Until we have active mines on asteroids or the moon, space-based construction doesn't buy anything. If you still have to haul the raw materials out of Earth's gravity well, then you still have to pay the launch costs, sorry.
Until we have such mines, there's not really a lot in space to fight over.
If you fly at near the speed of c. since time on your ship would slow down, looking out your view port would it appear as if your ship was traveling faster than c.?
Yes, and no. While from an inertial frame your acceleration appears to reduce as you approach c, from your own frame it appears constant, but c appears faster: c always appears to be a constant amount faster than you're travelling.
(IANAP, YMMV, which it almost certainly would if you were travelling anywhere close to c.)
Unless you can say (in any more detail than Bruce's assignment TO HIMSELF of copyright of other people's work in BusyBox (though again, this is merely BY INFERENCE, not specific statement)) that the proseution says Anderson is claiming sole copyright, how can you be disturbed by something that isn't going on?
In TFA, Bruce claims Anderson has registered the copyright in a particular version of busybox without mentioning in the registration that some of the copyright is held by other preceding authors. This is, at the very least, likely to mislead the courts into thinking Anderson is the sole copyright holder, even if it is not actually intended to give that impression.
Posting a pizza analogy on this story would be like ordering extra pepperoni on a triple pepperoni special with pepperoni-stuffed crusts. I.e., something you have to try at least once.
I've seen something like this used at the Costco cafe. Seems to work easier than doing math.
Still doesn't work if the pizza is a different size to the blade rig, which they almost always are (i.e. slightly smaller) because it can be placed off-centre.
OTOH, can I take this opportunity to point out how underrated costco pizzas are. I've _got_ to renew my costco membership now.
More importantly, on a four-dimensional pizza, can you fill the crust with cheese?
Yes. Consider for a moment how the crust of a 3d pizza maps onto a 2d disc (i.e. the rolled pizza dough it was folded from). Now consider making a 4d pizza from a 3d sphere; just like the 3d equivalent, you would fold the space over (in the direction in which the sphere is otherwise flat) at the edge, and press it into itself. This would leave a region located (in 3d terms) close to the periphery of the sphere of the pizza which was topologically contained; this could quite easily be filled with cheese, or, if you're feeling a little more extravagant, with pepperoni and garlic butter. But the important thing is that you don't end up with a _ring_ of cheese (or whatever), but rather a hollow sphere of the stuff. With the topping inside, although not contained within it.
Find a way to measure relative productivity, and relative error rates, for before and after you had to stop using music.
Use objective facts to show your boss what a twat he is.
Why do your own half-assed study with way too few participants when others have already done better ones? See, e.g. Fox & Embrey Music - an aid to productivity Applied Ergonomics 1972;3(4):202-205, or perhaps better still Lesiuk The effect of music listening on work performance Psychology of Music 33(2):173-191 (available as pdf here). Findings from abstract:
Results indicated that state positive affect and quality-of-work were lowest with no music, while time-on-task was longest when music was removed. Narrative responses revealed the value of music listening for positive mood change and enhanced perception on design while working. Evidence is provided of the presence of a learning curve in the use of music for positive mood alteration. Overall, the study contributes to the development of a model that aspires to elucidate music and workplace interactions; as well, it has implications for organizational practice.
Err.. OK, now I've RTFA it seams this _is_ flash memory. The summary is misleading in suggesting that pressure is used in the storage; the prototype was used with a pressure sensor to provide an example application.
"Flash" is the name of a specific technology that stores data in the charge accumulated on the gate of a MOSFET. The term you're looking for to describe what this invention is is "EEPROM", which is the category of devices of which Flash is the best known.
Basically, your comment makes you look stupid, like people who call photocopiers "xeroxes" or vacuum cleaners "hoovers".
In all likelihood, the exotic matter required for an alcubierre drive is impossible to create.
Not that this matters, as anything inside an alcubierre bubble becomes causally isolated from the rest of the universe, and hence will never be able to stop moving...
The problem I have with "copyright infringement is not theft" argument is that it insinuates that copyright infringement is not a criminal offense.
I don't think that's what most of us intend to say with it. Specifically, when I use the phrase, what I mean is something along the lines of "copyright infringement is not the same morally as theft; theft is morally worse".
The terminology seems odd here. Isn't suspended animation pretty much the opposite of being a zombie? I mean zombies are the animated dead. Suspended animation makes you the unanimated living.
The origin of the zombie myth is (probably) a cocktail of drugs that a witch doctor would give to an enemy, which makes them appear to die (metabolic processes slow down to the point they're very hard to detect); then, after everyone thinks they're dead, the witch doctor revives them and claims that he now owns them as a slave.
The drugs in this case are probably derived from the same drugs that may originally have been used for making zombies, or are at least intended to have the same effects, although probably in a somewhat safer fashion.
As I've explained many times at work, code is not documentation.
Code only tells you what it does. It doesn't say why it was done that way...and the "why is it doing this" is really almost always the problem.
This is a very good point, and one that's often overlooked. I've seen people say that "no comments" is a good coding standard to work to: if your code needs comments to be understandable, they reason, it is too complicated. Good code can be understood without them. Simplify it. I think these people are on the right track but have missed the point somewhat: the coding standard should say something along the lines of "comments are not allowed to explain what something is doing; they should only ever explain why, because what is being done should be obvious from method and variable names and from the code itself."
On a side note, it's interesting that the proliferation of Lisp, Haskell, and other powerful functional programming languages has created a demand for a different kind of window manager that is written in, and can be extended with, the language. It's almost as if programmers began to see the limitations of static, C/C++ programmed environments after they started using these languages, and then started to build up new environments more suitable for high-level programming. Is this the beginning of the end for the traditional Unix way of always running back to the C languages?
Then there's the case of "Traci Lords". She was a porn star who lied about her age and appeared in porn films and even Penthouse magazine when she was 15. So guess how many people might possess child porn unknowingly? Apparently those pictures and films are considered child porn by US laws.
Along similar lines, consider that here in the UK it was legal to publish and/or possess porn featuring 16-year-olds until only a few years ago. Porn mags used to regularly publish pictures of 16 and 17 year olds. Tabloid "newspapers" often also featured such pictures.
My guess is that this results in a situation where probably >10% of the population is currently guilty of a serious offence that they may well have no knowledge they have committed. This possibly includes a number of public libraries and/or newspaper publishers. I wonder if the offices of the Sun have destroyed the back copies of the papers they published that featured nude pictures of 16-year-old Linsey Dawn McKenzie? Legally speaking, I believe they ought to have done, and technically somebody could do time over it if they haven't.
Slashdot Mirror
And all this time I thought that the "canonical" executive for any open-source project was "Ty Coon, President of Vice".
So is Shuttleworth now a non-canonical CEO?
Until we have active mines on asteroids or the moon, space-based construction doesn't buy anything. If you still have to haul the raw materials out of Earth's gravity well, then you still have to pay the launch costs, sorry.
Until we have such mines, there's not really a lot in space to fight over.
If you fly at near the speed of c. since time on your ship would slow down, looking out your view port would it appear as if your ship was traveling faster than c.?
Yes, and no. While from an inertial frame your acceleration appears to reduce as you approach c, from your own frame it appears constant, but c appears faster: c always appears to be a constant amount faster than you're travelling.
(IANAP, YMMV, which it almost certainly would if you were travelling anywhere close to c.)
Unless you can say (in any more detail than Bruce's assignment TO HIMSELF of copyright of other people's work in BusyBox (though again, this is merely BY INFERENCE, not specific statement)) that the proseution says Anderson is claiming sole copyright, how can you be disturbed by something that isn't going on?
In TFA, Bruce claims Anderson has registered the copyright in a particular version of busybox without mentioning in the registration that some of the copyright is held by other preceding authors. This is, at the very least, likely to mislead the courts into thinking Anderson is the sole copyright holder, even if it is not actually intended to give that impression.
In the second scenario, there is not reference to A's code, but how can C prove that he never looked at A's code it court? It is opened after all.
C doesn't have to prove it. A would have to provide evidence that he did.
I'll grab the two largest slices (which are usually adjacent), fold them over and shovel them in my mouth while you are still negotiating a protocol.
Negotiate a protocol? No, the protocol is basically "nobody gets two adjacent slices". Nice and simple.
Posting a pizza analogy on this story would be like ordering extra pepperoni on a triple pepperoni special with pepperoni-stuffed crusts. I.e., something you have to try at least once.
I've seen something like this used at the Costco cafe. Seems to work easier than doing math.
Still doesn't work if the pizza is a different size to the blade rig, which they almost always are (i.e. slightly smaller) because it can be placed off-centre.
OTOH, can I take this opportunity to point out how underrated costco pizzas are. I've _got_ to renew my costco membership now.
More importantly, on a four-dimensional pizza, can you fill the crust with cheese?
Yes. Consider for a moment how the crust of a 3d pizza maps onto a 2d disc (i.e. the rolled pizza dough it was folded from). Now consider making a 4d pizza from a 3d sphere; just like the 3d equivalent, you would fold the space over (in the direction in which the sphere is otherwise flat) at the edge, and press it into itself. This would leave a region located (in 3d terms) close to the periphery of the sphere of the pizza which was topologically contained; this could quite easily be filled with cheese, or, if you're feeling a little more extravagant, with pepperoni and garlic butter. But the important thing is that you don't end up with a _ring_ of cheese (or whatever), but rather a hollow sphere of the stuff. With the topping inside, although not contained within it.
than the story that led to the project, I bet.
Shows you that even geeks have parties sometimes.
Not very good parties. They only considered the case of two people sharing a single pizza.
Find a way to measure relative productivity, and relative error rates, for before and after you had to stop using music.
Use objective facts to show your boss what a twat he is.
Why do your own half-assed study with way too few participants when others have already done better ones? See, e.g. Fox & Embrey Music - an aid to productivity Applied Ergonomics 1972;3(4):202-205, or perhaps better still Lesiuk The effect of music listening on work performance Psychology of Music 33(2):173-191 (available as pdf here). Findings from abstract:
Err.. OK, now I've RTFA it seams this _is_ flash memory. The summary is misleading in suggesting that pressure is used in the storage; the prototype was used with a pressure sensor to provide an example application.
"Flash" is the name of a specific technology that stores data in the charge accumulated on the gate of a MOSFET. The term you're looking for to describe what this invention is is "EEPROM", which is the category of devices of which Flash is the best known.
Basically, your comment makes you look stupid, like people who call photocopiers "xeroxes" or vacuum cleaners "hoovers".
In all likelihood, the exotic matter required for an alcubierre drive is impossible to create.
Not that this matters, as anything inside an alcubierre bubble becomes causally isolated from the rest of the universe, and hence will never be able to stop moving...
The existence of particles in a vacuum? That sounds exactly like the aether, a scientific theory that was abandoned about 200 years ago!
Which is pretty much exactly what Dirac said when he first proposed the theory this is based on.
2*2 form Mizar, and 2 form Alcor; all six stars are gravitationally bound, and to the (untrained) naked eye look like a single star.
Actually Mizar and Alcor are visibly distinct to somebody with a good eye.
The problem I have with "copyright infringement is not theft" argument is that it insinuates that copyright infringement is not a criminal offense.
I don't think that's what most of us intend to say with it. Specifically, when I use the phrase, what I mean is something along the lines of "copyright infringement is not the same morally as theft; theft is morally worse".
Game design is not academia.
Given the number of universities offering game design courses these days, the distinction is blurring.
The terminology seems odd here. Isn't suspended animation pretty much the opposite of being a zombie? I mean zombies are the animated dead. Suspended animation makes you the unanimated living.
The origin of the zombie myth is (probably) a cocktail of drugs that a witch doctor would give to an enemy, which makes them appear to die (metabolic processes slow down to the point they're very hard to detect); then, after everyone thinks they're dead, the witch doctor revives them and claims that he now owns them as a slave.
The drugs in this case are probably derived from the same drugs that may originally have been used for making zombies, or are at least intended to have the same effects, although probably in a somewhat safer fashion.
As I've explained many times at work, code is not documentation.
Code only tells you what it does. It doesn't say why it was done that way...and the "why is it doing this" is really almost always the problem.
This is a very good point, and one that's often overlooked. I've seen people say that "no comments" is a good coding standard to work to: if your code needs comments to be understandable, they reason, it is too complicated. Good code can be understood without them. Simplify it. I think these people are on the right track but have missed the point somewhat: the coding standard should say something along the lines of "comments are not allowed to explain what something is doing; they should only ever explain why, because what is being done should be obvious from method and variable names and from the code itself."
So, each can clearly show unique content in text mode, but does any tool exist that can bring some order to it?
http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Framebuffer-HOWTO-14.html mentions a tool called con2fb. I haven't tried it, but it sounds like it does what you want.
Any number greater than one counts as several.
several -adjective
1. being more than two but fewer than many in number or kind: several ways of doing it.
(dictionary.com unabridged)
several adj.
1. Being of a number more than two or three but not many: several miles away.
(american heritage)
several determiner & pronoun - more than two but not many.
(oxford compact)
It sounds very much to me like more than two is necessary. Some dictionaries suggest more than three.
FVWM was first released in 1993, i.e. less than two decades ago. Twm could just about scrape through the requirements, being 22 years old now.
On a side note, it's interesting that the proliferation of Lisp, Haskell, and other powerful functional programming languages has created a demand for a different kind of window manager that is written in, and can be extended with, the language. It's almost as if programmers began to see the limitations of static, C/C++ programmed environments after they started using these languages, and then started to build up new environments more suitable for high-level programming. Is this the beginning of the end for the traditional Unix way of always running back to the C languages?
Couldn't the same have been asked of GNU Emacs?
Don't you people know your basic rights any more? "Innocent until proven guilty."
Theoretically, yes. But you try telling that to a jury of people who've just been told you downloaded child pornography.
Then there's the case of "Traci Lords". She was a porn star who lied about her age and appeared in porn films and even Penthouse magazine when she was 15. So guess how many people might possess child porn unknowingly? Apparently those pictures and films are considered child porn by US laws.
Along similar lines, consider that here in the UK it was legal to publish and/or possess porn featuring 16-year-olds until only a few years ago. Porn mags used to regularly publish pictures of 16 and 17 year olds. Tabloid "newspapers" often also featured such pictures.
My guess is that this results in a situation where probably >10% of the population is currently guilty of a serious offence that they may well have no knowledge they have committed. This possibly includes a number of public libraries and/or newspaper publishers. I wonder if the offices of the Sun have destroyed the back copies of the papers they published that featured nude pictures of 16-year-old Linsey Dawn McKenzie? Legally speaking, I believe they ought to have done, and technically somebody could do time over it if they haven't.