No, it gives you insight into the reality of "value" in a free-market economy. He's legally entitled to negotiate with you, and his opening proposal is to make you pay more for something you consider special. You're free to negotiate with him, but he's free to quit at any time.
It has nothing to do with the cost. It's just what he thinks you'll pay to get your way.
Now, as to the cost, it might just cost him more in eventual customer service to have to track your unit differently from every other unit he sells. So if you do negotiate with him, he may have a higher level at which he's forced to walk away from the table. But if you don't negotiate, you'll never draw him down to that point.
I know jack about making music, but I have had a copy of Science and Music by Sir James Jeans for some time and recently got interested in the mathematics of harmony. Which brings up an interesting question:
Is there any equipment/software that plays chords using true small-number-ratio intervals (3:5, 5:6, etc.) rather than the nearly-correct ratios given by the 2^(n/12) intervals in the common tuning?
Better, is there something that can be programmed to do both in the same sequence? Or simultaneously as though on two differently-tuned instruments?
I'd just like to play around with harmonics a little, for my own edification.
Every crane designer on Earth can do the trig necessary to calculate torques due to linear actuators bridging joints.
Regardless, calculating the torques is a waste of time. There's no computational device in your bicep. Simple feedback, goniometry, and a trajectory-planning mechanism are all you need.
Natural muscle tissue doesn't use torque to generate torque.
So why are we still using torque to generate torque in robots?
Massively parallel, flexible linear actuators, either attached to a hinged, rigid structure, or using its own internal pressure to provide rigidity, seems to be the key.
While we're busy outlawing innocuous stuff like stem-cell research, how about we put a lid on trying to create a black hole before someone realizes the hard way the theory of the stability of black holes is only a hypothesis?
Nope. Just another software engineer who used to laugh at double-all-nighters.
Now I work 5-6 hours a day and make them pay me more. They think since I'm so expensive I must be really good (which I am at any price), so all the better for me.
Apple's persistent proprietary secrecy, its atavistic self-righteousness, and its high profit margins have always been more stringent than Microsoft's.
Which is why Microsoft has always kicked its ass in the market despite lower product quality.
Even after 20 years, I still don't buy Apple because I feel I'll be "locked-in" to a proprietary system with expensive add-ons to do simple things. The fact that they'll be done extremely well doesn't sway me or the other billion Windows users.
>A wave is "A disturbance traveling through a medium by which energy is transferred from one particle of the medium to another without causing any permanent displacement of the medium itself." Under that definition, light qualifies.
False. Light is the particles.
You're saying that a stream from a hose is a wave of water.
>Light behaves exactly like any other wave in every way except for the fact that it is quantized.
Light isn't quantized. I can make photons of any energy you want. And light doesn't behave exactly like any other wave in every way. Water waves don't obey quantum electrodynamics.
>Your definition of a wave is far too narrow. You know we're not talking just about the things in the ocean, right?
No, we are talking about those. Those are waves; the interplay between motion and stored energy. The particles move, and then move back, and the wave has moved on. Light is not a wave. Light is a stream of particles. cf. my comment about the hose above.
>"A photon has a property in complex space that when combined with another photon results in a pattern of intensity in real space similar to that produced by combined waves, but itself has no more "wavelike nature"..."
>So you're saying "similar" to waves but not wave "like".
Yes. "Wavelike" implies a dynamic interplay of forces that result in waves. Photons don't do that.
"Photons are sometimes waves and sometimes particles" is also wrong. Photons are always particles.
Having the shape of a sinusoid does not make something "wavelike".
A photon has a property in complex space that when combined with another photon results in a pattern of intensity in real space similar to that produced by combined waves, but itself has no more "wavelike nature" than the Coca-Cola dynamic wave device" trademark does.
...the bandwidth of a noob falling off his sinecure when someone explains that it'd be a hell of a lot faster and cheaper and more secure to DL the 100GB off the Internet than to ship HDD's all over Blighty.
Nor that the use of the phrase "a network of theaters" kind of shoulda sorta implied this solution in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Because sci-fi fans have arms that reach both their wallets and their penises.
No, it gives you insight into the reality of "value" in a free-market economy. He's legally entitled to negotiate with you, and his opening proposal is to make you pay more for something you consider special. You're free to negotiate with him, but he's free to quit at any time.
It has nothing to do with the cost. It's just what he thinks you'll pay to get your way.
Now, as to the cost, it might just cost him more in eventual customer service to have to track your unit differently from every other unit he sells. So if you do negotiate with him, he may have a higher level at which he's forced to walk away from the table. But if you don't negotiate, you'll never draw him down to that point.
I know jack about making music, but I have had a copy of Science and Music by Sir James Jeans for some time and recently got interested in the mathematics of harmony. Which brings up an interesting question:
Is there any equipment/software that plays chords using true small-number-ratio intervals (3:5, 5:6, etc.) rather than the nearly-correct ratios given by the 2^(n/12) intervals in the common tuning?
Better, is there something that can be programmed to do both in the same sequence? Or simultaneously as though on two differently-tuned instruments?
I'd just like to play around with harmonics a little, for my own edification.
90% of security problems on the net today are due to Microsoft's inability to produce systems that don't have massive security holes.
Every crane designer on Earth can do the trig necessary to calculate torques due to linear actuators bridging joints.
Regardless, calculating the torques is a waste of time. There's no computational device in your bicep. Simple feedback, goniometry, and a trajectory-planning mechanism are all you need.
Some day the robotics hackers will get that.
His website will be back up in 3 days...
Natural muscle tissue doesn't use torque to generate torque.
So why are we still using torque to generate torque in robots?
Massively parallel, flexible linear actuators, either attached to a hinged, rigid structure, or using its own internal pressure to provide rigidity, seems to be the key.
While we're busy outlawing innocuous stuff like stem-cell research, how about we put a lid on trying to create a black hole before someone realizes the hard way the theory of the stability of black holes is only a hypothesis?
University funding in the UK is fucked up. Until it's fixed, which isn't likely any time soon, Oxford cannot afford to forgo the OUP income.
As long as OU has the income from the OED, there will be no reason for anyone to fix its public funding.
And the truth about the language we all suppose we speak will still cost us a buck a butcher's.
Go here:
www.onelook.com
All the dictionaries that matter*.
* - except the OED, which believes more in money than in the free flow of information
$5k per seat isn't expensive.
Especially when it turns two $100k/year engineers into one $50k/year engineer.
because damn... the same story was posted there a long time ago (and why aren't links to it working?)
base the price on recent popularity of the download
then i can get an album by paying for the good songs and the crummy ones come along for free
and artists can make bank on hits while getting real in-the-wallet feedback on crap
supply and demand. it's not just a good idea, it's the law.
>>8-60 hours of daily use
>E.T.? is that you?
Nope. Just another software engineer who used to laugh at double-all-nighters.
Now I work 5-6 hours a day and make them pay me more. They think since I'm so expensive I must be really good (which I am at any price), so all the better for me.
This is not news. Not even for nerds.
This would have been news for nerds in the mid-1960s.
Now it's news for your grandmother who still thinks power steering is "faintsy".
Been doing that for decades, now.
My palm never actually touches the mouse, except my Wingman, which has that big bump in the back, and then only when I pull it down.
I've never had any sort of hand problems despite 8-60 hours of daily use of mouse-equipped computers.
Who are you kidding?
Apple's persistent proprietary secrecy, its atavistic self-righteousness, and its high profit margins have always been more stringent than Microsoft's.
Which is why Microsoft has always kicked its ass in the market despite lower product quality.
Even after 20 years, I still don't buy Apple because I feel I'll be "locked-in" to a proprietary system with expensive add-ons to do simple things. The fact that they'll be done extremely well doesn't sway me or the other billion Windows users.
>A wave is "A disturbance traveling through a medium by which energy is transferred from one particle of the medium to another without causing any permanent displacement of the medium itself." Under that definition, light qualifies.
False. Light is the particles.
You're saying that a stream from a hose is a wave of water.
>Light behaves exactly like any other wave in every way except for the fact that it is quantized.
Light isn't quantized. I can make photons of any energy you want. And light doesn't behave exactly like any other wave in every way. Water waves don't obey quantum electrodynamics.
>Your definition of a wave is far too narrow. You know we're not talking just about the things in the ocean, right?
No, we are talking about those. Those are waves; the interplay between motion and stored energy. The particles move, and then move back, and the wave has moved on. Light is not a wave. Light is a stream of particles. cf. my comment about the hose above.
Periodicity is not the same as "wavelike", and use of the term "wavelike" instead of "periodic" has led to massive confusion and ridiculous arguments.
It's almost as bad as the misunderstanding about Schrödinger's cat.
>Heh, I'd say photons are always waves.
You'd be always wrong.
And it's not simply semantics.
The only correct statement is that "light and waves both have sinusoidal curves associated with some part of their models." And that's it.
Makes a photon about as wavelike as a red and blue light revolving around on top of a police car as it passes you.
>"A photon has a property in complex space that when combined with another photon results in a pattern of intensity in real space similar to that produced by combined waves, but itself has no more "wavelike nature" ..."
>So you're saying "similar" to waves but not wave "like".
Yes. "Wavelike" implies a dynamic interplay of forces that result in waves. Photons don't do that.
"Photons are sometimes waves and sometimes particles" is also wrong. Photons are always particles.
Having the shape of a sinusoid does not make something "wavelike".
There is no "wave-like nature of light".
A photon has a property in complex space that when combined with another photon results in a pattern of intensity in real space similar to that produced by combined waves, but itself has no more "wavelike nature" than the Coca-Cola dynamic wave device" trademark does.
Either you understand your product and its market, or you do not.
Doesn't matter whether it's Fig Newtons or Apple Newtons.
Beyond that, people skills and financial skills are fully fungible.
Nor that the use of the phrase "a network of theaters" kind of shoulda sorta implied this solution in the first place.
0 marks.
Some people would beg to differ.
Are there any Indian or Chinese companies with this kind of web presence? I doubt it.
I thought I'd just pointed out that those are now Indian and Chinese companies.