OpenOffice.org 1.1 crashes when exiting about 1/3 of the time. I have a OO.o Writer document open. I close the last window (exiting the program). The feedback manager starts telling me that OO.o crashed and asking if I want to send a bug report. I've sent maybe ten so far.
This harmless, but annoying, bug is the biggest drawback I can find to OO.o 1.1.
I've got Evolution set to not load any images in HTML mail.
Now if I can only get a FORWARD rule, so I can send the crap to the proper authorities (Earthlink's spam nomination address, for instance), and an EXPUNGE rule so I can get them out of my inbox before I can even SEE them!
So the LSB Specification documents are deficient. The LSB committee should either correct them, or accept corrections from the public (as in the RFC process).
A still disagree that poor standards are worse than no standards at all. Predictability (even having to look in three places) is still better than total chaos.
As much as I like the idea behind standards, I don't have much faith in LSB to write them correctly, and as long as that is the case it's better to just ignore them.
Standards and specifications are not as much about achieving a universally-accepted level of "correctness" as they are about clearly transmitting an idea from one person to another.
Standards and specifications should not be ignored just because one disagrees with them philosophically. Conformance to standards, even those that are not as elegant and beautiful as we might hope for, increases interoperability and ease of use (the "do the least surprising thing" rule). The LSB is, of course, a political beast that tries to respect the competing philosophies of those that are writing it.
If Arker wants to compile a distribution that does not conform to the LSB, I've got no objections. If Arker complains that he can't make an LSB-conforming distribution because the standards are "wrong," that's just silly.
Until you short one with something you care about. 50C of charge flowing down something in a fraction of a second (or 50-500A of current) is not what I want to think about. "Instant disintegration" comes to mind.
Ever change a automotive battery and have the wrench touch the body of the car?
Batteries have that same "no current feature" that caps do.
Information is already thought of that way by the people that actually do communications theory. Shannon'sTheorem states that the amount of data a given channel can propagate expressed in bits per second is
C= Wlog2(1+S/N)
where W is the channel bandwidth in Hertz, S is the signal power in Watts, and N is the channel noise power in Watts. S is defined as
S= kEb/T
where k is the number of bits per symbol, Eb is the energy per bit in Joules, and T is the symbol duration time in seconds. Note that Joules/Seconds= Watts.
A little later, the paper I reference above defines the minimum bit energy required for reliable reception:
(Eb/N0)>= (lim as nmax->0){log2(((2^nmax)-1)/nmax)}
for infinite bandwidth, this becomes (Eb/N0)= ln(2)= -1.59 dB.
In any case, I hope it has become readily apparent that those that deal with communications and signalling theory have considered information to be energy for going on sixty years.
That's absolutely right. He might want to look into buying a set of service manuals for his car. I have a set for my car. Not cheap, but extremely helpful.
Don't know who prints them for Audi; GM uses HELM.
You are right. We don't know the true cost of your $0.77 can of tuna.
But I will tell you one thing: it's less than $0.77!
Only the insane would willingly and intentionally sell their product at a loss. I don't see any reason to believe that StarKist, Chicken of the Sea or any other tuna canner going out of business anytime soon; they must be making money selling their products. Ya can't make money selling things for less than it costs to produce them!
Fuel taxes pay for road construction and maintenance, at least here in the United States. Those taxes are paid (directly) by the shipping companies that operate the trucks and are an operating expense (cost of doing business). Those operating expenses are calculated into the freight charges paid by those shipping goods (oranges, whatever). Shipping charges are an operating expense for the producer that's built-into the wholesale price of the goods we buy, and therefore are automatically part of the retial price.
I can't say it much plainer: consumers pay for everything!.
Fuel is not "wasted" sending apples from California to Ontario. Simple physics tells us that to perform work, energy must be expended. That fuel is doing useful work propelling apples across the continent! This is the most unreasonable argument I think I've ever heard: performing a useful activity is now "wasting!"
Here's a question for you: what cost-effective and economically-viable alternative method do you propose for providing the people of Ontario with apples?
Let me put it this way: If I pay 65 cent/l for gas (as of this morning), I get 9l to a 100K, then I can see quite clearly that somehow 87cents (no matter how cheap the bulk rate for fuel is) will pay for the transport alone. I would say someone is someone giving money to allow this stuff to be so cheap, no?
In a word, NO. Welcome to the world of economies of scale. Cans of tuna are not delivered from the packing plant to your grocer's shelf individually in personal automobiles. They're packed into flats that are loaded onto pallets that are then carried by ship and/or truck to the final destination. Although road tractors don't get stellar fuel economy, they carry a massive amount of cargo and the transportation costs are divided among the entire payload.
For that matter, here in the US, a first-class postal letter costs $0.37. According to your logic, a postal carrier picks my single letter out of my mail box, drives it all the way to California, or where ever, and delivers it to the destination mail box, all for $0.39.
Actually my point is that what we pay for our produce at the register is not an accurate reflection of the true costs. There is a lot of hidden costs (e.g. Transportation) that we obviously don't seem to pay for. Having said that, the question would be: Who is paying for that?
You are! All costs associated with bringing the product to the shelf, plus the fraction of the operating expenses for the store (personnel, electricity, insurance, etc) for you to buy are wrapped up in the purchase price!
There is something horrificly wrong in the way the market works I'd say.
Let's look at your argument: Since your (inexpensive) produce is grown in far-away places and brought to you, something must be wrong with the "market."
First, have you considered that it might not be feasible to grow the things you want locally? Ever grown citrus in a non-tropical climate like you've got there in Toronto? They don't do well in the cold and it often gets too cold even here in Florida: freezing weather harms the trees and can destroy the fruit. Now I imagine that huge greenhouses could be built to grow citrus and other tropical-climate crops in, but you'd find the cost of those greenhouses would have to be ammortized into the selling price of the fruit, and that fruit would be much more expensive as a result.
Manufacturers want to maximize their profits, that is true (think: maximizing return on investment, ROI). One method of controlling profits involves unit (car, banana, whatever) pricing. Most people versed in economic principles know that the price-profit curve is an upside-down saddle shape, sort of like a upside-down parabola. Extremely low prices mean no or even negative profits, no matter how many units they sell. Extremely high prices mean that nobody buys their products, and no profits are realized. By pricing their products optimally, or at the top of the "hill," their profits are maximized.
Another method of controlling profits is to control manufacturing and delivery costs. You seem to be proposing that manufacturing costs be traded for delivery costs: make things locally (lower delivery cost), no matter what infrastructure may be required (manufacturing cost).Here in the United States, many people bemoan the fact that many manufacturing operations have moved overseas, but we'll stick with agriculture products. By concentrating production of climate-specific crops in their natural climates, higher yields are grown for less money.
Sure: I could grow peaches here in Florida, but I'd have to do it indoors with a greenhouse I can cool to freezing weather for about a month (peaches need the cold weather to set fruit). You can grow oranges in Toronto in a greenhouse if you want. It's just not economically feasible to do so. Coffee and cacao only grows in areas like the mountains of Central America and West Africa, unless somebody pays to build a greenhouse that can simulate the high-altitude conditions those crops grow in. When's the last time you saw a Canadian-grown Macadamia tree or date palm?
When we finally realize that we (people) are incapable of harming the environment in a permanent manner, these resources would end all dependence on foriegn petroleum purchases.
NO, Gore did not win the vote. Only an uneducated fool would claim that presidents are popularly elected in the United States. They've never been popularly elected.
What part of
"Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector"
Bill O'Rielly is a populist, not a "true" conservative. Instead of wanting small, weak Federal Government that the Founding Fathers designed, he wants a "good" Federal nanny instead of a "bad" Federal nanny.
Not just the UK. Here in the United States those people at flea markets do "exactly" the same thing.:)
I wrote a letter to the local paper a few weeks ago about a DOT sign that had two misused apostrophes. Not a week after it was published, the sign was fixed! What do you know, the DOT people can read after all!
Federal spending is not what makes the United States a great country. The American Experiment was not an experiment with strong central power; that had been done for years and was the very thing the American Revolutionaries were escaping. The United States constitution was constructed to balance the needs for some federal power (the Articles of Confederation gave it almost none!) while serverly restricting the excercise of those powers.
I could not disagree with you more with regard to a new amendment abolishing the 9th and 10th amendments that Congress holds in such disdain. Instead, I am for a return to Federal constitutionally correctness and the ouster of those Representatives and Senators that fail to live up to their oaths of office. What does "promoting national growth and standards" conflict with a small, constitutionally correct Federal government? I'm somewhat bothered by government "promoting growth" of any fashion; should not a liberated people be left to achieve what they can imagine? How did the United States ever survive the Nineteenth Century without the programs of the New Deal or the Great Society? Remember: the "General Welfare Clause" is in the preamble, not Article I.
For what it's worth, I'm for the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment, as it silenced the voice of the States in Federal Government, giving power to the People that was originally intended for States to hold.
National defence is one of the few legitimate functions of the Federal Government of the United States. Perhaps you, and the rest of the uneducated masses, should study the Constitution of the United States of America, and learn just what the Federal Government is supposed to be doing.
"The Answer" is very simple: the Federal Government must be reigned in, and constrained to the limits established for it by the Constitution. That means that the Federal Government can do only a very small list of things. Anything not on that list is legally forbidden from the Federal Government. How much of today's Federal Monster lives outside this carefully chosen boundary? How many times has Congress ignored the Ninth and Amendments?
The only political organization that shows any respect for the Constitution of the United States anymore is the Constitution Party, whom I support.
All these people that say that Iraq should pay back the money spent in the reconstruction forget one thing: there' no Iraqi government right now that can accept the debt responsibility. As many posters here point out with regard to EULAs, without a "meeting of the minds" there can't be a contract; right now Iraq has no "mind" with which to meet.
Where do you think the United States would be if it had been required to repay the help that France provided during the Revolutionary War, before the Articles of Confederation were ratified and the first government of the United States came into being?
Making the Iraqi reconstruction monies a loan equals Iraq becoming a United States colony; isn't colonialization one thing we're against?
I use something similar to what the grandparent post speaks of: the Smith Chart
Inside the circle of the Smith Chart exists every possible transmission line termination, from the open circuit (Z= infinity), to the short circuit (Z=0) and everything in between. "1," or a perfect match, is located at the center of the chart.
Too bad there's historically no such thing as "Palistinians," and has never been a soveriegn nation called "Palistine."
Too bad that the SixDayWar didn't go the way you think it should have. Since when does regions conquered in wartime count as "stolen?" It was won, fair and square.
Too bad nobody realizes that there will never be peace in the Middle East until one side wins. Whom ar you rooting for?
The original poster said that elecro-magnetic fields don't cause ionization, I was refuting that. I know full-well that a strong enough static electric field can ionize things; I own a cat (ZAP!). Frequency has nothing to do with the fact that a strong enough E-field will strip electrons from the atoms in the dielectric that it permeates, ionizing it.
I know that most arcing situations in a waveguide are due to mismatch-induced standing waves. Locality has nothing to do with the fact that a strongenough E-field will strip electrons from the atoms in the dielectric that it permeates, ionizing it. It's that VSWR mismatch limit that sets the power handling limit for the waveguide.
No, it can't "dislodge atomic structures" - it's not ionising radiation. It might cause some heating if you shoved the antenna through your eyeball and directly into your brain though...
Not ionizing? Pray tell, why then do transmission lines have maximum power handling limits? Waveguide, for instance, can't handle any more power than that which provides an electric field equal to the dielectric strength of the filling material. Any more power and the dielectric ionizes and arcing occurs.
Walk outside near a power line here in Florida, and you can here the lines crackling, as small arcs in the damp salty air jump from the transmission cables to their support stuctures.
Now EM radiation won't do anything to nuclear structures, if that's what you mean. Transmutation requires more energy than possible through EM bombardment.
Slashdot Mirror
I can list one.
OpenOffice.org 1.1 crashes when exiting about 1/3 of the time. I have a OO.o Writer document open. I close the last window (exiting the program). The feedback manager starts telling me that OO.o crashed and asking if I want to send a bug report. I've sent maybe ten so far.
This harmless, but annoying, bug is the biggest drawback I can find to OO.o 1.1.
I've got Evolution set to not load any images in HTML mail.
Now if I can only get a FORWARD rule, so I can send the crap to the proper authorities (Earthlink's spam nomination address, for instance), and an EXPUNGE rule so I can get them out of my inbox before I can even SEE them!
So the LSB Specification documents are deficient. The LSB committee should either correct them, or accept corrections from the public (as in the RFC process).
A still disagree that poor standards are worse than no standards at all. Predictability (even having to look in three places) is still better than total chaos.
Standards and specifications are not as much about achieving a universally-accepted level of "correctness" as they are about clearly transmitting an idea from one person to another.
Standards and specifications should not be ignored just because one disagrees with them philosophically. Conformance to standards, even those that are not as elegant and beautiful as we might hope for, increases interoperability and ease of use (the "do the least surprising thing" rule). The LSB is, of course, a political beast that tries to respect the competing philosophies of those that are writing it.
If Arker wants to compile a distribution that does not conform to the LSB, I've got no objections. If Arker complains that he can't make an LSB-conforming distribution because the standards are "wrong," that's just silly.
Ever change a automotive battery and have the wrench touch the body of the car?
Batteries have that same "no current feature" that caps do.
where W is the channel bandwidth in Hertz, S is the signal power in Watts, and N is the channel noise power in Watts. S is defined as
where k is the number of bits per symbol, Eb is the energy per bit in Joules, and T is the symbol duration time in seconds. Note that Joules/Seconds= Watts.
A little later, the paper I reference above defines the minimum bit energy required for reliable reception:
for infinite bandwidth, this becomes (Eb/N0)= ln(2)= -1.59 dB.
In any case, I hope it has become readily apparent that those that deal with communications and signalling theory have considered information to be energy for going on sixty years.
That's absolutely right. He might want to look into buying a set of service manuals for his car. I have a set for my car. Not cheap, but extremely helpful.
Don't know who prints them for Audi; GM uses HELM.
Grandparent poster must be from the Department of Redundancy Department ;)
You are right. We don't know the true cost of your $0.77 can of tuna.
But I will tell you one thing: it's less than $0.77!
Only the insane would willingly and intentionally sell their product at a loss. I don't see any reason to believe that StarKist, Chicken of the Sea or any other tuna canner going out of business anytime soon; they must be making money selling their products. Ya can't make money selling things for less than it costs to produce them!
Perhaps IHBT. HAND.
Fuel taxes pay for road construction and maintenance, at least here in the United States. Those taxes are paid (directly) by the shipping companies that operate the trucks and are an operating expense (cost of doing business). Those operating expenses are calculated into the freight charges paid by those shipping goods (oranges, whatever). Shipping charges are an operating expense for the producer that's built-into the wholesale price of the goods we buy, and therefore are automatically part of the retial price.
I can't say it much plainer: consumers pay for everything!.
Fuel is not "wasted" sending apples from California to Ontario. Simple physics tells us that to perform work, energy must be expended. That fuel is doing useful work propelling apples across the continent! This is the most unreasonable argument I think I've ever heard: performing a useful activity is now "wasting!"
Here's a question for you: what cost-effective and economically-viable alternative method do you propose for providing the people of Ontario with apples?
In a word, NO. Welcome to the world of economies of scale. Cans of tuna are not delivered from the packing plant to your grocer's shelf individually in personal automobiles. They're packed into flats that are loaded onto pallets that are then carried by ship and/or truck to the final destination. Although road tractors don't get stellar fuel economy, they carry a massive amount of cargo and the transportation costs are divided among the entire payload.
For that matter, here in the US, a first-class postal letter costs $0.37. According to your logic, a postal carrier picks my single letter out of my mail box, drives it all the way to California, or where ever, and delivers it to the destination mail box, all for $0.39.
You are! All costs associated with bringing the product to the shelf, plus the fraction of the operating expenses for the store (personnel, electricity, insurance, etc) for you to buy are wrapped up in the purchase price!
Let's look at your argument: Since your (inexpensive) produce is grown in far-away places and brought to you, something must be wrong with the "market."
First, have you considered that it might not be feasible to grow the things you want locally? Ever grown citrus in a non-tropical climate like you've got there in Toronto? They don't do well in the cold and it often gets too cold even here in Florida: freezing weather harms the trees and can destroy the fruit. Now I imagine that huge greenhouses could be built to grow citrus and other tropical-climate crops in, but you'd find the cost of those greenhouses would have to be ammortized into the selling price of the fruit, and that fruit would be much more expensive as a result.
Manufacturers want to maximize their profits, that is true (think: maximizing return on investment, ROI). One method of controlling profits involves unit (car, banana, whatever) pricing. Most people versed in economic principles know that the price-profit curve is an upside-down saddle shape, sort of like a upside-down parabola. Extremely low prices mean no or even negative profits, no matter how many units they sell. Extremely high prices mean that nobody buys their products, and no profits are realized. By pricing their products optimally, or at the top of the "hill," their profits are maximized.
Another method of controlling profits is to control manufacturing and delivery costs. You seem to be proposing that manufacturing costs be traded for delivery costs: make things locally (lower delivery cost), no matter what infrastructure may be required (manufacturing cost).Here in the United States, many people bemoan the fact that many manufacturing operations have moved overseas, but we'll stick with agriculture products. By concentrating production of climate-specific crops in their natural climates, higher yields are grown for less money.
Sure: I could grow peaches here in Florida, but I'd have to do it indoors with a greenhouse I can cool to freezing weather for about a month (peaches need the cold weather to set fruit). You can grow oranges in Toronto in a greenhouse if you want. It's just not economically feasible to do so. Coffee and cacao only grows in areas like the mountains of Central America and West Africa, unless somebody pays to build a greenhouse that can simulate the high-altitude conditions those crops grow in. When's the last time you saw a Canadian-grown Macadamia tree or date palm?
When we finally realize that we (people) are incapable of harming the environment in a permanent manner, these resources would end all dependence on foriegn petroleum purchases.
What part of do you not understand?
Bill O'Rielly is a populist, not a "true" conservative. Instead of wanting small, weak Federal Government that the Founding Fathers designed, he wants a "good" Federal nanny instead of a "bad" Federal nanny.
Not just the UK. Here in the United States those people at flea markets do "exactly" the same thing. :)
I wrote a letter to the local paper a few weeks ago about a DOT sign that had two misused apostrophes. Not a week after it was published, the sign was fixed! What do you know, the DOT people can read after all!
Like that doesn't happen already!
Federal spending is not what makes the United States a great country. The American Experiment was not an experiment with strong central power; that had been done for years and was the very thing the American Revolutionaries were escaping. The United States constitution was constructed to balance the needs for some federal power (the Articles of Confederation gave it almost none!) while serverly restricting the excercise of those powers.
I could not disagree with you more with regard to a new amendment abolishing the 9th and 10th amendments that Congress holds in such disdain. Instead, I am for a return to Federal constitutionally correctness and the ouster of those Representatives and Senators that fail to live up to their oaths of office. What does "promoting national growth and standards" conflict with a small, constitutionally correct Federal government? I'm somewhat bothered by government "promoting growth" of any fashion; should not a liberated people be left to achieve what they can imagine? How did the United States ever survive the Nineteenth Century without the programs of the New Deal or the Great Society? Remember: the "General Welfare Clause" is in the preamble, not Article I.
For what it's worth, I'm for the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment, as it silenced the voice of the States in Federal Government, giving power to the People that was originally intended for States to hold.
National defence is one of the few legitimate functions of the Federal Government of the United States. Perhaps you, and the rest of the uneducated masses, should study the Constitution of the United States of America, and learn just what the Federal Government is supposed to be doing.
"The Answer" is very simple: the Federal Government must be reigned in, and constrained to the limits established for it by the Constitution. That means that the Federal Government can do only a very small list of things. Anything not on that list is legally forbidden from the Federal Government. How much of today's Federal Monster lives outside this carefully chosen boundary? How many times has Congress ignored the Ninth and Amendments?
The only political organization that shows any respect for the Constitution of the United States anymore is the Constitution Party, whom I support.
All these people that say that Iraq should pay back the money spent in the reconstruction forget one thing: there' no Iraqi government right now that can accept the debt responsibility. As many posters here point out with regard to EULAs, without a "meeting of the minds" there can't be a contract; right now Iraq has no "mind" with which to meet.
Where do you think the United States would be if it had been required to repay the help that France provided during the Revolutionary War, before the Articles of Confederation were ratified and the first government of the United States came into being?
Making the Iraqi reconstruction monies a loan equals Iraq becoming a United States colony; isn't colonialization one thing we're against?
I use something similar to what the grandparent post speaks of: the Smith Chart
Inside the circle of the Smith Chart exists every possible transmission line termination, from the open circuit (Z= infinity), to the short circuit (Z=0) and everything in between. "1," or a perfect match, is located at the center of the chart.
Too bad there's historically no such thing as "Palistinians," and has never been a soveriegn nation called "Palistine."
Too bad that the Six Day War didn't go the way you think it should have. Since when does regions conquered in wartime count as "stolen?" It was won, fair and square.
Too bad nobody realizes that there will never be peace in the Middle East until one side wins. Whom ar you rooting for?
Martin Luther was a monk. Later in life he did marry. Shoot, there even was a Martin, Jr. I didn't think there would be!
Here I was going to go off on a rant and make fun of you're historical inaccuracy and how dumb you were, and you had the audacity to be right! Darn.
The original poster said that elecro-magnetic fields don't cause ionization, I was refuting that. I know full-well that a strong enough static electric field can ionize things; I own a cat (ZAP!). Frequency has nothing to do with the fact that a strong enough E-field will strip electrons from the atoms in the dielectric that it permeates, ionizing it.
I know that most arcing situations in a waveguide are due to mismatch-induced standing waves. Locality has nothing to do with the fact that a strongenough E-field will strip electrons from the atoms in the dielectric that it permeates, ionizing it. It's that VSWR mismatch limit that sets the power handling limit for the waveguide.
Not ionizing? Pray tell, why then do transmission lines have maximum power handling limits? Waveguide, for instance, can't handle any more power than that which provides an electric field equal to the dielectric strength of the filling material. Any more power and the dielectric ionizes and arcing occurs.
Walk outside near a power line here in Florida, and you can here the lines crackling, as small arcs in the damp salty air jump from the transmission cables to their support stuctures.
Now EM radiation won't do anything to nuclear structures, if that's what you mean. Transmutation requires more energy than possible through EM bombardment.