Oi! Stickybacked plastic *is* sellotape! Sellotape, as all good trademark respecting peoples know, a trademark, and therefore should be referred to in the generic as sticky tape or sticky backed plastic. So there.
And besides, you left out loo roll tubes. They are more important even than sticky backed plastic.
You'll find them in your local copyright library, whatever the US equivalents are. A favourite pastime of prospective Cambridge students is to hit the library there (which takes a copy of everything published in the UK) and look up all the porn. Magic fun. Some joker's filed it under 'Syn'. Ho ho.
He couldn't build it, as the engineering skills weren't there at the time to create some of the tolerances needed in certain components. It could easily be done nowadays - we just need some willpower and a big garage. Oh, and a big steaming pile of cash.
Ahem, this is English we're speaking here. There is essentially no linguistic barrier in English between the verb and the noun. So go out and noun whatever you like.
There appears to be some confusion over what we mean by axioms. There are two main definition:
1) A 'self-evident' truth. This approach does have the advantage of venerability, dating from ancient Greece, and of simplicity.
2) The more modern definition defines an axiom simply as a starting point on which we can perform logical operations. We make no judgement on whether or not these are in fact true (although we hope they are). If a series of logical operations on an axiom turns out a known bad result, then we can say that our axiom is at fault.
This second setup appeared due to increasingly philosophical work on the nature of numbers, which eventually forced mathematicians to go back and re-lay the groundwork.
Anyway, I'm not sure axioms are the interesting thing in a debate on religion; I think Occam's Razor has more to offer.
It isn't anecdotal at all - it's pretty simple physics.
You know (of course) that when two slightly out of tune sounds are played together, they 'beat', producing a wah-wah-wah sound. When you do this with ultrasound, the wah-wah-wahs happen at an audible frequency. Voila, sound, from unheard sound. Such is the miracle that is physics.
Not quite; in the US, you are expected to have a pretty sound grasp of a course's content before you start actual classes. This more or less necessitates a textbook. This system doesn't work in the UK, because we're far too lazy to do work before we really have to. But it does work well, from an educational standpoint; I had an American lecturer for one course at Uni, and he had us do this, and it made a huge huge difference to our understanding and ability at the end of it.
Yo, if you gonna go all pedantic man, at least do it right:
Working at AboveNet, Google have pulled
their machines in and out of our data centers many times. It's incredible the way they have their equipment set up.
They fit about 100 or so 1U machines on each side of the rack. They are double sided cabinets that look like refrigerators, separated in the center by no-name brand switches and they have caster wheels on the bottom. At the drop of a dime, Google can roll their machines out of a data centre onto their 16 wheeler then move, unload and plug into a new data centre in less than a day's time.
I've got 256MB, and I usually don't run more anything more demanding than XMMS and Mozilla side-by-side; I never touch swap. The only thing that ever hits swap is OpenOffice; after leaving it overnight, getting OOo back into main memory is like the Blackboard Nails Symphony (extended version).
I jacked in a Masters in Electronics and Software engineering about a year ago, and I've ended up on a factory floor with responsibility for datecoding food products - not exactly riveting work, but lots of pressure to keep it moving and lots of shafting in the behind if you get it wrong. I enjoy it - I make money and get everything I want out of a job - but a hell of a lot of people wouldn't, including probably 95% of those who think they would. So beware.
Umm, I would like to draw your attention to the fundamental theorem of arithemtic, which kinda shoots great big holes in your argument. Any non prime will fall more quickly than a prime in any reasonable primality checking algorithm.
RSA is in principle very simple. Take two big prime numbers, multiply them together, and you get a bigger number. Finding out what those factors are is *hard*. A brute force check is not possible (relatively speaking: it's possible, but expensive, or requires writing a virus to find lots of machines to do it for you...hmmm).
Bah! Linkify your sig! They look like interesting links but I can't be bothered to copy and paste. Come, on, this is the web generation! If you can't click it, you're dead!
Because textual file formats are far more easily transformed. For instance, I recently transcribed a setting of Pachelbel's Canon for bagpipes, using ABC. With four voices, in order to print out a master copy with all four voices, I wrote
%%staves (1 2 3 4)
And to get individual copies, I changed it to
%%staves (1)
Graphical typesetting programs are indeed more intuitive, and for those who maybe only want to write out a set of exercises for their pupils, or who twice a year write out stuff because their copy is dodgy or whatever, for those, point and click is fine. I write out music three or four times a week, and doing it by point and click hurts, compared to the speed and power of the keyboard.
I can't beleive no-one has replied to this. I can believe this has been moderated insightful. Moderators on crack, etc. Bah.
Because most of the people reading this site read 'Free software' as shorthand for 'free as in speech'. Not free as in beer.
I just realised you're a troll, but never mind. Bah. Well done. I was mildly annoyed for a minute there. Well done. I'm still narked some idiot modded this, though. Bah.
It is important. More precisely, you've *missed* the point - ABC isn't a decription of musical notation, it *is* musical notation. It's designed to allow diatonic monophonic music to be easily read and written, both in text and on paper. Indeed, I can think of several people who use this notation to write down tunes in folk sessions, and there are certainly many more than I know of. It's a damned sight easier to scribble this stuff down on a beer mat than it is to carry around a sheaf of MS paper. Considering how it gets processed was and remains a secondary consideration when the standard is revised.
X:0 T:Maid Behind the Bar M:4/4 L:1/8 Q:150 #Tempo indication R:Reel K:D A|FAAB AFED| FAAB A2de|fBBA Bcde|fdef edBA| FAAB AFED|FAAB A2de|fBBA BcdB|AFEF D3:|| g|faag fdde|(3fed ad fddf| gfga beef|(3gfe be geea|fgaf bfaf|defd e2de|fBBA BcdB|AFEF D3:||
Notice anything about that? Well, probably not, if you're not a musician. But any musician should be able to spot that for monotonic music, ABC is damned easy to read. I've no idea what MusicXML looks like, but I don't particularly want to have my music spattered with <triplet></triplet>s. Makes it messy.
I'm being unduly harsh, in some ways. ABC is best suited to monotonic or at least multivoiced music (say, Pachelbel's Canon). It isn't particularly ideal for piano scores, for example, although it handles these remarkably well, given it's original design in life (originally as a paper and pen method for jotting down music in the field. Chris Walshaw, being a typical hacker, then quietly built something that most folkies who inhabit Western tonality now use all the time).
MusicXML has inspired a fair bit of discussion in the ABC community, concommitant with the numbers of users, I suppose. Nobody can pin down figures, but I would suspect there are as many casual users of ABC as there are of Lilypond. Anyway, the point is that ease of parsing is not always an ideal; sometimes a file format that can be easily read and written by non SGML-savants is just as important.
Channel 4 did this very recently in Britain; they faked some UFO movements and just sat back and filmed the local community and press go nuts. Entertaining viewing, and a reminder we're not as incredulous as we like to think.
Not long, ago the BBC broadcast a drama portraying the vulnerability of Britain's road system to hard gridlock; it was done in the same sort of way as the WOTW broadcast, with lots of fake news announcements, shaky camerawork, etc. The BBC got a lot of calls from panicers about it when it was on air.
This is a common misconception. The format was actually adopted for VCDs; it was originally conceived as one of a range of digital broadcasting formats. If you actually look at the way MP3 is structured, it is possible to actually compress it further, because frames include redundant information that allows a decoder to lock on with only one frame of data. If it was supposed to be a storage format, it wouldn't be made this way.
The problem with the break in tracks is not your player, but your encoder, and it's not really its' fault either. MP3 wasn't designed with this in mind - it's a streaming format, not a storage format.
What's happening is that each frame records a small amount of time, say a twentieth of a second. Information from two different tracks is not shared by your encoder between the last frame of the first file and the first frame of the second file; this means that nine times out of ten, there's a gap consisting of unfilled frame.
You need to check your encoder documentation (or more likely, mailing list) to figure out how to get your encoder to fill each frame completely at the expense of track integrity (which doesn't mean anything in real life).
tags which would actually specify that it's a paragraph, or if that makes your head hurt examine the dropdown box under the text box, and you can choose Plain Old Text, where you don't have to do nothing clever.
That's about standard for leather bound books of this size/scale. The Piobaireachd Society collection(of bagpipe music), which is slightly shy of A3 sized and about three inches thick costs about 350, and that's only one volume.
Skins for bookbinding are pricey - I enquired about it once, and found that a normal (ie not top-grade) skin would cost about 80 minimum, and the actual binding work plenty on top. Bear in mind this is all done by hand.
This stuff is mainly for clowns who think they'll make a fortune selling this in the colectables market in twenty years time. They may be right. Who knows. On that note, does anyone want to buy Coldplay's Parachutes, on vinyl?
Slashdot Mirror
And besides, you left out loo roll tubes. They are more important even than sticky backed plastic.
You'll find them in your local copyright library, whatever the US equivalents are. A favourite pastime of prospective Cambridge students is to hit the library there (which takes a copy of everything published in the UK) and look up all the porn. Magic fun. Some joker's filed it under 'Syn'. Ho ho.
He couldn't build it, as the engineering skills weren't there at the time to create some of the tolerances needed in certain components. It could easily be done nowadays - we just need some willpower and a big garage. Oh, and a big steaming pile of cash.
Yes, your sig is appended every time from your current sig. Probably just to save a bit of space, I would guess.
See ESR's opinions on emacs.
Ahem, this is English we're speaking here. There is essentially no linguistic barrier in English between the verb and the noun. So go out and noun whatever you like.
1) A 'self-evident' truth. This approach does have the advantage of venerability, dating from ancient Greece, and of simplicity.
2) The more modern definition defines an axiom simply as a starting point on which we can perform logical operations. We make no judgement on whether or not these are in fact true (although we hope they are). If a series of logical operations on an axiom turns out a known bad result, then we can say that our axiom is at fault.
This second setup appeared due to increasingly philosophical work on the nature of numbers, which eventually forced mathematicians to go back and re-lay the groundwork. Anyway, I'm not sure axioms are the interesting thing in a debate on religion; I think Occam's Razor has more to offer.
It isn't anecdotal at all - it's pretty simple physics. You know (of course) that when two slightly out of tune sounds are played together, they 'beat', producing a wah-wah-wah sound. When you do this with ultrasound, the wah-wah-wahs happen at an audible frequency. Voila, sound, from unheard sound. Such is the miracle that is physics.
Not quite; in the US, you are expected to have a pretty sound grasp of a course's content before you start actual classes. This more or less necessitates a textbook. This system doesn't work in the UK, because we're far too lazy to do work before we really have to. But it does work well, from an educational standpoint; I had an American lecturer for one course at Uni, and he had us do this, and it made a huge huge difference to our understanding and ability at the end of it.
Working at AboveNet, Google have pulled their machines in and out of our data centers many times. It's incredible the way they have their equipment set up.
They fit about 100 or so 1U machines on each side of the rack. They are double sided cabinets that look like refrigerators, separated in the center by no-name brand switches and they have caster wheels on the bottom. At the drop of a dime, Google can roll their machines out of a data centre onto their 16 wheeler then move, unload and plug into a new data centre in less than a day's time.
I've got 256MB, and I usually don't run more anything more demanding than XMMS and Mozilla side-by-side; I never touch swap. The only thing that ever hits swap is OpenOffice; after leaving it overnight, getting OOo back into main memory is like the Blackboard Nails Symphony (extended version).
I jacked in a Masters in Electronics and Software engineering about a year ago, and I've ended up on a factory floor with responsibility for datecoding food products - not exactly riveting work, but lots of pressure to keep it moving and lots of shafting in the behind if you get it wrong. I enjoy it - I make money and get everything I want out of a job - but a hell of a lot of people wouldn't, including probably 95% of those who think they would. So beware.
RSA is in principle very simple. Take two big prime numbers, multiply them together, and you get a bigger number. Finding out what those factors are is *hard*. A brute force check is not possible (relatively speaking: it's possible, but expensive, or requires writing a virus to find lots of machines to do it for you...hmmm).
Bah! Linkify your sig! They look like interesting links but I can't be bothered to copy and paste. Come, on, this is the web generation! If you can't click it, you're dead!
%%staves (1 2 3 4)
And to get individual copies, I changed it to
%%staves (1)
Graphical typesetting programs are indeed more intuitive, and for those who maybe only want to write out a set of exercises for their pupils, or who twice a year write out stuff because their copy is dodgy or whatever, for those, point and click is fine. I write out music three or four times a week, and doing it by point and click hurts, compared to the speed and power of the keyboard.
Because most of the people reading this site read 'Free software' as shorthand for 'free as in speech'. Not free as in beer.
I just realised you're a troll, but never mind. Bah. Well done. I was mildly annoyed for a minute there. Well done. I'm still narked some idiot modded this, though. Bah.
It is important. More precisely, you've *missed* the point - ABC isn't a decription of musical notation, it *is* musical notation. It's designed to allow diatonic monophonic music to be easily read and written, both in text and on paper. Indeed, I can think of several people who use this notation to write down tunes in folk sessions, and there are certainly many more than I know of. It's a damned sight easier to scribble this stuff down on a beer mat than it is to carry around a sheaf of MS paper. Considering how it gets processed was and remains a secondary consideration when the standard is revised.
Notice anything about that? Well, probably not, if you're not a musician. But any musician should be able to spot that for monotonic music, ABC is damned easy to read. I've no idea what MusicXML looks like, but I don't particularly want to have my music spattered with <triplet></triplet>s. Makes it messy.
I'm being unduly harsh, in some ways. ABC is best suited to monotonic or at least multivoiced music (say, Pachelbel's Canon). It isn't particularly ideal for piano scores, for example, although it handles these remarkably well, given it's original design in life (originally as a paper and pen method for jotting down music in the field. Chris Walshaw, being a typical hacker, then quietly built something that most folkies who inhabit Western tonality now use all the time). MusicXML has inspired a fair bit of discussion in the ABC community, concommitant with the numbers of users, I suppose. Nobody can pin down figures, but I would suspect there are as many casual users of ABC as there are of Lilypond. Anyway, the point is that ease of parsing is not always an ideal; sometimes a file format that can be easily read and written by non SGML-savants is just as important.
Channel 4 did this very recently in Britain; they faked some UFO movements and just sat back and filmed the local community and press go nuts. Entertaining viewing, and a reminder we're not as incredulous as we like to think.
Not long, ago the BBC broadcast a drama portraying the vulnerability of Britain's road system to hard gridlock; it was done in the same sort of way as the WOTW broadcast, with lots of fake news announcements, shaky camerawork, etc. The BBC got a lot of calls from panicers about it when it was on air.
This is a common misconception. The format was actually adopted for VCDs; it was originally conceived as one of a range of digital broadcasting formats. If you actually look at the way MP3 is structured, it is possible to actually compress it further, because frames include redundant information that allows a decoder to lock on with only one frame of data. If it was supposed to be a storage format, it wouldn't be made this way.
What's happening is that each frame records a small amount of time, say a twentieth of a second. Information from two different tracks is not shared by your encoder between the last frame of the first file and the first frame of the second file; this means that nine times out of ten, there's a gap consisting of unfilled frame.
You need to check your encoder documentation (or more likely, mailing list) to figure out how to get your encoder to fill each frame completely at the expense of track integrity (which doesn't mean anything in real life).
tags which would actually specify that it's a paragraph, or if that makes your head hurt examine the dropdown box under the text box, and you can choose Plain Old Text, where you don't have to do nothing clever.
Skins for bookbinding are pricey - I enquired about it once, and found that a normal (ie not top-grade) skin would cost about 80 minimum, and the actual binding work plenty on top. Bear in mind this is all done by hand.
This stuff is mainly for clowns who think they'll make a fortune selling this in the colectables market in twenty years time. They may be right. Who knows. On that note, does anyone want to buy Coldplay's Parachutes, on vinyl?
Actually, ESR cites emacs as an example of exactly that - an occasion where only making it as big and flexible as possible is sensible.