It all works out, even mathematically, if you just understand rations, and define 'little' not as the negative of 'much', but as the inverse. Which makes a lot more sense anyway.
So "lessitude" = 1/amount. Got it?
"x is ten times less than y" => lessitude(x) = 10 * lessitude (y) => 1/amount(x) = 10 / amount(y) => amount(x) = amount(y)/10 => "x is one tenth of y".
It works across the board: If you approach zero amount, you also approach infinitely little. If your amount approaches infinite, that's hardly little all, is it?
So where is the neutral point? When is something neither little nor a lot, or rephrased, as much as it is little? When they are both one of course. What that actually means will depend on your unit of measurement, as well it should.
Same goes for fast/slow, large/small and all the other favourites of people who prefer complaining about other peoples' alleged errors over figuring things out.
This statement, which I suppose is technically true, is absolutely ludacris
Nope, nor is it ludicrous; it is common sense, as long as the fuel is produced from cultivated plants. And the article did say renewable sources.
It would be like saying that burning down the rainforest wouldn't produce any extra carbon dioxide
No, that would contribute extra CO2 until the areas grew back with an equivalent amount of biomass. After that the balance would be restored (as long as we're talking only about CO2), but it would take a long time and there's no guarantee it would happen at all. Rainforests are not generally considerd a renewable resource in practice. Normal farmland is usually renewed all the time.
it will produce it a hell of a lot faster and there will be higher concentrations of it in the atmosphere.
The speed of the carbon cycle is irrelevant, the important part is how much carbon is bound up in plants and elsewhere and thus kept out of the atmosphere at any given time. I can't see how this fuel scheme would be different from any other cultivation on the same land in that respect.
Another question is whether it is ethical or viable in the long term to use land for growing fuel in stead of food, but that is a very different matter.
The article doesn't say that The Carmack invented smooth scrolling full stop. It said that he figured out how to do it in EGA mode on the PC.
Some invention. I've done scrolling on the EGA (and I could hardly program then): if you know about the general technique from before, it's perfectly obvious how to proceed for any PC programmer who has the card spec. OK, so noone had done it on that particular hardware before. Big deal in a 'first post' kind of way. I'm not dissing Carmack here, just saying that this particular exploit does not constitute a stroke of genius. At least not by then.
Kind of like how someone figured out how to [kind of] play digital sound through the standard PC beeper
Indeed, it's a very different point. That was a new hack.
I tend to use aliases quite a lot to ease any routine trasks that pops up, especially for swithing between aløternative environment variable settings. One really useful tool is therefore an alias to save the current alias list to an alias file. The file is sourced from my.cshrc. Use awk to insert the preceding 'alias' and any quotes you might need.
I used to think 'cd = pushd' was really handy, but after a while of having the equivalent of a 'back' button, I started missing 'forward', so I hacked up a couple of script replacements for pushd and popd that lets me do that. Never got around to debug them properly after they did most of what I need, so I'm not posting them.
not exactly rocket science, but: For some shells, 'ls = ls -F' is indispensible. ll = ls -l is a classic. I tend to also define la and lla. Guess what they do.
According to another poster, the main concern here was users of China Telecom. If that's correct:
China has been trying to limit it's citizens' internet use from day one. For China Telecom, the rest of the world blocking email from their users does not represent a problem at all, it just makes their job easier.
Re:Lossless compression with shorten
on
Non-MP3 Codecs?
·
· Score: 1
2:1, eh? What's the point? If that's all you gain, why not go for staight PCM (WAV) data? Portable players can't play.shn anyway, HD space is practically free, and if you're in too tight a spot to buy an extra disk, store it on a compressed drive, and you'll spend only marginally more space than individually compressed lossless files. If you want more audio time on a single disc, DVDs are already here.
You own the copyright. There's nothing to stop you from licensing your code under different terms to select users in
parallel with your main LGPL distro. What that license would be is a subject of normal negotiations between you and your 'clients', and could even be a custom-written license to make sure that even the changes made in order to embed are released to the public.
> any lifeform that does not take full advantage of its enviroment will not survive
Whoah. So any phenomenon seen or imagined in science that is not manifested in humans is bullshit? And furthermore, all lifeforms can in fact swim, fly, breathe and photosynthesize and do all other things that are possible for a life form to do; either that or the very theoretical possibility of a doing these things is bullshit?
I still don't see how i'ts supposed to be possible to run the thing dry. There's extensive friction involved here, both in the plate rubbing against the vane, but more importantly along the ridge or groove you'd need in the ball to transfer motion from the plate to he shaft. all the power has to go through this continuously
sliding contact surface.
For home use, if you care about sound quality: forget compression. Just buy a big
disk (takes about 120 CDs); if you can afford a dedicated PC you can afford the disk these days.
By the time you've filled it with perfect quality
rips, buying the next disk will be dirt cheap.
You could of course compress it losslessly to get twice as much in, but you'd have to charge yourself a really low hourly rate to save anything compared to just getting another disk. Once you've got all your music in perfect quality, you can compress it on-the-fly to desired bandwidth when you need to stream it over a narrow line (like your 3G phone/pda), without suffering from recompression artifacts. And you'll never have to rip them again, no matter what format you may want them in at some time in the future.
I agree that junk food can be made a lot healthier with just a little thought. If you look at a grilled (not fried) burger, with a decent helping of salad/tomato/onion and a bun, that is all quite acceptable acceptable stuff. A little short on fibre, but that's it. If you just dump the fries for a salad or something, you're actually doing not bad at all, health-wise. As long as that's not all you eat, of course.
A bit sad to miss out on all that Real Food
you could be having, though.
Slashdot Mirror
It all works out, even mathematically, if you just understand rations, and define 'little' not as the negative of 'much', but as the inverse. Which makes a lot more sense anyway.
So "lessitude" = 1/amount. Got it?
"x is ten times less than y"
=> lessitude(x) = 10 * lessitude (y)
=> 1/amount(x) = 10 / amount(y)
=> amount(x) = amount(y)/10
=> "x is one tenth of y".
It works across the board:
If you approach zero amount, you also approach infinitely little.
If your amount approaches infinite, that's hardly little all, is it?
So where is the neutral point? When is something neither little nor a lot, or rephrased, as much as it is little? When they are both one of course. What that actually means will depend on your unit of measurement, as well it should.
Same goes for fast/slow, large/small and all the other favourites of people who prefer complaining about other peoples' alleged errors over figuring things out.
This statement, which I suppose is technically true, is absolutely ludacris
Nope, nor is it ludicrous; it is common sense, as long as the fuel is produced from cultivated plants. And the article did say renewable sources.
It would be like saying that burning down the rainforest wouldn't produce any extra carbon dioxide
No, that would contribute extra CO2 until the areas grew back with an equivalent amount of biomass. After that the balance would be restored (as long as we're talking only about CO2), but it would take a long time and there's no guarantee it would happen at all. Rainforests are not generally considerd a renewable resource in practice. Normal farmland is usually renewed all the time.
it will produce it a hell of a lot faster and there will be higher concentrations of it in the atmosphere.
The speed of the carbon cycle is irrelevant, the important part is how much carbon is bound up in plants and elsewhere and thus kept out of the atmosphere at any given time. I can't see how this fuel scheme would be different from any other cultivation on the same land in that respect.
Another question is whether it is ethical or viable in the long term to use land for growing fuel in stead of food, but that is a very different matter.
The article doesn't say that The Carmack invented smooth scrolling full stop. It said that he figured out how to do it in EGA mode on the PC.
Some invention. I've done scrolling on the EGA (and I could hardly program then): if you know about the general technique from before, it's perfectly obvious how to proceed for any PC programmer who has the card spec. OK, so noone had done it on that particular hardware before. Big deal in a 'first post' kind of way. I'm not dissing Carmack here, just saying that this particular exploit does not constitute a stroke of genius. At least not by then.
Kind of like how someone figured out how to [kind of] play digital sound through the standard PC beeper
Indeed, it's a very different point. That was a new hack.
I tend to use aliases quite a lot to ease any routine trasks that pops up, especially for swithing between aløternative environment variable settings. .cshrc. Use awk to insert the preceding 'alias' and any quotes you might need.
One really useful tool is therefore an alias to save the current alias list to an alias file. The file is sourced from my
I used to think 'cd = pushd' was really handy, but after a while of having the equivalent of a 'back' button, I started missing 'forward', so I hacked up a couple of script replacements for pushd and popd that lets me do that. Never got around to debug them properly after they did most of what I need, so I'm not posting them.
not exactly rocket science, but:
For some shells, 'ls = ls -F' is indispensible.
ll = ls -l is a classic. I tend to also define
la and lla. Guess what they do.
According to another poster, the main concern here was users of China Telecom. If that's correct:
China has been trying to limit it's citizens' internet use from day one. For China Telecom, the rest of the world blocking email from their users does not represent a problem at all, it just makes their job easier.
2:1, eh? What's the point? If that's all you gain, why not go for staight PCM (WAV) data? Portable players can't play .shn anyway, HD space is practically free, and if you're in too tight a spot to buy an extra disk, store it on a compressed drive, and you'll spend only marginally more space than individually compressed lossless files. If you want more audio time on a single disc, DVDs are already here.
You own the copyright. There's nothing to stop you from licensing your code under different terms to select users in
parallel with your main LGPL distro. What that license would be is a subject of normal negotiations between you and your 'clients', and could even be a custom-written license to make sure that even the changes made in order to embed are released to the public.
> any lifeform that does not take full advantage of its enviroment will not survive
Whoah. So any phenomenon seen or imagined in science that is not manifested in humans is bullshit? And furthermore, all lifeforms can in fact swim, fly, breathe and photosynthesize and do all other things that are possible for a life form to do; either that or the very theoretical possibility of a doing these things is bullshit?
I still don't see how i'ts supposed to be possible to run the thing dry. There's extensive friction involved here, both in the plate rubbing against the vane, but more importantly along the ridge or groove you'd need in the ball to transfer motion from the plate to he shaft. all the power has to go through this continuously
sliding contact surface.
For home use, if you care about sound quality: forget compression. Just buy a big disk (takes about 120 CDs); if you can afford a dedicated PC you can afford the disk these days. By the time you've filled it with perfect quality rips, buying the next disk will be dirt cheap. You could of course compress it losslessly to get twice as much in, but you'd have to charge yourself a really low hourly rate to save anything compared to just getting another disk. Once you've got all your music in perfect quality, you can compress it on-the-fly to desired bandwidth when you need to stream it over a narrow line (like your 3G phone/pda), without suffering from recompression artifacts. And you'll never have to rip them again, no matter what format you may want them in at some time in the future.
A bit sad to miss out on all that Real Food you could be having, though.