Won't the gyroscpic effect of that heavy a wheel be a lot to overcome.
Probably not. Don't forget that an ordinary internal combustion engine has a weighty flywheel as well, and it doesn't seem to produce an inordinate gyroscopic effect.
I clicked on the msdn link, and got sent to a page with nothing on it but a bunch of other links. Which one takes you to the real article, and why wasn't that link posted in the first place?
No, it's due to the phosphor or LCD strips on your monitor actually not putting red, green and blue right on top of each other.
Actually, I've noticed the same thing in print media (including solid (non-halftoning) printing), so I don't think that that's it. In addition, the effect is several phosphor groups wide, so it can't be due to simple phosphor displacement anyway. (and it's not due to possible misalignment of the RGB electron guns, because a white line on a black background looks pretty solid on my monitor (except for a very slight fringe due to the phosphor displacement that you mentioned).)
If you stepped out of the starlight outside and into a room with a blue (or white) light source, the rods in your eyes would immediately be saturated, and it would take up to a half hour of darkness before your night vision was fully restored.
This explains why I find those new bluish headlights so annoying. I have almost resorted to wearing sunglasses at night to block them out. What were the manufacturers thinking?
Hah! Try looking at it through glasses. Unless I am looking at it exactly head-on, the lines of text are not aligned on the left-hand side. This is due to chromatic abberation of the lenses, and is much more pronounced in the newer, thinner lens materials. In fact, I noticed a severe change when I switched from thicker glass lenses to the thinner plastic (polycarbonate) ones. It took a while for the color fringing, which occurs everywhere except in the exact center of the lens, to be less distracting, and I'm still not used to it.
The other thing that I've noticed is that when red text is on a blue background, or vice versa, they seem to be different distances away (a kind of 3-D effect). This seems to happen whether or not I am wearing my glasses, and even if I am looking at the text with one eye closed.
I'd like to know if the lattice could be stretched in all three directions, rather than just one.
Based on the quote in the grandparent post (and the picture at the bottom of the page in the article, which shows a side-slice of the configuration), the strain is 2D already (plane face to plane face). The only way to get 3D straining would be to have a 3D substrate, with the transistor material embedded within. It seems to me that, in such a configuration, the substrate would interfere with the operation of the transistor.
I know that, in theory, the period (or exclamation point, or whatever the punctuation is with which the sentence ends, goes inside quotes, but that's just not correct to me, logically. (In your link, notice that further down the page, a semicolon appears outside the quote in a similar situation:
Marx did not believe that "a single nation should have a single leader
"; nevertheless, he became a leader singled out.
Does this make sense to you? It doesn't to me. Note that a similar situation exists for parenthetical sentences/phrases:
"Animals have a variety of emotions similar to human's" (Erikson 990).
. it makes no sense to me that the period (and comma) should be exceptions to this (very logical) rule.) Logically, the sentence should have ended with
.".
, one period to end the sentence within the quotes, and one to end the sentence without (i.e., "outside of") the quotes. So the logical way to have ended the sentence would have been:
For example: "Blah blah blah
.".
However, that looks funny to me. IMO, quote-period is the better choice between quote-period and period-quote, because quote-period ends the entire sentence, whereas period-quote logically ends only the sentence within the quotes. (At least, that's the way that it looks to my computerphilic-parser mind.) From now on, though, I will use two periods. Satisfied?
I was showing the parent how the bit assignments would have to be changed to use the shift method of extracting values. You'll notice that in my revised example scheme (no pun intended), there is no distinction between even and odd integers.
Not to be too pedantic or anything, but to use your shift right scheme for extracting integers, the second-to-LSB must be zero (naught) for even numbers, and 1 for odd numbers (in a two's comp machine). So the tag bits have to be 00 or 01 for even integers and 10 or 11 for odd integers.
Some implementations of LISP go even further, using additional bits in the non-integer case. For example: 0 - Upper 31 bits are signed integer (even or odd). 001 - Mask to get pointer to object, 8-byte aligned. 011 - Upper 29 bits are index into cons table. 101 - Upper 29 bits are index into string table. 111 - etc.
I seem to recall that Scheme, a LISP dialect, uses this type of tortuous mechanism to extreme extent.
"Effect" the noun means "the result of some affection". "Effect" the verb means "to cause".
For example: "The effect affected him such that it effected his defection from his affection toward her defective affectation for reflective detective stories".
No, I don't think that we want to get Congress involved.
Seriously, since KDE strives to be an MS-Win clone, just use the MS-Win guidelines when developing KDE apps.
The other thing that one can do is look at what's already out there, what's being distributed with major sensible distributions (such as Slackware), and imitate what seems to be done well while discarding the rest.
I don't know who modded flockofseagulls's post as a troll, but my guess is that it may be someone who is as incapable as circletimessquare of using English correctly.
If you are going to submit an article, you should at least take the time to check your spelling and grammar. Also, the Slashdot "editors" should actually edit the submissions that they accept.
Ha ha!... so, the garbage man stole your job, did he? Now how do you think that reflects on you?
It depends on how well the "garbage man" does his job. I have been reading articles lately describing how some outsourced (whether to India or elsewhere) programming projects have been disasters, due to the crap quality of the product.
BTW, don't rag on garbage collectors. They perform an important function in our society. If you had to choose between going without movies/TV for a year and going without garbage collection for a year, which would you choose?
Space flight is a huge *waste* of valueable [sic] research dollars. [...] There is nothing valueable [sic] in space within our grasp as far as anyone knows [...] you probably need around 1 1/3 times the sqare [sic] of the mass you will be moving in fule[sic]. This is hopeless, there is not enough fule [sic] on earth to reach the nearest fule [sic] stop out in the universe and bring any back. Space travel is worthless becase [sic] there is too much space we cannot cope with crossing those distances
Your post is laden with such a huge mass of excrement that light has difficulty escaping from its surface.
The nearest "fuel stops" are the comets, some of which human-built spacecraft have already reached. Once we get controlled fusion past the break-even point, we will have access to more fuel than we will know what to do with. Mankind does not need to get to the stars using FTL or generation ships or any of that; we can get to the stars by hoping from comet to comet in interstellar space. It may take thousands of years, or hundreds of thousands of years, but we will get there.
This is what humankind needs to get to the stars (that we don't already have):
Controlled fusion past the "break-even' point.
Better life-support technology (e.g., artificial "gravity" (by rotation or other means), resource/waste management/recycling technology, etc.).
The will to go.
The following would be helpful, but are not necessary:
A skyhook (space elevator).
Advances in genetics (e.g., to allow humans to live long-term in a weightless environment, to advance the human life-span, etc.).
Advances in A.I., and/or the ability to download wetware into software.
Space flight is not a "waste of time". It's the only (currently known) way to ensure the long-term survival of the human species, indeed, of all known life, period.
A cell phone is a cell phone. A PDA is a PDA. A laptop is a laptop. A music player is a music player.
Bingo. It's like trying to combine a conventional oven, a microwave oven, and a toaster oven. Each of these things performs well for a particular problem domain. Trying to combine them into one device (as some companies have) results in a device that doesn't do a particular job as well as using a more specialized device. In addition, if the device breaks down, you have no backup.
My father recently bought a T.V. with a built-in DVD player. The only reason that he bought the combined unit is that it was about the same price as a similar-quality T.V. without the DVD player. Otherwise, he would have bought the T.V. and DVD player separately. The fact that there are very few combination units, and the fact that those that do exist cost about the same as a standalone T.V., are good indicators of the unpopularity of combination units.
Now, combination units have their place: for example, in a crowded office environment, it might make sense to buy a combination printer/fax/copier. In most cases, however, it makes more sense to buy separate items, so that one can upgrade them individually as one needs to.
In summary, I doubt very much that a Digital "Uberdevice" will exist any time soon.
I hate to read online as well but it beats spending 50$. Especially when I can print it at work for free.
The operative phrase here being "at work". When you consider the cost of printer ink and paper, plus wear and tear on the printer head, it may come close to $50, especially for 1K+-page books that seem to be common these days. And the result is a physical document that is over twice as thick (because you are printing only on one side of the page, rather than both sides[1], because printer paper is usually thicker than book paper, and because the binder is probably thicker (esp. if it's a loose-leaf binder)), and thus at least twice as heavy, as the bought book, and is probably of poorer quality to boot. And if the boss walks in while you're printing, or you are holding up other print jobs on a network printer, you might have some 'splainin' to do.
Footnotes:
You can print on both sides of the page on some printers, but those types of printers tend to be rare. You can reload the printer with one-side printed pages in order to print on the other side, but this is really easy to screw up (esp. for seaparate-sheet (i.e., non-fan-fold) printers) due to mis-synchronization, paper jams, etc.
What kind of energy, then, does the photon have when it is motionless?
I don't know about photons, but I find that I usually have very little energy when I'm motionless, or vice versa, anyway. Maybe that's how the scientists were able to stop the photon, by just making it so tired that it had to stop and rest for a while.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, wait, that's Dr. Piccard, not Captain Picard.
Never mind.
I need to do "research" for a "company", too.
Also, most CPU/case fans use "inside-out" motors.
Don't forget that an ordinary internal combustion engine has a weighty flywheel as well, and it doesn't seem to produce an inordinate gyroscopic effect.
I clicked on the msdn link, and got sent to a page with nothing on it but a bunch of other links.
Which one takes you to the real article, and why wasn't that link posted in the first place?
In addition, the effect is several phosphor groups wide, so it can't be due to simple phosphor displacement anyway.
(and it's not due to possible misalignment of the RGB electron guns, because a white line on a black background looks pretty solid on my monitor (except for a very slight fringe due to the phosphor displacement that you mentioned).)
I have almost resorted to wearing sunglasses at night to block them out.
What were the manufacturers thinking?
Hah!
Try looking at it through glasses.
Unless I am looking at it exactly head-on, the lines of text are not aligned on the left-hand side.
This is due to chromatic abberation of the lenses, and is much more pronounced in the newer, thinner lens materials.
In fact, I noticed a severe change when I switched from thicker glass lenses to the thinner plastic (polycarbonate) ones.
It took a while for the color fringing, which occurs everywhere except in the exact center of the lens, to be less distracting, and I'm still not used to it.
The other thing that I've noticed is that when red text is on a blue background, or vice versa, they seem to be different distances away (a kind of 3-D effect).
This seems to happen whether or not I am wearing my glasses, and even if I am looking at the text with one eye closed.
The only way to get 3D straining would be to have a 3D substrate, with the transistor material embedded within.
It seems to me that, in such a configuration, the substrate would interfere with the operation of the transistor.
(In your link, notice that further down the page, a semicolon appears outside the quote in a similar situation:Does this make sense to you?
It doesn't to me.
Note that a similar situation exists for parenthetical sentences/phrases:.
it makes no sense to me that the period (and comma) should be exceptions to this (very logical) rule.)
Logically, the sentence should have ended with, one period to end the sentence within the quotes, and one to end the sentence without (i.e., "outside of") the quotes.
So the logical way to have ended the sentence would have been:However, that looks funny to me.
IMO, quote-period is the better choice between quote-period and period-quote, because quote-period ends the entire sentence, whereas period-quote logically ends only the sentence within the quotes.
(At least, that's the way that it looks to my computerphilic-parser mind.)
From now on, though, I will use two periods.
Satisfied?
I was showing the parent how the bit assignments would have to be changed to use the shift method of extracting values.
You'll notice that in my revised example scheme (no pun intended), there is no distinction between even and odd integers.
Not to be too pedantic or anything, but to use your shift right scheme for extracting integers, the second-to-LSB must be zero (naught) for even numbers, and 1 for odd numbers (in a two's comp machine).
So the tag bits have to be 00 or 01 for even integers and 10 or 11 for odd integers.
Some implementations of LISP go even further, using additional bits in the non-integer case.
For example:
0 - Upper 31 bits are signed integer (even or odd).
001 - Mask to get pointer to object, 8-byte aligned.
011 - Upper 29 bits are index into cons table.
101 - Upper 29 bits are index into string table.
111 - etc.
I seem to recall that Scheme, a LISP dialect, uses this type of tortuous mechanism to extreme extent.
"Effect" the verb means "to cause".
For example: "The effect affected him such that it effected his defection from his affection toward her defective affectation for reflective detective stories".
Seriously, since KDE strives to be an MS-Win clone, just use the MS-Win guidelines when developing KDE apps.
The other thing that one can do is look at what's already out there, what's being distributed with major sensible distributions (such as Slackware), and imitate what seems to be done well while discarding the rest.
I don't know who modded flockofseagulls's post as a troll, but my guess is that it may be someone who is as incapable as circletimessquare of using English correctly.
If you are going to submit an article, you should at least take the time to check your spelling and grammar.
Also, the Slashdot "editors" should actually edit the submissions that they accept.
I have been reading articles lately describing how some outsourced (whether to India or elsewhere) programming projects have been disasters, due to the crap quality of the product.
BTW, don't rag on garbage collectors.
They perform an important function in our society.
If you had to choose between going without movies/TV for a year and going without garbage collection for a year, which would you choose?
See, the Opteron is made by AMD, a competitor of Intel's.
That should be "hopping from comet to comet".
The nearest "fuel stops" are the comets, some of which human-built spacecraft have already reached.
Once we get controlled fusion past the break-even point, we will have access to more fuel than we will know what to do with.
Mankind does not need to get to the stars using FTL or generation ships or any of that; we can get to the stars by hoping from comet to comet in interstellar space.
It may take thousands of years, or hundreds of thousands of years, but we will get there.
This is what humankind needs to get to the stars (that we don't already have):
- Controlled fusion past the "break-even' point.
- Better life-support technology (e.g., artificial "gravity" (by rotation or other means), resource/waste management/recycling technology, etc.).
- The will to go.
The following would be helpful, but are not necessary:- A skyhook (space elevator).
- Advances in genetics (e.g., to allow humans to live long-term in a weightless environment, to advance the human life-span, etc.).
- Advances in A.I., and/or the ability to download wetware into software.
Space flight is not a "waste of time".It's the only (currently known) way to ensure the long-term survival of the human species, indeed, of all known life, period.
It's like trying to combine a conventional oven, a microwave oven, and a toaster oven.
Each of these things performs well for a particular problem domain.
Trying to combine them into one device (as some companies have) results in a device that doesn't do a particular job as well as using a more specialized device.
In addition, if the device breaks down, you have no backup.
My father recently bought a T.V. with a built-in DVD player.
The only reason that he bought the combined unit is that it was about the same price as a similar-quality T.V. without the DVD player.
Otherwise, he would have bought the T.V. and DVD player separately.
The fact that there are very few combination units, and the fact that those that do exist cost about the same as a standalone T.V., are good indicators of the unpopularity of combination units.
Now, combination units have their place: for example, in a crowded office environment, it might make sense to buy a combination printer/fax/copier.
In most cases, however, it makes more sense to buy separate items, so that one can upgrade them individually as one needs to.
In summary, I doubt very much that a Digital "Uberdevice" will exist any time soon.
When you consider the cost of printer ink and paper, plus wear and tear on the printer head, it may come close to $50, especially for 1K+-page books that seem to be common these days.
And the result is a physical document that is over twice as thick (because you are printing only on one side of the page, rather than both sides[1], because printer paper is usually thicker than book paper, and because the binder is probably thicker (esp. if it's a loose-leaf binder)), and thus at least twice as heavy, as the bought book, and is probably of poorer quality to boot.
And if the boss walks in while you're printing, or you are holding up other print jobs on a network printer, you might have some 'splainin' to do.
Footnotes:
You can reload the printer with one-side printed pages in order to print on the other side, but this is really easy to screw up (esp. for seaparate-sheet (i.e., non-fan-fold) printers) due to mis-synchronization, paper jams, etc.
Maybe that's how the scientists were able to stop the photon, by just making it so tired that it had to stop and rest for a while.