't patronize businesses that have a well known intention to screw me. If I'm particularly bothered by it I might even send a letter explaining why they will no longer be screwing me. You might call me old fashioned, but I think that the sacrifice of not enjoying a product is a big part of boycotting it. Imagine if, instead of saying, "Copyright is so twentieth century," 69% of teenagers said, "Avril who?"
I honestly do not care whether SONY/BMG or Universal miss out on my 16$
..."
And that's the whole problem. You don't care because you get to hear the music you want anyway. Why bother trying to change the way they do business if you can just circumvent them completely? As long as the majority of disaffected customers are being satisfied by what amounts to a black market, they won't be angry enough to change the system.
If you want modern distribution systems, make it happen. But for some reason I doubt your resolve. You can't simultaneously infringe copyright and say, "I'd buy your music if only you'd
They should just be deprived of it. What, do you think you have some inalienable right to have a constantly updated playlist?
Copyright infringement is not analogous to stealing, and whether it's morally right or wrong is up to your spiritual advisor. It's just how the economy works; if you are unwilling or unable to pay the price that a person asks for his product, you don't get the product. Period. If you don't think that a CD is worth $17.99 (and I'd agree with you), you should choose to not own it. You vote with your dollars, and by going outside the system you undermine it.
If you so desperately need to hear new songs, skip lunch twice a month and subscribe to Yahoo Music.
Because it's when the virus can go from computer to person, to person, that it becomes a problem.
Exploring the characters and ideas that other authors have created should be encouraged.
To a point. The problem is that there is a big difference between exploring existing characters and cashing in on popular characters, but it's not an easily defined difference. It is generally good for the culture to have the freedom to use characters in contexts not blessed by the creator. On the other hand, it is incredibly easy to use the popularity of a character to sell mediocre merchandise (like the unauthorized Calvin windshield stickers). If an author has done the work of constructing a character and associating it with certain ideologies in the popular mind, why should he not be compensated when a third party capitalizes on that work? More importantly where and how do you draw the line legally?
Man, that makes me feel like an old fart. Remember when the only reason a game cost more than $25 was because it had a battery pack?
I bet it's a lot more expensive to press CDs than manufacture ROM cartridges though, right?
I totally agree with you. The NES graphics sucked, but I'm still nostalgic for games like Zelda, Contra, and Double Dragon, not because they looked great, but because they were so much damn fun to play. My Genesis looked pretty crappy compared to my friends' Super Nintendos, but I've never spent more time on a game than on Phantasy Star 3, because after I beat it I just had to go through it again and see the other endings.
Hopefully someday game developers will realize that they don't need a Hollywood production team. Those 8-bit sidescrolling platformers were a hell of a lot more fun than just about any HD, million polygon, celebrity voice acted crapfest they've released in the last five years.
You don't need lead to stop gamma particles. Most any substance will absorb them, but the percentage absorbed per meter is proportional to the atomic mass of the absorbing substance. So while you only need a small thickness of lead to safely block gamma particles, you need a whole lot more aluminum.