It already gets automatically rated as soon as you post it, based on if you are logged in, if you have good karma, and if you selected the "No Karma Bonus" option. There's no unrated article on Slashdot, just unmoderated ones.
While it may be nice to have the source of a tesseract, however, those can only be built in a 4-dimensional space. So where do I get the build environment?
Unless it's a scanned page, where you might be interested in more than just the raw text, or simply don't want to risk errors in converting it to text (think official documents).
Yes, my freedom is restricted in the way that I cannot restrict the freedom of other people. This is less freedom for me. No, I don't complain, because this also means that I'm safe (or at least much safer) against losing the freedom I do enjoy. So this restriction of my freedom is actually good (well, actually the good part for me is the restriction of the freedom of others to take my freedom; of course the others will enjoy the fact that my freedom to take their freedom is restricted this way just as much).
And yes, freedom does mean to be free to do what you want (the free people are free because they can do what they want, that is they are not slaves who are told what they must do).
Your problem is that you mechanically imply "more free = better" and then, after seeing that a certain less free option is actually better, because it ensures the continuation of that freedom, you try to redefine "free" only to not need to change your original implication.
Just accept that the world is not that simple, and that sometimes the less free option is the better one, if the restriction of the freedom helps persistance of the remaining freedom, and you can stop trying to redefine "free" only to match your wrong assertion to the real world.
Yes, the GPL is less free than the BSD license. And yes, it is better exacty due to being less free in the right way.
That's simple: Take e.g. the original BSD license. It is incompatible with GPL due to an additional restriction (advertising clause). OTOH it allows you many things which the GPL does not allow you (like linking with proprietary code), so it's arguably more free than GPL.
and worse off, a GPL software cannot be dependent on non-GPL software. The GPL requires that all components of the program are to be Free - you can't legally build a GPL'd frontend to a proprietary or otherwise non-GPL-compatibile backend.
That's not true. You cannot link to non-GPL code (or more exactly, to code with a license incompatible with the GPL), but there's no problem in executing such code as separate process. I think that is what the majority of CD/DVD writing programs (probably all of them) do with cdrecord, mkisofs etc.
I'd rather use recode. After all, there might be other Windows specific stuff in there, like replacement of certain ISO-8859-1 high-bit control characters by graphic characters. With recode, those can be handleded as well (ideally convert it directly to Unicode).
Actually, there is a much more common sort of microphone in homes and offices, even if there's no computer or a computer without multimedia (mics on office PCs are probably quite uncommon). It's your phone. Additional advantage is that it is usually switched on and connected all the time.
Don't just blindly make this change. Instead determine if the goal was really to emphasize/strongly emphasize, or if it actually had another purpose (e.g. italics is commonly used for foreign words like et al., which certainly should not be marked with <em>. Better replace it with <span class="foreignword"> and add.foreignword { font-style: italic } to your CSS, unless there exists a HTML tag specifically designed for the use, as e.g. <q>for quotations, which also are often done in italics). Remember, there's a reason that <i> und <b> are removed, and that reason is surely not to force you to type more or make web pages larger.
Aside from the material needs I wonder if they are addressing the IT needs.
I've heared they consider buying the IT from the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation. You know, the one which won't like to go up if something dangerous will happen in the near future.
OK, we'll let the fine structure constant of the Incredible Shrinking Man be four. This is fine until all your electromagnetic interactions start to diverge.
Well, there's another way to change the size: If you make the electron mass larger, the size will shrink as well: The atom radius goes like 1/mu, where mu is the reduced mass of the electron. Since the electron mass is only about 1/2000 of the nucleon mass, and the number of electons for a neutral body is the same as the number of protons (and therefore less than the number of nucleons), you'd not significantly change the total mass as long as you don't use too large factors on the eletron mass. However, with this method, you get other problems:
Since your atoms are smaller than the atoms in the air, you'll have a hard time breathing. Same goes for eating, drinking, etc. (note that this is a problem for all methods to shrink atoms).
Your "heavy electrons" are clearly in another state than normal electrons (that state can be distinguished from the normal by measuring the mass), so it's reasonable to assume that the Pauli principle does not apply between normal and heavy electrons (it of course applies between the heavy electrons themselves, so your body's stability remains the same). This may cause you to have severe problems with standing on normal matter (e.g. the floor).
The larger electron mass will also make all atomic transition matrix elements larger, which means all atomic processes speed up. This will e.g. make light appear red-shifted to you, which for size factors larger than two will mean you don't see any normally visible light. The Incredibly Shrinking Man would probably have an X-Ray view. Note, however, that all movements which involve movement of the nuclei (e.g. heat) are not significantly speeding up.
I'm sure I left out a lot of other effects.
Maybe one could make up for some of the effects by changing fine structure constant and electron mass at the same time. It would have to be done in a way that the energy levels remain the same. Since the energy leves are proportional to mu*alpha^2, this means a change in alpha would have to be accompanied by a change in proportional to 1/alpha^2. Since the Bohr radius is proportional to 1/(mu*alpha), this would result in a radius being proportional to alpha, thus solving the divergence problem (you now get smaller when your alpha gets smaller, since the accompanying electron mass change overcompensates the direct effect on the radius of changing alpha). The energy and time scales are unchanged by construction, so you'd continue to see normally. However neither the breathing problem nor the Pauli principle problem are solved. Also I'm not sure how this change would affect the stabilty of the nuclei in your body...
Well, a quantum drive will not fail until you check if it did. Otherwise it will just be in a superposition of failed and working, and quantum algorithms should be able to make use of the working part anyway.:-)
That's easy: CowboyNealism. The only thing you have to do is to regularly read slashdot, and every now and then sacrifice some of your time to make an insightful of funny comment, submit an article with a few links to empower the slashdot effect on, moderate or meta-moderate.
Sure, because a probe just flying around uncontrolled without giving any data back is more useful than one crashing into the moon, thus allowing us to get lots of data from the crash before getting just as useless as it would have been otherwise anyway...
Hey, that's a great idea! Even better: Make a new WikiTV show! People can phone in to make suggestions for changes, and then there's a phone poll to decide if those changes make it into Wikipedia. Also, invite prominent guests who change their own Wikipedia entries during the show, and at the end, people can phone in if the resulting article should become featured. Of course there must be something to win in the show. Maybe one of the people phoning in gets randomly selected to win an admin account.:-)
Group 1 writes some open source code to create Flash animations, using the licensed documentation. If I understand correctly, this is allowed.
Group 2 doesn't receive the documentation (and therefore isn't bound by its license), but reads the source code of the Flash creator from group 1, and thus can make a player which can play anything the creator from group 1 can produce. If group 1 has done its job well, this means, the player of group 2 can play Flash without ever being exposed to the Flash documentation.
Slashdot Mirror
It already gets automatically rated as soon as you post it, based on if you are logged in, if you have good karma, and if you selected the "No Karma Bonus" option. There's no unrated article on Slashdot, just unmoderated ones.
Of course you can resort to other, harder to calculate questions like: "What is the answer to life, the universe and everything?" Oops, Computers seem to have become much faster since Deep Thought! :-)
While it may be nice to have the source of a tesseract, however, those can only be built in a 4-dimensional space. So where do I get the build environment?
Unless it's a scanned page, where you might be interested in more than just the raw text, or simply don't want to risk errors in converting it to text (think official documents).
Yes, my freedom is restricted in the way that I cannot restrict the freedom of other people. This is less freedom for me. No, I don't complain, because this also means that I'm safe (or at least much safer) against losing the freedom I do enjoy. So this restriction of my freedom is actually good (well, actually the good part for me is the restriction of the freedom of others to take my freedom; of course the others will enjoy the fact that my freedom to take their freedom is restricted this way just as much).
And yes, freedom does mean to be free to do what you want (the free people are free because they can do what they want, that is they are not slaves who are told what they must do).
Your problem is that you mechanically imply "more free = better" and then, after seeing that a certain less free option is actually better, because it ensures the continuation of that freedom, you try to redefine "free" only to not need to change your original implication.
Just accept that the world is not that simple, and that sometimes the less free option is the better one, if the restriction of the freedom helps persistance of the remaining freedom, and you can stop trying to redefine "free" only to match your wrong assertion to the real world.
Yes, the GPL is less free than the BSD license. And yes, it is better exacty due to being less free in the right way.
That's simple: Take e.g. the original BSD license. It is incompatible with GPL due to an additional restriction (advertising clause). OTOH it allows you many things which the GPL does not allow you (like linking with proprietary code), so it's arguably more free than GPL.
That's not true. You cannot link to non-GPL code (or more exactly, to code with a license incompatible with the GPL), but there's no problem in executing such code as separate process. I think that is what the majority of CD/DVD writing programs (probably all of them) do with cdrecord, mkisofs etc.
See the first paragraph of http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NFUseGPL
Blink tags are discouraged. Instead use JavaScript to simulate blinking. :-)
I'd rather use recode. After all, there might be other Windows specific stuff in there, like replacement of certain ISO-8859-1 high-bit control characters by graphic characters. With recode, those can be handleded as well (ideally convert it directly to Unicode).
Actually, there is a much more common sort of microphone in homes and offices, even if there's no computer or a computer without multimedia (mics on office PCs are probably quite uncommon). It's your phone. Additional advantage is that it is usually switched on and connected all the time.
It's just a matter of defining "evil" appropriatly.
Don't just blindly make this change. Instead determine if the goal was really to emphasize/strongly emphasize, or if it actually had another purpose (e.g. italics is commonly used for foreign words like et al., which certainly should not be marked with <em>. Better replace it with <span class="foreignword"> and add .foreignword { font-style: italic } to your CSS, unless there exists a HTML tag specifically designed for the use, as e.g. <q>for quotations, which also are often done in italics).
Remember, there's a reason that <i> und <b> are removed, and that reason is surely not to force you to type more or make web pages larger.
And hopefully it can stand the extreme temperatures of the sun while earth and mars are on opposite sides of it.
But seriously, they of course mean elevators from the surface of other planets into the orbit around those planets.
Well, maybe they'll use this incredible new invention called ... ship?
I've heared they consider buying the IT from the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation. You know, the one which won't like to go up if something dangerous will happen in the near future.
Well, fortunately the NASA can use US Dollars, which are somewhat cheaper than Euros, or even British Pounds.
1. I for one welcome our new rot13 joke fighting overlords.
:-)
2. ??? (Nothing to see here, please move along)
3. Profit!
SCNR
Well, there's another way to change the size: If you make the electron mass larger, the size will shrink as well: The atom radius goes like 1/mu, where mu is the reduced mass of the electron. Since the electron mass is only about 1/2000 of the nucleon mass, and the number of electons for a neutral body is the same as the number of protons (and therefore less than the number of nucleons), you'd not significantly change the total mass as long as you don't use too large factors on the eletron mass. However, with this method, you get other problems:
- Since your atoms are smaller than the atoms in the air, you'll have a hard time breathing. Same goes for eating, drinking, etc. (note that this is a problem for all methods to shrink atoms).
- Your "heavy electrons" are clearly in another state than normal electrons (that state can be distinguished from the normal by measuring the mass), so it's reasonable to assume that the Pauli principle does not apply between normal and heavy electrons (it of course applies between the heavy electrons themselves, so your body's stability remains the same). This may cause you to have severe problems with standing on normal matter (e.g. the floor).
- The larger electron mass will also make all atomic transition matrix elements larger, which means all atomic processes speed up. This will e.g. make light appear red-shifted to you, which for size factors larger than two will mean you don't see any normally visible light. The Incredibly Shrinking Man would probably have an X-Ray view. Note, however, that all movements which involve movement of the nuclei (e.g. heat) are not significantly speeding up.
I'm sure I left out a lot of other effects.Maybe one could make up for some of the effects by changing fine structure constant and electron mass at the same time. It would have to be done in a way that the energy levels remain the same. Since the energy leves are proportional to mu*alpha^2, this means a change in alpha would have to be accompanied by a change in proportional to 1/alpha^2. Since the Bohr radius is proportional to 1/(mu*alpha), this would result in a radius being proportional to alpha, thus solving the divergence problem (you now get smaller when your alpha gets smaller, since the accompanying electron mass change overcompensates the direct effect on the radius of changing alpha). The energy and time scales are unchanged by construction, so you'd continue to see normally. However neither the breathing problem nor the Pauli principle problem are solved. Also I'm not sure how this change would affect the stabilty of the nuclei in your body
That explains why I got no points: I always tried "Image".
Well, a quantum drive will not fail until you check if it did. Otherwise it will just be in a superposition of failed and working, and quantum algorithms should be able to make use of the working part anyway. :-)
Kthe only kproblem is kthat kyou'll ket klots of ks kspread kthroughout kyour komputer.
That's easy: CowboyNealism.
The only thing you have to do is to regularly read slashdot, and every now and then sacrifice some of your time to make an insightful of funny comment, submit an article with a few links to empower the slashdot effect on, moderate or meta-moderate.
Sure, because a probe just flying around uncontrolled without giving any data back is more useful than one crashing into the moon, thus allowing us to get lots of data from the crash before getting just as useless as it would have been otherwise anyway ...
Hey, that's a great idea! Even better: Make a new WikiTV show! People can phone in to make suggestions for changes, and then there's a phone poll to decide if those changes make it into Wikipedia. Also, invite prominent guests who change their own Wikipedia entries during the show, and at the end, people can phone in if the resulting article should become featured. :-)
Of course there must be something to win in the show. Maybe one of the people phoning in gets randomly selected to win an admin account.