So how do you estimate the error in your calculation due to differing density/thickness/weight throughout the paper? Do you cut up the paper into a thousand identical pieces and weigh each and determine the standard deviation? And then do you cut up multiple identical graph strips (and their inverses) to determine the errors in accuracy and precision in your scissors?
Yeah, pretty much. You'd be surprised at how accurate the method is, modern paper is actually remarkably uniform in composition so your error ends up lying mostly in your cutting technique.
It's not a perfect method but it ends up beating the pants off of most other methods of measuring the area under the curve, especially in how quick and easy it is to perform.
There's a great ancient method for estimating curves that we used to use all the time in instrumental analysis.
take a strip of paper that has a graph on it
cut out two pieces
the area under the curve that you want to measure
a rectangle a certain amount of units high and wide
weigh each piece of paper
multiply the height and width (in the units you are measuring) of the rectangular piece
divide that by the weight of the rectangular piece
multiply that by the weight of the curve piece
You now have the area under the curve!
It's a lot quicker and easier than most other methods for estimating the area if you are dealing with a complex curve. Of course now that computers are used to gather the data instead of strip charts it's even easier for the computer to just add up the magnitude of all the data points and multiply by some constant to get a decent estimate.
Are we really solving global warming by transferring vehicular energy consumption to the powergrid? All we are doing is moving the emissions from the tailpipe of a car to the smokestack of a powerplant
Yes, you can lower the environmental impact by moving the generation from a car engine to a powerplant. A powerplant is much more efficient at using fuel to generate energy than a car engine. It can be highly tuned for maximum efficiency and since the pollution is produced at one spot it can be scrubbed, collected, and dealt with. A car has wildly-varying loads that reduce its efficiency and spews pollution across the landscape with almost no means of collecting and cleaning it.
As far as the new usage patterns they will be discovered, modeled, and the generators will be tuned to those new patterns. The power companies have a lot of experience in predicting usage patterns and are fairly competent at it.
Not that electric cars are a panacea, there are tons of problems that have to be solved and the health of the powergrid is one of them. But, in theory at least, centralizing energy generation should be more efficient and cleaner overall.
You some how make it rational to have to type a class prefix all the time, at each and every line of code...
You'll be doing the same thing with namespaces under C++. Let's say you have a namespace "Foo" which has a class "Bar". Every time you want to use the class you need to write "Foo::Bar". This is pretty close to using a class prefix like "NS" in Cocoa, such as in "NSString".
Now C++ does have the using keyword which lets you skip the namespace designation on a class so that you can do something like:
using namespace Foo; Bar anObject = more code;
However, now you've just killed the point of having a namespace because you've essentially stripped off the unique name! Yes, it's up to the programmer to make sure that the code block that has the using keyword doesn't have two classes that have the same name but are defined differently elsewhere but the point is that it adds extra complexity and work to the matter.
You can also simulate namespaces and the keyword using under Objective-C so that you don't need to type the prefix every time. Just use #define and #undef around the code block. For example:
#define String NSString String *bar = more code; #undef String
It's a little bit more verbose but it's pretty close to using a namespace. Overall you can get most of the functionality of namespaces just by using a unique prefix for your class names. Yeah you have to type a few extra characters every once in a while but it's not onerous.
You CAN do reflection in C++ as the code base for one game I saw... the catch is you need a super-base object, templates, and macros to pull it all off...
Sure, after all that's approximately how Objective-C originally worked, as a bunch of preprocessor macros on top of C. The point is that you'd have to basically be rolling your own implementation of a dynamic language on top of C++. If you're doing that then you're probably doing it wrong, you should either find a cleaner way to do what you want or switch to a dynamic language and start all over.
As the AC said above me, "When people say "can't", you can assume they mean "not natively supported"."
Having a namespace named "Ada.Numerics.Complex_Arrays" is a lot more readable than "CA", but I think we can all agree that typing "AdaNumericsComplexArrays_ComplexVector v = AdaNumericsComplexArrays_ComposeFromCartesian(arg1, arg2)" isn't what a sane man would find comfortable.
So you make the prefix "AdaNumericsComplexArrays" or something similar and gain most of the goodness of using a verbose prefix. There's also some techniques which use #define or @compatibility_alias to shorten the class name so that you don't have to type it every time, similar to the using keyword in Java.
Isn't that a bit chicken and egg? rather than "it's not a problem because people don't use it much", I'd argue that "people don't use it much because it's a problem". After all, using outside classes is very common in the Java and C# worlds, in spite of the fact that both languages come with very powerful frameworks out-of-the-box as well.
Yeah, kinda. My point is that even if you use some outside classes they are likely to be common ones that you already knew not to use the same prefix. You should also choose a prefix which is at least 4 characters, the chances of a clash are then minuscule - about 1 in 460,000 if you use all caps and 1 in 1.8 million if you use initial caps, mixed case middle, and final lower case. With odds like that you probably don't need to worry about clashes or complex namespaces.
You could always produce a source-level compatible implementation of Coca Touch and the iOS APIs that uses nothing thats (c) Apple
Right, that's basically what GNUStep is - an open source implementation of the original OpenStep frameworks plus some of the newer stuff in Cocoa. It's a pretty big effort to duplicate the major parts of Cocoa Touch though, it's taken the GNUStep people a lot of time and effort to get where they are now and they still have a ways to go.
Overall I'd say the best path is to contribute toward GNUStep and produce a branch that tracks Cocoa Touch.
But I'll grant you any day that Obj-C could do with some modernisation, in particular w/r to namespaces.
In the end namespaces are very little more than appending more characters on a name. You can get most of what namespaces do just by adding a unique string to part of your class name. Yes, there is a possibility for clashes if someone chooses a string which is the same as yours but how often do people use outside classes other than the ones in the Cocoa frameworks?
At best there should be some sort of prefix directory where developers can register their class prefixes and make sure that they have a unique string. Apple already uses NS and CF so most developers know do avoid using them.
If you track so closely, technically what's to stop GNUStep / LLVM being used as a platform to host and run iOS apps?
The only thing stopping this is the Cocoa (Cocoa Touch in the case of iOS) frameworks. They are analogous to the C++ STL but they are not free to use outside of an iOS device. Yes, you could still use them to create a binary and possibly run it on another device but you run the risk of a huge lawsuit if you do that. The GNUStep frameworks are coming along nicely and they can be used as an open-source alternative but you won't be able to take an app programmed using the Cocoa frameworks and simply compile it against the GNUStep frameworks without doing some re-working.
Even with that you can still make an app that uses the classes common to both the Cocoa and GNUStep frameworks and then has some platform-specific code in critical sections, then compile that app against either framework to create a binary that can run on multiple platforms. There are a few apps that do this kind of thing now and I expect that Sony's choice will greatly increase the numbers. It's a good time to be an Objective-C programmer.
You can do some pretty neat stuff like dynamically creating a class and adding methods to it. Some of it should only be used as a last resort but it's nice having the tools at hand if you really need them. This kind of stuff is either extremely difficult or outright impossible in C++.
Yes, there are some performance penalties to a dynamic runtime but for most cases it is negligible. If you desire you can circumvent the dynamic aspect of Objective-C and "freeze" method calls in order to get around those penalties for performance-critical code. There's a great series of articles on this subject: The Optimizing Objective C Series
In your PC your application doesn't have to call a function to stream its state to permanent storage. Operating system can and will swap data from ram to disk, but it's not your job as an application writer to do this.
I'm not talking permanent storage here, just how an application will be suspended/resumed while resident in memory.
Yes, there's more to it since an application may be called on to be removed from active memory and then you have to worry about paging it out to a more permanent storage. However, even in desktop operating systems the application usually has to handle storing its data to permanent storage. The operating system may have some convenience methods designed to make this easier, such as marking pages of a document as dirty and needing to be saved to disk. iOS does have similar methods for storing application data to permanent storage.
When you're broadcasting to satellites several hundred miles away, the odds are that it'll take just a smidge more battery life than transmitting to a tower half a mile away or a headset three feet away.
The GPS function is completely passive. It simply listens for signals from satellites, no signal is sent from a GPS device back up to a satellite.
It's more likely that the increased power consumption is due to the system continuously calculating the position and updating the display, thus not allowing the processor to go into a low power mode to save battery life. You'd probably see similar battery life if you were playing games, surfing the web, or watching videos the entire time.
Spread out over 149 million square kilometers. At a billion chips that comes out to be less than 7 chips per square kilometer. As someone else pointed out, it's about 3 micrograms of arsenic per chip for a total of about 20 micrograms per square kilometer.
Yes, there can be higher concentrations in places like trash dumps but it's still going to take a gigantic amount of these chips in one spot before anyone would have any reasonable concerns about the environmental impact due to the arsenic levels.
I don't think suspend & resume operation on applications should be called multitasking. This is how Epoc worked way back. It's a neat trick that gives the illusion of multitasking and probably 9/10 is how applications in mobile phone should work, but to calling it multitasking is a misnomer.
Honestly, that's pretty much how multitasking works on most devices, including desktop operating systems. If there's no active processing going on then the program just sits around in a suspended state.
Remember, unless you have one cpu core per thread your device will run one thread, suspend it, load another, run the next thread, rinse, repeat. That goes for just about every computer out there. For the most part it's multitasking itself that is the illusion.
Re:Been running a dev build for a few weeks now
on
Apple iOS 4.2 Hands-On
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Sorry, my previous reply is a bit off. Apparently the task bar method does send a message to the app to quit, I wasn't aware that it also did that. Here's the two methods to get an app to quit:
My personal experience with older apps on iOS 4.2.1 is that they don't go to sleep nicely. They basically just close. Two examples I have of this are the Huffington Post and USA Today apps.
Apps need to be specifically written to "go to sleep nicely". No app is guaranteed to sufficient notice to sleep under iOS and if the app takes too long to close on its own it will be terminated so that it doesn't slow down the device. It's up to the app to save its state sufficiently as it is running so that it can sleep and wake nicely.
Obviously some apps do this nicely and other apps don't. For some apps it really doesn't matter because every time they start up they want to go through the same process, other apps it's nice to return to the last document you were working on.
The only thing I find odd is quitting apps. The Home button now goes back to the home screen. To quit an app, you must double-tap the home button to display the task bar where you can close apps much like removing apps from the home screen: tap and hold reveals (-) buttons where you can close items.
Apps don't really run or quit on iOS. They suspend their operation and re-start their operation. The list you are talking about is more like a list of recently run apps. When you press the home button you are putting the app in a state of "suspended animation", when you double-click the home button and choose another app then your current app is again put into a state of "suspended animation"
It's up to the app itself to decide how to handle the suspend and wake events. Some apps keep a snapshot of their state and bring that state back when they awake, making it look like they were just put into the background. Some apps start up like they were just run. In any event an app that is not the frontmost app is really not taking up any processor time (with a very few exceptions like the music player or phone apps).
The tap-and-hold action that you mentioned is just a way to re-order the recent apps menu. You can drag around and close the icons in order to keep the list of apps as you like it. It has no effect on the running state of the apps.
The University of Bridgeport is pretty much run by the Unification Church and its leader, Sun Myung Moon. For years now they have heavily recruited international members of the church to come to the United States and attend the University.
The Unification Church uses the University as a means of extending their empire further into the United States and the extended visa program works exceptionally well for this. I'm not one to say if this is a good or bad thing.
travel to and from the surface would take a LOT more time than an equal distance travelled on the surface
This one is actually less likely to be true. Remember that travel on the surface involves the curvature of the Earth. Travel through the Earth can be done in relatively straight lines!
Yes, in both types of travel you still need to avoid obstacles such as mountains above ground or aquifers underground so your path of travel might not be as direct as the optimum path.
Reading all the replies to this post makes me happy. There *do* appear to be rational, sane logical adults here. But go to a Space Nutter thread and suddenly it's "We must colonize the universe!" "For the species!" "We're running out of room!" "Wahh!"
There are nuts of all sorts, for sure. However there are still some very valid, logical arguments for space exploration and colonization.
First of all, it's never a good idea to have all your eggs in one basket. By spreading the human race among several planets/space stations you lower the chance of humanity being wiped out by a large meteor or other catastrophe.
Secondly, there's a lot of valuable resources out there. It makes sense to form communities near resources such as mineral-rich meteors and asteroids, or perhaps comets with valuable organic compounds.
Third, the very act of exploration increases our knowledge of the universe and contributes to our well-being. By building spacecraft, space stations, and colonies we develop construction techniques, new materials, and ways of surviving in environments we don't encounter on Earth.
Lastly, some of the healthiest times in mankind's history has been one where there was an open frontier for the "wilder" elements of society to escape to. People have a natural instinct to spread and explore and that's increasingly difficult to do on the Earth with nearly everything either explored, owned, or under restrictive treaties. With relatively available space travel groups can escape tyranny in a manner similar to the pilgrims, by traveling to a distant land across the stars instead of across the seas.
Now a lot of these things can also be applied to some of the less-explored areas on the Earth, such as the deep ocean or by tunneling down into the depths. However, even those areas are going to run out sooner rather than later. The true next step for mankind is space exploration and slowly but surely we are working toward that goal.
$29 is peanuts when you are talking about the corporate world and large presentations. They spend more than that just in printing out the handouts for the presentation, not to mention travel, hotel, meals, and other expenses. Corporate presentations can easily run into the thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars for large companies.
A one-time cost of $29 for a connector that will be used dozens of times a year? Yeah, it's chump change.
Tablets will get thinner and lighter, and you'll dock them with keyboards (wirelessly) and larger monitors when you need to.
Basically how people are using the iPad right now. The combination of the iPad + bluetooth keyboards and dock connectors makes it a close replacement for a desktop system for most people.
Yep, I'll be doing a presentation shortly, and for this I'll use my iPad. I'll just hook my projector up to-- oh, guess I'll be using my laptop after all.
Slashdot Mirror
So how do you estimate the error in your calculation due to differing density/thickness/weight throughout the paper? Do you cut up the paper into a thousand identical pieces and weigh each and determine the standard deviation? And then do you cut up multiple identical graph strips (and their inverses) to determine the errors in accuracy and precision in your scissors?
Yeah, pretty much. You'd be surprised at how accurate the method is, modern paper is actually remarkably uniform in composition so your error ends up lying mostly in your cutting technique.
It's not a perfect method but it ends up beating the pants off of most other methods of measuring the area under the curve, especially in how quick and easy it is to perform.
There's a great ancient method for estimating curves that we used to use all the time in instrumental analysis.
You now have the area under the curve!
It's a lot quicker and easier than most other methods for estimating the area if you are dealing with a complex curve. Of course now that computers are used to gather the data instead of strip charts it's even easier for the computer to just add up the magnitude of all the data points and multiply by some constant to get a decent estimate.
Are we really solving global warming by transferring vehicular energy consumption to the powergrid? All we are doing is moving the emissions from the tailpipe of a car to the smokestack of a powerplant
Yes, you can lower the environmental impact by moving the generation from a car engine to a powerplant. A powerplant is much more efficient at using fuel to generate energy than a car engine. It can be highly tuned for maximum efficiency and since the pollution is produced at one spot it can be scrubbed, collected, and dealt with. A car has wildly-varying loads that reduce its efficiency and spews pollution across the landscape with almost no means of collecting and cleaning it.
As far as the new usage patterns they will be discovered, modeled, and the generators will be tuned to those new patterns. The power companies have a lot of experience in predicting usage patterns and are fairly competent at it.
Not that electric cars are a panacea, there are tons of problems that have to be solved and the health of the powergrid is one of them. But, in theory at least, centralizing energy generation should be more efficient and cleaner overall.
When a species is this near the edge something drastic needs to be done. If they were hunting the rhino for food I'd have some sympathy
Well they are poaching them. My question is what are they using for the cooking liquid...
You some how make it rational to have to type a class prefix all the time, at each and every line of code...
You'll be doing the same thing with namespaces under C++. Let's say you have a namespace "Foo" which has a class "Bar". Every time you want to use the class you need to write "Foo::Bar". This is pretty close to using a class prefix like "NS" in Cocoa, such as in "NSString".
Now C++ does have the using keyword which lets you skip the namespace designation on a class so that you can do something like:
However, now you've just killed the point of having a namespace because you've essentially stripped off the unique name! Yes, it's up to the programmer to make sure that the code block that has the using keyword doesn't have two classes that have the same name but are defined differently elsewhere but the point is that it adds extra complexity and work to the matter.
You can also simulate namespaces and the keyword using under Objective-C so that you don't need to type the prefix every time. Just use #define and #undef around the code block. For example:
It's a little bit more verbose but it's pretty close to using a namespace. Overall you can get most of the functionality of namespaces just by using a unique prefix for your class names. Yeah you have to type a few extra characters every once in a while but it's not onerous.
You CAN do reflection in C++ as the code base for one game I saw ... the catch is you need a super-base object, templates, and macros to pull it all off ...
Sure, after all that's approximately how Objective-C originally worked, as a bunch of preprocessor macros on top of C. The point is that you'd have to basically be rolling your own implementation of a dynamic language on top of C++. If you're doing that then you're probably doing it wrong, you should either find a cleaner way to do what you want or switch to a dynamic language and start all over.
As the AC said above me, "When people say "can't", you can assume they mean "not natively supported"."
Having a namespace named "Ada.Numerics.Complex_Arrays" is a lot more readable than "CA", but I think we can all agree that typing "AdaNumericsComplexArrays_ComplexVector v = AdaNumericsComplexArrays_ComposeFromCartesian(arg1, arg2)" isn't what a sane man would find comfortable.
So you make the prefix "AdaNumericsComplexArrays" or something similar and gain most of the goodness of using a verbose prefix. There's also some techniques which use #define or @compatibility_alias to shorten the class name so that you don't have to type it every time, similar to the using keyword in Java.
Isn't that a bit chicken and egg? rather than "it's not a problem because people don't use it much", I'd argue that "people don't use it much because it's a problem". After all, using outside classes is very common in the Java and C# worlds, in spite of the fact that both languages come with very powerful frameworks out-of-the-box as well.
Yeah, kinda. My point is that even if you use some outside classes they are likely to be common ones that you already knew not to use the same prefix. You should also choose a prefix which is at least 4 characters, the chances of a clash are then minuscule - about 1 in 460,000 if you use all caps and 1 in 1.8 million if you use initial caps, mixed case middle, and final lower case. With odds like that you probably don't need to worry about clashes or complex namespaces.
You could always produce a source-level compatible implementation of Coca Touch and the iOS APIs that uses nothing thats (c) Apple
Right, that's basically what GNUStep is - an open source implementation of the original OpenStep frameworks plus some of the newer stuff in Cocoa. It's a pretty big effort to duplicate the major parts of Cocoa Touch though, it's taken the GNUStep people a lot of time and effort to get where they are now and they still have a ways to go.
Overall I'd say the best path is to contribute toward GNUStep and produce a branch that tracks Cocoa Touch.
But I'll grant you any day that Obj-C could do with some modernisation, in particular w/r to namespaces.
In the end namespaces are very little more than appending more characters on a name. You can get most of what namespaces do just by adding a unique string to part of your class name. Yes, there is a possibility for clashes if someone chooses a string which is the same as yours but how often do people use outside classes other than the ones in the Cocoa frameworks?
At best there should be some sort of prefix directory where developers can register their class prefixes and make sure that they have a unique string. Apple already uses NS and CF so most developers know do avoid using them.
Here's some good reading on the topic:
Cocoa Style for Objective-C: Part I
ChooseYourOwnPrefix
If you track so closely, technically what's to stop GNUStep / LLVM being used as a platform to host and run iOS apps?
The only thing stopping this is the Cocoa (Cocoa Touch in the case of iOS) frameworks. They are analogous to the C++ STL but they are not free to use outside of an iOS device. Yes, you could still use them to create a binary and possibly run it on another device but you run the risk of a huge lawsuit if you do that. The GNUStep frameworks are coming along nicely and they can be used as an open-source alternative but you won't be able to take an app programmed using the Cocoa frameworks and simply compile it against the GNUStep frameworks without doing some re-working.
Even with that you can still make an app that uses the classes common to both the Cocoa and GNUStep frameworks and then has some platform-specific code in critical sections, then compile that app against either framework to create a binary that can run on multiple platforms. There are a few apps that do this kind of thing now and I expect that Sony's choice will greatly increase the numbers. It's a good time to be an Objective-C programmer.
Nice link on Reflection, every now and then I wish I could do that but didn't know I could.
There's a lot more to it if you dig deeper:
Objective-C Runtime Programming Guide
You can do some pretty neat stuff like dynamically creating a class and adding methods to it. Some of it should only be used as a last resort but it's nice having the tools at hand if you really need them. This kind of stuff is either extremely difficult or outright impossible in C++.
Yes, there are some performance penalties to a dynamic runtime but for most cases it is negligible. If you desire you can circumvent the dynamic aspect of Objective-C and "freeze" method calls in order to get around those penalties for performance-critical code. There's a great series of articles on this subject: The Optimizing Objective C Series
Also doesn't it's dynamic runtime stuff allow certain things that C++ doesn't?
Yeah, like built-in introspection and reflextion. Stuff like RPC (remote procedure calls) is simple and flexible under Objective-C but under C++ it has to be hard-coded in and can be very brittle.
In your PC your application doesn't have to call a function to stream its state to permanent storage. Operating system can and will swap data from ram to disk, but it's not your job as an application writer to do this.
I'm not talking permanent storage here, just how an application will be suspended/resumed while resident in memory.
Yes, there's more to it since an application may be called on to be removed from active memory and then you have to worry about paging it out to a more permanent storage. However, even in desktop operating systems the application usually has to handle storing its data to permanent storage. The operating system may have some convenience methods designed to make this easier, such as marking pages of a document as dirty and needing to be saved to disk. iOS does have similar methods for storing application data to permanent storage.
When you're broadcasting to satellites several hundred miles away, the odds are that it'll take just a smidge more battery life than transmitting to a tower half a mile away or a headset three feet away.
The GPS function is completely passive. It simply listens for signals from satellites, no signal is sent from a GPS device back up to a satellite.
It's more likely that the increased power consumption is due to the system continuously calculating the position and updating the display, thus not allowing the processor to go into a low power mode to save battery life. You'd probably see similar battery life if you were playing games, surfing the web, or watching videos the entire time.
multiplied by millions or billions of chips. k.
Spread out over 149 million square kilometers. At a billion chips that comes out to be less than 7 chips per square kilometer. As someone else pointed out, it's about 3 micrograms of arsenic per chip for a total of about 20 micrograms per square kilometer.
Yes, there can be higher concentrations in places like trash dumps but it's still going to take a gigantic amount of these chips in one spot before anyone would have any reasonable concerns about the environmental impact due to the arsenic levels.
Somehow I think we'll be just fine...
I don't think suspend & resume operation on applications should be called multitasking. This is how Epoc worked way back. It's a neat trick that gives the illusion of multitasking and probably 9/10 is how applications in mobile phone should work, but to calling it multitasking is a misnomer.
Honestly, that's pretty much how multitasking works on most devices, including desktop operating systems. If there's no active processing going on then the program just sits around in a suspended state.
Remember, unless you have one cpu core per thread your device will run one thread, suspend it, load another, run the next thread, rinse, repeat. That goes for just about every computer out there. For the most part it's multitasking itself that is the illusion.
Sorry, my previous reply is a bit off. Apparently the task bar method does send a message to the app to quit, I wasn't aware that it also did that. Here's the two methods to get an app to quit:
iPhone 101: Quitting apps in iOS 4
My personal experience with older apps on iOS 4.2.1 is that they don't go to sleep nicely. They basically just close. Two examples I have of this are the Huffington Post and USA Today apps.
Apps need to be specifically written to "go to sleep nicely". No app is guaranteed to sufficient notice to sleep under iOS and if the app takes too long to close on its own it will be terminated so that it doesn't slow down the device. It's up to the app to save its state sufficiently as it is running so that it can sleep and wake nicely.
Obviously some apps do this nicely and other apps don't. For some apps it really doesn't matter because every time they start up they want to go through the same process, other apps it's nice to return to the last document you were working on.
The only thing I find odd is quitting apps. The Home button now goes back to the home screen. To quit an app, you must double-tap the home button to display the task bar where you can close apps much like removing apps from the home screen: tap and hold reveals (-) buttons where you can close items.
Apps don't really run or quit on iOS. They suspend their operation and re-start their operation. The list you are talking about is more like a list of recently run apps. When you press the home button you are putting the app in a state of "suspended animation", when you double-click the home button and choose another app then your current app is again put into a state of "suspended animation"
It's up to the app itself to decide how to handle the suspend and wake events. Some apps keep a snapshot of their state and bring that state back when they awake, making it look like they were just put into the background. Some apps start up like they were just run. In any event an app that is not the frontmost app is really not taking up any processor time (with a very few exceptions like the music player or phone apps).
The tap-and-hold action that you mentioned is just a way to re-order the recent apps menu. You can drag around and close the icons in order to keep the list of apps as you like it. It has no effect on the running state of the apps.
The University of Bridgeport is pretty much run by the Unification Church and its leader, Sun Myung Moon. For years now they have heavily recruited international members of the church to come to the United States and attend the University.
The Unification Church uses the University as a means of extending their empire further into the United States and the extended visa program works exceptionally well for this. I'm not one to say if this is a good or bad thing.
travel to and from the surface would take a LOT more time than an equal distance travelled on the surface
This one is actually less likely to be true. Remember that travel on the surface involves the curvature of the Earth. Travel through the Earth can be done in relatively straight lines!
Yes, in both types of travel you still need to avoid obstacles such as mountains above ground or aquifers underground so your path of travel might not be as direct as the optimum path.
Reading all the replies to this post makes me happy. There *do* appear to be rational, sane logical adults here. But go to a Space Nutter thread and suddenly it's "We must colonize the universe!" "For the species!" "We're running out of room!" "Wahh!"
There are nuts of all sorts, for sure. However there are still some very valid, logical arguments for space exploration and colonization.
First of all, it's never a good idea to have all your eggs in one basket. By spreading the human race among several planets/space stations you lower the chance of humanity being wiped out by a large meteor or other catastrophe.
Secondly, there's a lot of valuable resources out there. It makes sense to form communities near resources such as mineral-rich meteors and asteroids, or perhaps comets with valuable organic compounds.
Third, the very act of exploration increases our knowledge of the universe and contributes to our well-being. By building spacecraft, space stations, and colonies we develop construction techniques, new materials, and ways of surviving in environments we don't encounter on Earth.
Lastly, some of the healthiest times in mankind's history has been one where there was an open frontier for the "wilder" elements of society to escape to. People have a natural instinct to spread and explore and that's increasingly difficult to do on the Earth with nearly everything either explored, owned, or under restrictive treaties. With relatively available space travel groups can escape tyranny in a manner similar to the pilgrims, by traveling to a distant land across the stars instead of across the seas.
Now a lot of these things can also be applied to some of the less-explored areas on the Earth, such as the deep ocean or by tunneling down into the depths. However, even those areas are going to run out sooner rather than later. The true next step for mankind is space exploration and slowly but surely we are working toward that goal.
$29 is peanuts when you are talking about the corporate world and large presentations. They spend more than that just in printing out the handouts for the presentation, not to mention travel, hotel, meals, and other expenses. Corporate presentations can easily run into the thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars for large companies.
A one-time cost of $29 for a connector that will be used dozens of times a year? Yeah, it's chump change.
Tablets will get thinner and lighter, and you'll dock them with keyboards (wirelessly) and larger monitors when you need to.
Basically how people are using the iPad right now. The combination of the iPad + bluetooth keyboards and dock connectors makes it a close replacement for a desktop system for most people.
Yep, I'll be doing a presentation shortly, and for this I'll use my iPad.
I'll just hook my projector up to-- oh, guess I'll be using my laptop after all.
Actually, the iPad works great for presentations:
Keynote + Dock Connector to VGA Adapter
I know a bunch of people who use the iPad for presentations and they love how well it works.