MATLAB can compile and optimize code; I forget which toolbox you need for this, but it can in fact produce compiled C code to run your scripts. This can net you anything from factor of 1 to factor of 50 improvement (yes, I have seen a factor of 50 improvement) over the raw script, which usually isn't awful these days.
Have never compared it to FORTRAN in speed, but the fact that it's a lot quicker to write/maintain makes most of that speed differential meaningless.
It's per linear inch, not per square inch; this is why a smaller sensor may actually have the same, or even a larger, ppi rating; for example, my Nikon D-70 has a roughly APS-C sized sensor which is rated at approximately 3000 pixels over 2.37cm pixels, or 3215 pixels per linear inch. If you look at some of the high megapixel count consumer point-and-shoots, like a Minolta Dimage XG, the sensor requires an amazing 9815 pixels per linear inch. Of course, it isn't a particularly good sensor - a lot of tradeoffs go into making it that small at that resolution.
5% on resistors in high volume, I've seen 10%s floating around in lower quantities (Rat Shack, basically), though I suspect they're more expensive or even unavailable in volume.
And I can't argue with you regarding the differences between IBM and Sun opening their patent portfolio - one is purely for their own benefit, while the other is a lot closer to open source ideals in that it is saying "benefiting everyone will, in turn, benefit us".
It isn't pedantry. The GPL is *not* the most free license out there - it's just the one that seems most effective at protecting those freedoms it identifies as important, as opposed to maintaining more freedoms at the cost of allowing some of those freedoms to be circumvented.
The GPL doesn't allow me to use code from it in non-free projects.
The BSD license does.
Which one gives me more freedoms?
If you wanted to say the GPL is the F/OSS license most likely to *maintain* a free environment, that would be one thing. But calling it the "freest" is pure hypocrisy; the thing that makes the GPL so important is the *restrictions*, not just the freedoms.
A 1999 page is completely accurate when it comes to copyright *duration*, as terms have not been altered since 1998.
In fact, mine has significantly more (correct, for the record) detail regarding anonymously created works. In addition, Lolly is incorrect - works published between 1951 and 1977 all receive the 28+67 extension, not 64-77 as she claims.
It's all in here. Which, if you had read it recently, you would know has not been amended since the Bono Act in 1998.
The difference is that IBM does not release source code to their products. Sun said "Here's sample source, and we would love it if you ported it to your platform so long as you meet these standards!"
Individuals: Life of the author + 70 years ( 302(a))
Joint Works: Life of the last surviving author + 70 years ( 302(b))
Anonymous Works, Pseudonymous Works (where identity is not revealed) and Works Made for Hire: 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first ( 302(c))
Anonymous or Pseudonymous Works (where identity is revealed by filing): Life of the author + 70 years or life of the last surviving author +70 years ( 302(c))
No, it wouldn't help, because light travels at the speed light travels. A minor fraction of a second after that light hits Hubble, it hits Earth. That is physical LAW. Hubble CANNOT physically provide us with advance warning significantly faster than Earth-bound scopes, unless its resolving something Earth-bound scopes cannot resolve due to atmospheric effects.
You want advance warning of solar flares? Stick a satellite in a close heliocentric orbit and let it do particle cloud detection, then spit a signal back to us. Maybe, maybe, we could get 5 or 6 minutes, maybe even an hour depending on the speed of the particle cloud, worth of warning. Maybe.
But trying to re-task Hubble to something it was never designed for is simply stupid - its an observation scope. Let's use it to observe.
No, by twit I mean someone who feels his own personal desires should outweigh the overall good. At least, in this case. "If you don't play by my rules, I'll take my ball and go home" is 3rd grade bullshit, and grown up people of talent playing by that mantra are, as I've said... twits.
Him being a talented programmer (is it you we're talking about? - I stand by my statement either way, man is a twit for acting the way he has) has nothing to do with it. He may be a bright person, but he remains a twit.
And I am, as I've said more than a few times on Slashdot, a rabblerouser, a muckraker, and an all around asshole. I admit it, though. Is he (you?) willing to admit that he's a complete twit?
Slashdot Mirror
MATLAB can compile and optimize code; I forget which toolbox you need for this, but it can in fact produce compiled C code to run your scripts. This can net you anything from factor of 1 to factor of 50 improvement (yes, I have seen a factor of 50 improvement) over the raw script, which usually isn't awful these days.
Have never compared it to FORTRAN in speed, but the fact that it's a lot quicker to write/maintain makes most of that speed differential meaningless.
Because MATLAB exists.
Or Scilab, if you're broke.
Only use Mathematica if you need symbolic notations.
If you're just doing numerical analysis, and *especially* if you're doing vector/matrix work, just use MATLAB.
Wronskian.
I could have used the Matrix Adjugate, too, but I like the determinant.
Is it wrong that the first thing I saw is that the first number is leetspeak for LEETASS and the second one is ASSTOSEA?
He didn't.
*Links* to external content.
That's like someone who says "Hey, I hear you can pick up hookers on 8 mile!" being arrested for aiding prostitution.
What, Matrix Hermitian, Matrix Jacobian, and Matrix Determinant?
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
All of those might be considered *immoral* - if they were considered amoral, you would in fact be saying that they have nothing to do with morality.
Merriam-Webster: "amoral - being neither moral nor immoral; specifically : lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply"
It's per linear inch, not per square inch; this is why a smaller sensor may actually have the same, or even a larger, ppi rating; for example, my Nikon D-70 has a roughly APS-C sized sensor which is rated at approximately 3000 pixels over 2.37cm pixels, or 3215 pixels per linear inch. If you look at some of the high megapixel count consumer point-and-shoots, like a Minolta Dimage XG, the sensor requires an amazing 9815 pixels per linear inch. Of course, it isn't a particularly good sensor - a lot of tradeoffs go into making it that small at that resolution.
5% on resistors in high volume, I've seen 10%s floating around in lower quantities (Rat Shack, basically), though I suspect they're more expensive or even unavailable in volume.
You're misreading: 10200 pixels wide on 4" for their top end, yielding 2550 ppi.
We'd disagree, but its a fair discussion. :)
And I can't argue with you regarding the differences between IBM and Sun opening their patent portfolio - one is purely for their own benefit, while the other is a lot closer to open source ideals in that it is saying "benefiting everyone will, in turn, benefit us".
Freest - most free - most freedom.
It isn't pedantry. The GPL is *not* the most free license out there - it's just the one that seems most effective at protecting those freedoms it identifies as important, as opposed to maintaining more freedoms at the cost of allowing some of those freedoms to be circumvented.
The GPL doesn't allow me to use code from it in non-free projects.
The BSD license does.
Which one gives me more freedoms?
If you wanted to say the GPL is the F/OSS license most likely to *maintain* a free environment, that would be one thing. But calling it the "freest" is pure hypocrisy; the thing that makes the GPL so important is the *restrictions*, not just the freedoms.
I don't know.
Because they're fun? I don't play football, that doesn't mean I can't enjoy it.
I'm a boy. Just like flat screens, a flat ass is hot.
(Fuck, I wish my ass was that small. Stupid desk jobs.)
A 1999 page is completely accurate when it comes to copyright *duration*, as terms have not been altered since 1998.
In fact, mine has significantly more (correct, for the record) detail regarding anonymously created works. In addition, Lolly is incorrect - works published between 1951 and 1977 all receive the 28+67 extension, not 64-77 as she claims.
It's all in here. Which, if you had read it recently, you would know has not been amended since the Bono Act in 1998.
The difference is that IBM does not release source code to their products. Sun said "Here's sample source, and we would love it if you ported it to your platform so long as you meet these standards!"
IBM says "No."
Individuals: Life of the author + 70 years ( 302(a))
Joint Works: Life of the last surviving author + 70 years ( 302(b))
Anonymous Works, Pseudonymous Works (where identity is not revealed) and Works Made for Hire: 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first ( 302(c))
Anonymous or Pseudonymous Works (where identity is revealed by filing): Life of the author + 70 years or life of the last surviving author +70 years ( 302(c))
Taken from here.
Eh, that's okay. I don't want my email to be on Slashdot. You understand, I'm sure.
Part #1a: Use Photoshop actions (or GIMP equivalent) to batch resize the photos to the size you want the movie to be at. Make them GIFs, too.
Part #2a: Animated GIF: freeware called UnFREEz. Select them all, choose the frame delay, let it rip. Output is a large animated GIF file.
Part #1b: Photoshop actions to resize to the appropriate resolution.
Part #2b: Quicktime Pro, Import A Sequence of Images, save as a movie.
Enjoy the 20D.
Easy in the circuits, hard in the transducers.
HF is vice versa.
Did you totally ignore the "limited space" requirement of dude's already cramped breakfast bar?
Yes. Yes, you did.
No, it wouldn't help, because light travels at the speed light travels. A minor fraction of a second after that light hits Hubble, it hits Earth. That is physical LAW. Hubble CANNOT physically provide us with advance warning significantly faster than Earth-bound scopes, unless its resolving something Earth-bound scopes cannot resolve due to atmospheric effects.
You want advance warning of solar flares? Stick a satellite in a close heliocentric orbit and let it do particle cloud detection, then spit a signal back to us. Maybe, maybe, we could get 5 or 6 minutes, maybe even an hour depending on the speed of the particle cloud, worth of warning. Maybe.
But trying to re-task Hubble to something it was never designed for is simply stupid - its an observation scope. Let's use it to observe.
No.
No, it couldn't.
You know why? Because the amount of warning Hubble could provide over a ground-based scope would be measured in *seconds*.
No, by twit I mean someone who feels his own personal desires should outweigh the overall good. At least, in this case. "If you don't play by my rules, I'll take my ball and go home" is 3rd grade bullshit, and grown up people of talent playing by that mantra are, as I've said... twits.
Him being a talented programmer (is it you we're talking about? - I stand by my statement either way, man is a twit for acting the way he has) has nothing to do with it. He may be a bright person, but he remains a twit.
And I am, as I've said more than a few times on Slashdot, a rabblerouser, a muckraker, and an all around asshole. I admit it, though. Is he (you?) willing to admit that he's a complete twit?