nope--consider that the while they may eventually reach the same velocity, it does not matter because the dropped bullet will still have to speed up or slow down to reach the spot that the bullet from the gun is at. Remember that by the time they reach terminal velocity, they are seperated by some distance
assuming of course that your shot was parallel to the ground. In that case they have the same vertical component and the force(gravity) will act the same on them both. If the gun gives the bullet some speed out of the parallel, then the other bullet must either first speed up or slow down to land at the same time. The same as when spidey dove at her as she fell.
Everybody always brings up this one thing from Independance day, out of so much other crap that could be picked on!--I always figured it was the most plausible thing in the whole movie--I mean given that we have been studying their tech for 50 years, we might have found some particular defect that can be communicated to their system via a mac--I have no problem with that. No, the biggest problem with that movie was timing--it would have taken 3 days just to fuel up all those planes, much less get them and everything else to the conviniently in-atmosphere alien ships. As to the tunnel thing--we can assume that while all the oxygen was sucked out of the tunnel, it was sucked back by the huge vacume created by previously mentioned fire. She was within view of the entrance. I think that we can all agree that she really just should have died because of the heat, regardless of if she was actually in the flame or not.
As for hackers, if you put aside the silly graphics, which were obviously intended to represent what was going on, the most of the rest of the movie is pretty plausible--'cept the part about geeks getting laid--that wouldn't have happend untill college.
And If you have never heard of a bra, well, I can only recommend that you go study her chest some more. Perhaps you meant to ask how they got so big in the first place! well, a visit to a few porn sites well show you that that some women are just so blessed. Was it coincidince that you picked two movies with angelina jolie?
As to my point-you might want to choose your favrites with a little more care, as they are in general better than most of the crap that gets past!
check out konq, in KDE, It has some of these features, althought probably not as fully fleshed out as could be. I must admit, i rarely bother to use it though. I can usually do most anything faster at the command line.
your right--I blame faulty memory, and the fact that I moved away a few years ago---I can only say that perhaps I was thinking of the woodlands pavilion. Oh well
well, two basic parts: hardware and software first of the hardware is pretty independant of the os, just pick the highest quality capture card you can afford that is supported in linux, add a reasonable camera, sound card, and a nice modern machine of any kind. I use a bttv card, which works well for me, but of course it depends on your exact needs, and the camera that you hook up to it. As to software: SDL, mostly used for game programming, but has some of the capabilites needed for capturing, sound recording, etc. v4l the basic component of all video type stuff under linux-you can see the list of crap it supports there, but it doesn't really have facilities for actually capturing to something like mpeg. avifile everything you want in a capture API, will let you output to all kinds of formats. mplayer I have heard that they support capturing now, but haven't used them for that, but is what you will be using for playing back the files you capture.
My recommendation would be to use the VCR project, and one of these for audio. VCR uses avifile to record the video in your chosen format, and will record the audio also, but if you want seperate files for audio and video, it is simplest just to use the mic in with another program.
Let me know if you have problems--it's remarakably similar to what is already done to record television programming, with higher quality requirements, so you should be able to take advantage of all the PVR projects out there. Or you can let me do it-send me the requirements, 1500$, and I'll send the box back a week later ;-}
why exactly would you be using a usb camera(almost always crappy) as opposed to a a reasonably cheap, well supported capture card, and a cheap camera? oh, and avifile , for the requested C api for controlling the recording.
I did not know that--some one had told me something different, and I no longer have any idea who it was, otherwise I would have to severly beat them....ah well, I learn something new every day
your right about people that put gas in before the tank is dry--I was assuming, for the purpose of rough calculation, that they are offset by all the people that only put in a few gallons at a time, and drive around below half a tank all the time, like I do. In a small town, you don't have to use as much, and you might as well put in just enough for a week, and not fill up ever, except in the event of an exceptionally low price on gas. Oh and I think that we can assume that tanks above 12 gallons are in the minority. All of course still irrelevent.
On the other hand your probably right about the less full tank being full of vapors, and thus prone to larger explosions(mostly dependant on the vapor pressure, if I remember correctly), which actualy did have something too do with somebodys point above--I of course have long since lost track of what it was though.
Assuming everyone on average has 3/4 of a tank seems foolish, but if we do, then it might be possible. (also assuming that the distribution of gas tank size across any given sample is normalized) That would lead to an average somewhere around 12. I think reality would lead us to believe that people at least on average are probably closer to 1/2 a tank. Which would lead us to believe that 6 gallons or so is closer to the average in people tanks at any given moment. Since my car seems to have made it here this morning on nothing at all (started on nothing, ended on less), we'll assume it's sucking gas out of everyone else's car, leading to an even smaller average.
All of this mean that the guy above you was probably right, but it makes no difference to the guy above him's argument. Which would make me completly irrelevent, I suppose.
my girlfriend does the same thing, 'cept with battlebots. She works in a call center, and inevitably, people play with them while on the phone-now you know what they are really doing while you are on hold!
Perhaps Saving Private Ryan was better than Force 10, but was it better than The Big Red One? Was it better than Battle of the Bulge? Of course not! As it is, it always was, and as it was, it always will be.
if you want help gettin X working in Slack, let me know--it's generally not hard, once you know what to do(especially once it is working once, on some distribution--save your XF86Config!!). actually just take that file leave it in/etc/ and type starx, and you will likely be fine.
I think that was the point--all of the things he mentions are doable now, including the monitor thing(LCD hung on wall=trivial) about the only thing we truly don't have that I believe he intended to include is a truly wireless monitor
as a general rule, at least with many modern films, the only difference between films of different speeds is the length of time you develop them. So, why do you use a film at lower speeds? to reduce grain. On most occasions, there is no other reason to use lower speed film, as the higher responsivness to light of the higher speed films is needed to capture the image in either low light or high speed conditions
in regards to: akin to claiming that certain brands of cameras with extra high speed film and extremely good lenses are bad for taking portraits because all of the makeup, flaws, and blemishes show up in the photographs, and that it's better to use a slower film and a less precise lens.
always use the lowest speed film you can, due to lower speed film haveing less grain, among other reasons. Personally I try to always use 125(or lower, but with medium format, you sometimes just take what you can get), as I also have a reasonably good flash. Anyway, low speed gives more acurate pics
middle mouse click performs the same function in mozilla, so it is not necesary to use the context menu, thus mozilla is faster for this particular well used function.
Re:question regarding word per minute...
on
Speed Reading?
·
· Score: 1
divide the # of words read by the length of time it took to read them(words/minute). a simple way to get a word count of a text is to use the wc command, at least on unix-type systems.
Slashdot Mirror
nope--consider that the while they may eventually reach the same velocity, it does not matter because the dropped bullet will still have to speed up or slow down to reach the spot that the bullet from the gun is at. Remember that by the time they reach terminal velocity, they are seperated by some distance
assuming of course that your shot was parallel to the ground. In that case they have the same vertical component and the force(gravity) will act the same on them both. If the gun gives the bullet some speed out of the parallel, then the other bullet must either first speed up or slow down to land at the same time.
The same as when spidey dove at her as she fell.
Everybody always brings up this one thing from Independance day, out of so much other crap that could be picked on!--I always figured it was the most plausible thing in the whole movie--I mean given that we have been studying their tech for 50 years, we might have found some particular defect that can be communicated to their system via a mac--I have no problem with that. No, the biggest problem with that movie was timing--it would have taken 3 days just to fuel up all those planes, much less get them and everything else to the conviniently in-atmosphere alien ships.
As to the tunnel thing--we can assume that while all the oxygen was sucked out of the tunnel, it was sucked back by the huge vacume created by previously mentioned fire. She was within view of the entrance. I think that we can all agree that she really just should have died because of the heat, regardless of if she was actually in the flame or not.
As for hackers, if you put aside the silly graphics, which were obviously intended to represent what was going on, the most of the rest of the movie is pretty plausible--'cept the part about geeks getting laid--that wouldn't have happend untill college.
And If you have never heard of a bra, well, I can only recommend that you go study her chest some more. Perhaps you meant to ask how they got so big in the first place! well, a visit to a few porn sites well show you that that some women are just so blessed. Was it coincidince that you picked two movies with angelina jolie?
As to my point-you might want to choose your favrites with a little more care, as they are in general better than most of the crap that gets past!
check out konq, in KDE, It has some of these features, althought probably not as fully fleshed out as could be. I must admit, i rarely bother to use it though. I can usually do most anything faster at the command line.
your right--I blame faulty memory, and the fact that I moved away a few years ago---I can only say that perhaps I was thinking of the woodlands pavilion.
Oh well
who else? Kevin Smith
for those not from Houston: it was originally called the Pavillion, and many people(me) still call it that
well, two basic parts: hardware and software
first of the hardware is pretty independant of the os, just pick the highest quality capture card you can afford that is supported in linux, add a reasonable camera, sound card, and a nice modern machine of any kind. I use a bttv card, which works well for me, but of course it depends on your exact needs, and the camera that you hook up to it. As to software:
SDL, mostly used for game programming, but has some of the capabilites needed for capturing, sound recording, etc.
v4l the basic component of all video type stuff under linux-you can see the list of crap it supports there, but it doesn't really have facilities for actually capturing to something like mpeg.
avifile everything you want in a capture API, will let you output to all kinds of formats.
mplayer I have heard that they support capturing now, but haven't used them for that, but is what you will be using for playing back the files you capture.
My recommendation would be to use the VCR project, and one of these for audio. VCR uses avifile to record the video in your chosen format, and will record the audio also, but if you want seperate files for audio and video, it is simplest just to use the mic in with another program.
Let me know if you have problems--it's remarakably similar to what is already done to record television programming, with higher quality requirements, so you should be able to take advantage of all the PVR projects out there.
Or you can let me do it-send me the requirements, 1500$, and I'll send the box back a week later
;-}
why exactly would you be using a usb camera(almost always crappy) as opposed to a a reasonably cheap, well supported capture card, and a cheap camera? oh, and avifile , for the requested C api for controlling the recording.
I did not know that--some one had told me something different, and I no longer have any idea who it was, otherwise I would have to severly beat them....ah well, I learn something new every day
your right about people that put gas in before the tank is dry--I was assuming, for the purpose of rough calculation, that they are offset by all the people that only put in a few gallons at a time, and drive around below half a tank all the time, like I do. In a small town, you don't have to use as much, and you might as well put in just enough for a week, and not fill up ever, except in the event of an exceptionally low price on gas. Oh and I think that we can assume that tanks above 12 gallons are in the minority. All of course still irrelevent.
On the other hand your probably right about the less full tank being full of vapors, and thus prone to larger explosions(mostly dependant on the vapor pressure, if I remember correctly), which actualy did have something too do with somebodys point above--I of course have long since lost track of what it was though.
that's how people lose eyebrow's!
Well, at least that's how I lost mine.
I never did like that car.
Assuming everyone on average has 3/4 of a tank seems foolish, but if we do, then it might be possible. (also assuming that the distribution of gas tank size across any given sample is normalized) That would lead to an average somewhere around 12. I think reality would lead us to believe that people at least on average are probably closer to 1/2 a tank. Which would lead us to believe that 6 gallons or so is closer to the average in people tanks at any given moment. Since my car seems to have made it here this morning on nothing at all (started on nothing, ended on less), we'll assume it's sucking gas out of everyone else's car, leading to an even smaller average.
All of this mean that the guy above you was probably right, but it makes no difference to the guy above him's argument.
Which would make me completly irrelevent, I suppose.
I feel it's my duty to inform you that the squeaky voice stuff is helium. Too my knowledge, that is not a property of Hydrogen.
my girlfriend does the same thing, 'cept with battlebots. She works in a call center, and inevitably, people play with them while on the phone-now you know what they are really doing while you are on hold!
Perhaps Saving Private Ryan was better than Force 10, but was it better than The Big Red One? Was it better than Battle of the Bulge? Of course not! As it is, it always was, and as it was, it always will be.
if you want help gettin X working in Slack, let me know--it's generally not hard, once you know what to do(especially once it is working once, on some distribution--save your XF86Config!!). actually just take that file leave it in /etc/ and type starx, and you will likely be fine.
you seem to imply that a couple is less than 2.5/3thousand years--for your info, a couple implies 2. As in 2 thousand years. Which is less than 2.5.
I think that was the point--all of the things he mentions are doable now, including the monitor thing(LCD hung on wall=trivial) about the only thing we truly don't have that I believe he intended to include is a truly wireless monitor
as a general rule, at least with many modern films, the only difference between films of different speeds is the length of time you develop them. So, why do you use a film at lower speeds? to reduce grain. On most occasions, there is no other reason to use lower speed film, as the higher responsivness to light of the higher speed films is needed to capture the image in either low light or high speed conditions
in regards to:
akin to claiming that certain brands of cameras with extra high speed film and extremely good lenses are bad for taking portraits because all of the makeup, flaws, and blemishes show up in the photographs, and that it's better to use a slower film and a less precise lens.
always use the lowest speed film you can, due to lower speed film haveing less grain, among other reasons. Personally I try to always use 125(or lower, but with medium format, you sometimes just take what you can get), as I also have a reasonably good flash. Anyway, low speed gives more acurate pics
pretend it's pool. bounce the beam of the remote off wall or ceiling into the area that the device does work in.
__
to know the answers to your questions, you will want to go to my site, but the cable modem is not working just now, so you'll have to try tomorrow.
middle mouse click performs the same function in mozilla, so it is not necesary to use the context menu, thus mozilla is faster for this particular well used function.
divide the # of words read by the length of time it took to read them(words/minute). a simple way to get a word count of a text is to use the wc command, at least on unix-type systems.