e-books have been tried, and they've failed. They will continue to fail until we somehow figure out a way to make an e-book that looks, feels, and behaves exactly like a real book. Good luck with that. Or until a generation that gets to use e-books grows up, then the real book will have trouble selling - who would want to use all that volume up for just one story instead of quarter of the volume for 6 million stories - some with sound-effects and even animated pages. Imagine reading a few lines about how to play poohsticks, then pressing the screen to see the picture above show Pooh and Christopher Robin running across the bridge to see their sticks come out the other side - imagine the expression on your kid's face. Believe me, e-books are going to sell like hot cakes.
Web-based apps aren't there yet, and will probably never get there until we have protocols that will give you the rich API that coding directly for the desktop will give you. Faking it in Javascript just isn't going to cut it. Web-based apps have been around since java and working very well indeed, HTML, CSS and ecmascript are not required for the web, only uri's.
True AI has been at least 30 years away for the past 50 years. It's an open question as to whether or not we can ever really get there, or if getting there is even desirable. True AI will happen 10 years after somebody figures out what the term even means.
That is not correct. Read up on QED, the most accurate description of the interaction of light and electrons ever devised (Quantum Electro-Dynamics).
Light travels at a variety of speeds in the face of interactions or when travelling through free space. What is constant is the number of times the little arrow spins in a given vector length through spacetime (watch the Feynman lectures to get this "little arrow" reference at http://www.vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8)
They need batteries that last longer than five years (without losing much of their capacity). That currently means A123 or AltairNano batteries. The delay is the time to prove their capacity retention over that delay period.
This laptop is for places which can only afford 1 teacher per year per fifty students. For the price of one more teacher for only three years they can provide the vast amount of knowledge of the internet to those fifty students for the lifetime of the laptop (probably about seven years - maybe more since it is small so more rugged and has solid state storage). That is a much cheaper way of increasing the level of education. Also textbooks can be provided much more cheaply as no paper is required.
They should have had one server and four dumb terminals. Would have been cheaper than five workstation class machines and provided a better server facility.
> objects do cross the event horizon, and in fact impact the interior singularity in finite proper time.
That's from the viewpoint of the falling object; from our point of view observing them they never finish forming. Your representation of the experience of the faller is also wrong:
Since every object that falls even a tiny moment after another sees the nearer one take an infinite time to reach the event horizon it, too, cannot reach the event horizon until an infinite time has passed (else it would overtake the nearer one). Thus all objects must experience reaching the event horizon at the same moment as all the others that reach it, and that moment must be at an infinite time in the future in time proper to each object.
Therefore: nothing in the universe can experience the formation of a black hole and they, thusly, do not form. QED
However, neither of us are talking about science because this cannot be tested (except to disprove, also, general relativity - if we observed something passing what should be an event horizon, something that no subscriber to general relativity expects).
> definition of a black hole: things fall into it, but can't come out.
Not quite, objects approach the event horizon and find it increasingly difficult to move away from it, but they don't cross it. They never even reach it. That also means a black hole cannot acrete mass, in turn meaning it can't even form to begin with.
Is "linking verb" a new linguistic term? I don't recall it during my linguistics training, perhaps you mean that "be" (in this case) is the copula. As a native English speaker, it's difficult to figure out whether it's the copula since we don't have the two separate forms of many other languages (such as Irish). Since the morpheme that converts "who" to "whom" need not agree with a feature of the verb but is based on the noun's case, the copulative nature (or not) of the verb here is not terribly important.
BTW, "whomsoever" is quite correct as the structure of the sentence is "obj subj adv verb" and in the objective case "whosoever" becomes "whomsoever". That's the quirky thing about archaic words (in their hang-on phrases) like this - the structure of the sentences they're used in is often quite different to modern usage causing people with a secondary school level of linguistics education (or speakers of American English, of course, which has many differences to British English) to 1) think that the first noun in a clause is absolutely always the subject, and 2) think that human language is so regimented that it would matter one jot, whit, or ounce if it was.
I could've said "whosoever be that", or "that be whomsoever" but it would've sounded silly either way - as a speaker of a human language, I simply chose the phrasing and inflexional morphology that sounded the most fluid to me lug-'ole - which happened to be one of the many "formally" correct ones (for the relevancy that has).
> you try to appear intelligent (much like the users of the word "virii"), it is still wrong.
I didn't need to try. And in English, the plural of "virus" is, of course, "viruses" - in Latin, however, I believe it is "viri". But given the number of people who say "virii" and who understand it to be the plural of "virus" it is perilously close to actually *being* one of several English plural forms like "hobbitses" for "hobbit".
In short, then, let us normal people carry on using natural language in a natural way.
We got the equivalent law some months ago here in the UK. The government no longer needs parliament to pass acts (the primary purpose of parliament). The Prime Minister now has full autocratic power over every person in the UK including the Queen - should he, or his successors whoever they may be, choose to use it. That includes the right to personally ban elections if he wanted to (not to suggest that he wants to, of course, just to indicate the lack of foresight that parliament had in allowing this poorly worded law to pass).
This posting itself only provides a direct link to a Sophos article, and does not indicate any opinion on the subject, either of mine or of my employer (whomsoever that may be - which I'm not telling you).
Especially since market share of a good is the proportion of gross currency taken in sales of that good in a given period. Not surprisingly Linux market share, and Linux application market share are both quite low, what with the sales times cost factor.
Nonsense. Engineers do *not* complain about the use of the term "centrifugal force", indeed it is a staple of engineering dynamic systems. It is *physicists* who get all ratty about it, since it is physicists who had to simplify the equations down to show the centrifugal effect so that the engineers could understand it:)
> As far as licensing goes, any thing you produce should be immediately copyrighted or smacked with a license, GPL, BSD, or otherwise, so that you may retain whatever power you wanted over it, lest someone else stumble upon it.
In the country I live in and in many others, any work is automatically copyrighted, and all rights reserved by default. That means if you receive something, unless you are told otherwise, you may not copy it except as required to use it, you many not show it publically, etc.
> The trick is getting a recognition system to recognize many voices in a large domain.
Powergen in the UK had a system where, when paying a bill by credit card, it would ask for the name on the card. I have an unusual name, and it would get it fine everytime. Although, being an AI graduate, I'm used to speaking in a manner that typical analysis algorithms can process well.
There is no precedent for that, AFAIK. So you would have to convince the judge that bundling a GPL implementation of a well-defined API (and since you have source for at least one implementation, it is *very* well defined) is more than mere amalgamation with the library to get an injunction.
For example, if I have a painting and a license to copy and distribute the copies as close to verbatim as technologically possible, I am permitted to put them in a frame before distribution. That does not form a derivative work. It's function is enhanced, but the two works are clearly delineated and merely amalgamated, IMHO.
If the program that uses the library was compiled with the GPL implementation's headers and those headers included macros or inline functions, it *might* be a derivative work. But putting code in knowing that the compiler will automatically copy parts of it into your licensee's program without it being requested by the licensee may count as permission to include those parts depending on the court's mood.
As always, consult a lawyer on his/her ability to defend you/prosecute in case of somebody disagreeing on the lawfulness of your planned actions.
The photon is the particle that carries momentum from one dipole to another so when the photons strike the surfaces they pass the momentum from the electrons in the syncrotron to the waveguide.
Due to the shape of the waveguide and the position of the entrypoint, the photons are more likely to hit the top.
Due to relativity, as the waveguide moves it does not strike the photons near the bottom more rapidly as they all move up with it.
Since the synchrotron will move with it, the electrons that the momentum was extracted from will move, so this device will not convert fuel into thrust, but fuel into a difference in position. Hence using it for hover cars - For a given energy in the fuel and given gravitational potential, the craft would move a certain distance and no further.
Problems exist like heating of the waveguide and generation of an ever increasing dipole and are apparently yet to be conquered. I don't expect the dipole problem to be conquered as I believe that will turn out to be the manifestation of the displacement limit.
Slashdot Mirror
Write a letter to the CEO and send a copy of the fire marshal's report - with his signature on it if possible.
That is not correct. Read up on QED, the most accurate description of the interaction of light and electrons ever devised (Quantum Electro-Dynamics).
Light travels at a variety of speeds in the face of interactions or when travelling through free space. What is constant is the number of times the little arrow spins in a given vector length through spacetime (watch the Feynman lectures to get this "little arrow" reference at http://www.vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8)
They need batteries that last longer than five years (without losing much of their capacity). That currently means A123 or AltairNano batteries. The delay is the time to prove their capacity retention over that delay period.
This laptop is for places which can only afford 1 teacher per year per fifty students. For the price of one more teacher for only three years they can provide the vast amount of knowledge of the internet to those fifty students for the lifetime of the laptop (probably about seven years - maybe more since it is small so more rugged and has solid state storage). That is a much cheaper way of increasing the level of education. Also textbooks can be provided much more cheaply as no paper is required.
They should have had one server and four dumb terminals. Would have been cheaper than five workstation class machines and provided a better server facility.
That's perfect! postgresql comes with an installer in the download. Sounds like postgresql would be ideal :)
I'd recommend pgadmin3.
> objects do cross the event horizon, and in fact impact the interior singularity in finite proper time.
That's from the viewpoint of the falling object; from our point of view observing them they never finish forming. Your representation of the experience of the faller is also wrong:
Since every object that falls even a tiny moment after another sees the nearer one take an infinite time to reach the event horizon it, too, cannot reach the event horizon until an infinite time has passed (else it would overtake the nearer one). Thus all objects must experience reaching the event horizon at the same moment as all the others that reach it, and that moment must be at an infinite time in the future in time proper to each object.
Therefore: nothing in the universe can experience the formation of a black hole and they, thusly, do not form. QED
However, neither of us are talking about science because this cannot be tested (except to disprove, also, general relativity - if we observed something passing what should be an event horizon, something that no subscriber to general relativity expects).
> definition of a black hole: things fall into it, but can't come out.
Not quite, objects approach the event horizon and find it increasingly difficult to move away from it, but they don't cross it. They never even reach it. That also means a black hole cannot acrete mass, in turn meaning it can't even form to begin with.
Quite simply, if they weren't extremely low power:
1) they would melt the discs
2) Sony wouldn't be allowed to ship them in consumer electronics (especially something targeted at kids)
Is "linking verb" a new linguistic term? I don't recall it during my linguistics training, perhaps you mean that "be" (in this case) is the copula. As a native English speaker, it's difficult to figure out whether it's the copula since we don't have the two separate forms of many other languages (such as Irish). Since the morpheme that converts "who" to "whom" need not agree with a feature of the verb but is based on the noun's case, the copulative nature (or not) of the verb here is not terribly important.
BTW, "whomsoever" is quite correct as the structure of the sentence is "obj subj adv verb" and in the objective case "whosoever" becomes "whomsoever". That's the quirky thing about archaic words (in their hang-on phrases) like this - the structure of the sentences they're used in is often quite different to modern usage causing people with a secondary school level of linguistics education (or speakers of American English, of course, which has many differences to British English) to 1) think that the first noun in a clause is absolutely always the subject, and 2) think that human language is so regimented that it would matter one jot, whit, or ounce if it was.
I could've said "whosoever be that", or "that be whomsoever" but it would've sounded silly either way - as a speaker of a human language, I simply chose the phrasing and inflexional morphology that sounded the most fluid to me lug-'ole - which happened to be one of the many "formally" correct ones (for the relevancy that has).
> you try to appear intelligent (much like the users of the word "virii"), it is still wrong.
I didn't need to try. And in English, the plural of "virus" is, of course, "viruses" - in Latin, however, I believe it is "viri". But given the number of people who say "virii" and who understand it to be the plural of "virus" it is perilously close to actually *being* one of several English plural forms like "hobbitses" for "hobbit".
In short, then, let us normal people carry on using natural language in a natural way.
That's the one I was referring to, I didn't realise the most worrisome part was dropped.
We got the equivalent law some months ago here in the UK. The government no longer needs parliament to pass acts (the primary purpose of parliament). The Prime Minister now has full autocratic power over every person in the UK including the Queen - should he, or his successors whoever they may be, choose to use it. That includes the right to personally ban elections if he wanted to (not to suggest that he wants to, of course, just to indicate the lack of foresight that parliament had in allowing this poorly worded law to pass).
According to Sophos, "PatchGuard is a positive step".
This posting itself only provides a direct link to a Sophos article, and does not indicate any opinion on the subject, either of mine or of my employer (whomsoever that may be - which I'm not telling you).
Especially since market share of a good is the proportion of gross currency taken in sales of that good in a given period. Not surprisingly Linux market share, and Linux application market share are both quite low, what with the sales times cost factor.
> It never proves anything. It is a heuristic.
Indeed. If it proved anything it wouldn't be science, it would be mathematics.
Nonsense. Engineers do *not* complain about the use of the term "centrifugal force", indeed it is a staple of engineering dynamic systems. It is *physicists* who get all ratty about it, since it is physicists who had to simplify the equations down to show the centrifugal effect so that the engineers could understand it :)
I switched from Debian 32bit to Ubuntu 64bit without a reinstall.
> As far as licensing goes, any thing you produce should be immediately copyrighted or smacked with a license, GPL, BSD, or otherwise, so that you may retain whatever power you wanted over it, lest someone else stumble upon it.
In the country I live in and in many others, any work is automatically copyrighted, and all rights reserved by default. That means if you receive something, unless you are told otherwise, you may not copy it except as required to use it, you many not show it publically, etc.
> The trick is getting a recognition system to recognize many voices in a large domain.
Powergen in the UK had a system where, when paying a bill by credit card, it would ask for the name on the card. I have an unusual name, and it would get it fine everytime. Although, being an AI graduate, I'm used to speaking in a manner that typical analysis algorithms can process well.
There is no precedent for that, AFAIK. So you would have to convince the judge that bundling a GPL implementation of a well-defined API (and since you have source for at least one implementation, it is *very* well defined) is more than mere amalgamation with the library to get an injunction.
For example, if I have a painting and a license to copy and distribute the copies as close to verbatim as technologically possible, I am permitted to put them in a frame before distribution. That does not form a derivative work. It's function is enhanced, but the two works are clearly delineated and merely amalgamated, IMHO.
If the program that uses the library was compiled with the GPL implementation's headers and those headers included macros or inline functions, it *might* be a derivative work. But putting code in knowing that the compiler will automatically copy parts of it into your licensee's program without it being requested by the licensee may count as permission to include those parts depending on the court's mood.
As always, consult a lawyer on his/her ability to defend you/prosecute in case of somebody disagreeing on the lawfulness of your planned actions.
Here's how it's supposed to work:
The photon is the particle that carries momentum from one dipole to another so when the photons strike the surfaces they pass the momentum from the electrons in the syncrotron to the waveguide.
Due to the shape of the waveguide and the position of the entrypoint, the photons are more likely to hit the top.
Due to relativity, as the waveguide moves it does not strike the photons near the bottom more rapidly as they all move up with it.
Since the synchrotron will move with it, the electrons that the momentum was extracted from will move, so this device will not convert fuel into thrust, but fuel into a difference in position. Hence using it for hover cars - For a given energy in the fuel and given gravitational potential, the craft would move a certain distance and no further.
Problems exist like heating of the waveguide and generation of an ever increasing dipole and are apparently yet to be conquered. I don't expect the dipole problem to be conquered as I believe that will turn out to be the manifestation of the displacement limit.
The Concise Oxford Dictionary makes no distinction between the two.
Google agrees:
Term: 325 cubic meters per fortnight in cubic feet per minute
Result: 325 ((cubic meters) per fortnight) = 0.569308863 (cubic feet) per minute
The last time I felt an ionic breeze it was barely perceptible, so that's probably right. I think you got 'em