The problem here is that 'bubble' means two different things. A 'soap bubble' usually means a spherical layer of liquid, hanging in air, with air inside it. They have two liquid-gas surfaces. Another kind of bubble is simply a blob of gas inside a liquid; it has only one surface.
The article refers to the first kind of bubble. That way their definition of antibubble works perfectly, reversing the liquid and the gas in a (soap) bubble.
Hint: 2.6.0 has two dots, but decimal numbers only have one. The version number is an ordered triplet of integers, which is why there are things like Linux 2.4.23. However, some pieces of software use decimal version numbers, like TeX 3.14159.
I thought direct booting was disabled long long ago, as it hasn't been used much in recent years. AFAIK, in the olden days you could just copy the kernel image to a floppy (using dd etc.) to make it bootable.
The trailer is for SW6, but since there is episode 4 1/2, it is actually the seventh in the series. On the other hand, only 5 and 6 are proper movies IMHO. Also, SW6 is a sequel to SW5 although it probably works as a standalone movie as well.
"I refer to Nonlinear Analysis. They have evaluated the paper, they accepted it for publication and they have the copyright of its contents - and thus they are responsible for its correctness," Oxenhielm told Aftenposten English.
This sounds very unprofessional and unscientific. I hope this is a misunderstanding on the side of Aftenposten. Otherwise this seems like a stupid publicity stunt. I wonder if we have to pay a $699 license to access the original paper;-).
Umm, if the point is to reduce http traffic, I think the obvious solution should be a caching proxy server. Your ISP should already have one. I admit the story was fun, and it must have been great to hack on it, but it's not really about caching.
Because it can give an illusion of a 3D world. Then again, even a 2D image can give a pretty good illusion.
IMHO it's important to see (pun intended) that vision in a 3D world is fundamentally 2D. A ray of light is 1D; this takes away that one dimension. The human retina is effectively a 2D surface. In an n-dimensional world, vision is (n-1)-dimensional.
It helps a little that humans have two of those 2D eyes, but it doesn't make vision fully 3D (physical impossibility as explained above). Therefore a parallax-based system can give a perfectly good illusion; it's not fully 3D, but we don't need it to be as our vision is so limited.
On the other hand, things change when you move your head. You can't peek behind the image. However, it is possible if the head position is being tracked and the image changes accordingly. I've experienced one such system, it used LCD shutter glasses whose position was tracked via radio waves. A friend at the local university showed me a molecular simulation with this system, it was pretty kewl. The only limitation was that it used a single flat screen, but they are planning to extend it to cover every wall of a room to give full 3D immersion.
I don't mind "boxen". I usually do mind "virii". The difference is intent.
Also, 'boxen' is a German-style plural of 'box'. Part of the reason why it's so funny is probably the Blinkenlichten and related jokes. But 'virii' has no such background that I know of, other than being a messed-up attempt at Latin plurals. For that reason I find it equally annoying to the you're/your confusion.
So, what is the nominative plural of virus? I agree it's not virii, but we do need and answer so that the editors and others know what to do. I believe 'viruses' is OK in English, but what is the Latin plural?
We don't speak Latin. In english, the plural of virus is virii. No doubt about it
In English, AFAIK, the plural of a word ending with 's' is 'ses'. Hence virus -> viruses.
'virii' does bear some resemblance to _Latin_ plurals. For example, the plural of 'radius' is 'radii' which is a Latin plural, but used in English as well. Note that here 'us' changes into 'i', which is why you might argue that virus -> viri (single 'i' at the end).
Here in Finland we've had cellphone number portability since this July, and people face the same problem. As a solution there is a toll-free number where you can check the provider of a particular number. However, many providers now have schemes where the price of phonecalls is independent of the target provider (as long as it's a cellphone).
I for one welcome our new number portability overlords;-). I'm currently in the process of changing my provider, but I wouldn't do this if I had to change the number I've had for nearly seven years now.
Slashdot Mirror
The article refers to the first kind of bubble. That way their definition of antibubble works perfectly, reversing the liquid and the gas in a (soap) bubble.
I think you mean Romulan Ale.
MPlayer
I agree completely. You can be very spiritual while being an atheist, for example with Buddhism. Being spiritual does not always mean blind faith.
You probably need to learn more about The Illuminatus! Trilogy and the 23 enigma fnord.
Yeah, it was put there intentionally by the illuminated conspirators.
Hint: 2.6.0 has two dots, but decimal numbers only have one. The version number is an ordered triplet of integers, which is why there are things like Linux 2.4.23. However, some pieces of software use decimal version numbers, like TeX 3.14159.
I thought direct booting was disabled long long ago, as it hasn't been used much in recent years. AFAIK, in the olden days you could just copy the kernel image to a floppy (using dd etc.) to make it bootable.
here.
Hey, all the other 'great men' there were European, including Hitler. So it's not very flattering for us either.
The trailer is for SW6, but since there is episode 4 1/2, it is actually the seventh in the series. On the other hand, only 5 and 6 are proper movies IMHO. Also, SW6 is a sequel to SW5 although it probably works as a standalone movie as well.
This sounds very unprofessional and unscientific. I hope this is a misunderstanding on the side of Aftenposten. Otherwise this seems like a stupid publicity stunt. I wonder if we have to pay a $699 license to access the original paper ;-).
In this context of Linux, Finland is hardly insignificant.
Umm, if the point is to reduce http traffic, I think the obvious solution should be a caching proxy server. Your ISP should already have one. I admit the story was fun, and it must have been great to hack on it, but it's not really about caching.
Now the great thing is, when they post the unicycle story twice, you get a regular motorcycle! ;-/
IMHO it's important to see (pun intended) that vision in a 3D world is fundamentally 2D. A ray of light is 1D; this takes away that one dimension. The human retina is effectively a 2D surface. In an n-dimensional world, vision is (n-1)-dimensional.
It helps a little that humans have two of those 2D eyes, but it doesn't make vision fully 3D (physical impossibility as explained above). Therefore a parallax-based system can give a perfectly good illusion; it's not fully 3D, but we don't need it to be as our vision is so limited.
On the other hand, things change when you move your head. You can't peek behind the image. However, it is possible if the head position is being tracked and the image changes accordingly. I've experienced one such system, it used LCD shutter glasses whose position was tracked via radio waves. A friend at the local university showed me a molecular simulation with this system, it was pretty kewl. The only limitation was that it used a single flat screen, but they are planning to extend it to cover every wall of a room to give full 3D immersion.
Also, 'boxen' is a German-style plural of 'box'. Part of the reason why it's so funny is probably the Blinkenlichten and related jokes. But 'virii' has no such background that I know of, other than being a messed-up attempt at Latin plurals. For that reason I find it equally annoying to the you're/your confusion.
So, what is the nominative plural of virus? I agree it's not virii, but we do need and answer so that the editors and others know what to do. I believe 'viruses' is OK in English, but what is the Latin plural?
In English, AFAIK, the plural of a word ending with 's' is 'ses'. Hence virus -> viruses.
'virii' does bear some resemblance to _Latin_ plurals. For example, the plural of 'radius' is 'radii' which is a Latin plural, but used in English as well. Note that here 'us' changes into 'i', which is why you might argue that virus -> viri (single 'i' at the end).
Everything that has a beginning has an end.
What about the badger? Can someone tell me what is symbolizes, so that I know who to blame for this (i.e. the unreleased Badgers on Shrooms kernel).
I'd rather have badgers on shrooms instead.
While you're at it, drop the 'stable' as well. Remember how final and stable the 2.4.0 was?
I for one welcome our new number portability overlords ;-). I'm currently in the process of changing my provider, but I wouldn't do this if I had to change the number I've had for nearly seven years now.
Just explain you're a Slashdot reader. There's no way a /.er can ever get a STD, so you'll be safe.. except for the obvious fact that BSD is dying. ;-)