If you put a particle with known velocity and electrical charge in a known magnetical field, it will run on a circle. You can calculate its mass by the circle's radius.
At particle accelerators the magnetical field there is a given, since you need it to keep the particles inside the building while they are gaining speed.
No, the GP is right, lower energy orbits are faster (both at angular and linear speeds). When you are sitting on a chair at ground, you are not in orbit.
At low energy orbits, things have very little gravitational potential energy, and lots of cinetic energy. At hight energy orbit, things have a huge load of potential, and not as much cinetic energy.
"Now, lets say that gravity is instant. You turn on the gravity generator and the big honkin' flashlight. The receiver instantly notes the increase in gravity, and one year later sees the flashlight. How is causality violated?"
Gravity is intantaneous on which reference system? Let's say it is instantaneous at the emmiter's reference, in that case, the receiver can make the calculations (speed of light * distance to the emmiter) and will discover that the gravity wave was emmited after the flashlight.
If by "hierarchical" you mean WinFs, well current filesystem is hierarchical, WinFs should be relational, or object oriented, or watever (I was never able to understand MS's data on it).
By the way, the previous poster got it, in a couple of years WinFs will be old enough to go out and buy some beer.
"This has the advantage that when RMS sells out to Microsoft you won't end up with a non free license on your software."
RMS can't put your GPLv2+ software under a non-free license, it doesn't matter what GPLv8 or GPLv9 says, your software will also stay available under GPLv2.
The best he can do is put it under a BSD like license.
Given the experimental evaluations to date, we have serious doubts about how well MapReduce applications can scale.
Empirical evidence to date suggests that MapReduce scales insanely well.
Well, I didn't RTFA, but I also had a major WTF moment when I read that line. I don't understand what all that buzz is about, map reduce is an old approach that is known to work well. Also, it scales the best way any algorithm could scale, its only bottleneck is data distribution.
PV is a mechanism that converts heat to eletricity, thus, it is limited by the Carnot eficiency. PV gathers eletricity from the difference of temperature between the Sun's surface (around 6000K) and the Earth's surface, (around 300K), thus has a maximum efficiency of near 95% (ignoring the atmosphere, that will reduce it).
First, why is this post moded as troll? It has a very good point.
Now, answering, that would be true if the original engine, that we take the heat waste from, was already reversible. That is very far from true for cars, and not quite true for normal power plants.
Adding a second machine will increase the heat resistence of the cooling system, what does reduce the efficiency of the original machine. But, since the original engine isn't reversible, that reduced efficiency won't be enough to compensate the work added by the second machine.
"My understanding was the GPL v3 essentially made it so that once code was committed, the committer implicitly gave up rights to any patentable material relevant to what they committed."
Not exactly, it makes it so that you grant license to everybody use your patent on other GPLv3 programs, not all of them. You can still dual license your code and use your patents to squash the competition (unless they are GPLv3, of course).
The same happens with GPLv2, GPLv2+, and LGPL.
On my view, the biggest differences between GPLv2 and v3 are the compatibility clauses, the "anti MS-Novell like agreements" clause and the "hardware shall not prohibit modifications of my code" clause (AKA DRM clause). But I doubt the last one is really enforceable.
Funny, I don't see any clutter on your text. Ok it'd be easier to read if the \footnote was separated by a space (what you can't do), but I see is no other distraction in it.
"I enjoy writing in OpenOffice more than with MS Word, but that just may be because that which you use often gets familiar, like a favourite pair of shoes..."
Maybe it is because OpenOffice doesn't corrupt a document when you insert a figure, doesn't lose formating just because your document is too big and doesn't get confused when dealing with lists, so you can control on what number they start, nest and format them properly. Or maybe because it doesn't have dozens of other small bugs.
Both of them can't handle margins properly, though.
Re:The best tools stay out of the way...
on
Goodbye Cruel Word
·
· Score: 1
"In the real world you'll get asked to make precise changes to the way your document looks, and document format is not just an afterthought or a separate step of the process."
Thank God I've never being at the "real world". I've just being at academical world, private initiative and the governemnt... Except for content-free presentations, I never saw a document where formating and editing couldn't be separated.
Re:The best tools stay out of the way...
on
Goodbye Cruel Word
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Yep, I also learned Tex after I knew Word, and I also like Tex better.
The problem here is that people are complaining that with word they have too few options on how their text will look like. Well, with Tex they'll have fewer. All of them better than what Word provides, but still fewer.
Of course, a Tex guru can customize a document anyway he wants. But we are not talking about gurus here. By the way, I don't really know who are we talking about. What kind of writter wants fine control of the margins? Is TFA fusing writters and graphical designers on a single person? Tex has excelent support for writters and graphical designers separated into two different persons, but isn't good for the case where they are the same.
"If there is a non-computable system that exists in the real world, then it cannot be the product of a simulation, no matter how advanced the computer is."
Well, ignoring the problems on how we can decide that a problem is non-computable, you are assuming that the "computer" simulating us is a turing machine. That may not be the case, the being simulating us don't need to follow our rules.
Yes, but they'll never be allowed to perform any of the musics that made them sucessfull again. What will they do when the public ask for an old song during a show?
Altough usefull on some circunstances, that is bad advice to give to an unknown audience. All the above things make software good for a fraction of the population (and is very focused on it), but neglet the others.
The Inmates Are Running the Asylum, from Alan Cooper is a very nice introduction to usability that will make you think about it, not just devour gidelines. After you read it, you can search Jakob Nielsen's bibliography for specific techniques about usability, then, if you want more info, you can search it for actual gidelines.
By the way, Nielsen has a site where he archives some very nice articles for free. It is focused on web, not applications, but he goes out of his way to explain what generalizes.
Slashdot Mirror
Hardly, but it will be quite a long, long line just to get a disapointing short trip...
If you put a particle with known velocity and electrical charge in a known magnetical field, it will run on a circle. You can calculate its mass by the circle's radius.
At particle accelerators the magnetical field there is a given, since you need it to keep the particles inside the building while they are gaining speed.
No, the GP is right, lower energy orbits are faster (both at angular and linear speeds). When you are sitting on a chair at ground, you are not in orbit.
At low energy orbits, things have very little gravitational potential energy, and lots of cinetic energy. At hight energy orbit, things have a huge load of potential, and not as much cinetic energy.
Gravity is intantaneous on which reference system? Let's say it is instantaneous at the emmiter's reference, in that case, the receiver can make the calculations (speed of light * distance to the emmiter) and will discover that the gravity wave was emmited after the flashlight.
Most companies don't sell the same thing for the same client over and over again, unless the good gets consumed or roten.
If by "hierarchical" you mean WinFs, well current filesystem is hierarchical, WinFs should be relational, or object oriented, or watever (I was never able to understand MS's data on it).
By the way, the previous poster got it, in a couple of years WinFs will be old enough to go out and buy some beer.
RMS can't put your GPLv2+ software under a non-free license, it doesn't matter what GPLv8 or GPLv9 says, your software will also stay available under GPLv2.
The best he can do is put it under a BSD like license.
Well, you can't argue that GPL is more free than LGPL (or BSD while I'm at it), nor the other way around.
Both licenses have different goals, and fit well to different projects/organizations. There is no point on comparing them that way.
Well, I didn't RTFA, but I also had a major WTF moment when I read that line. I don't understand what all that buzz is about, map reduce is an old approach that is known to work well. Also, it scales the best way any algorithm could scale, its only bottleneck is data distribution.
Sorry to destroy a joke, but dark matter must be transparent.
Ok, if you were into a +5 Funny, it seems you used the wrong word here.
Well, if you care to fight the Pascal developers...
The GP must be new here ;)
PV is a mechanism that converts heat to eletricity, thus, it is limited by the Carnot eficiency. PV gathers eletricity from the difference of temperature between the Sun's surface (around 6000K) and the Earth's surface, (around 300K), thus has a maximum efficiency of near 95% (ignoring the atmosphere, that will reduce it).
First, why is this post moded as troll? It has a very good point.
Now, answering, that would be true if the original engine, that we take the heat waste from, was already reversible. That is very far from true for cars, and not quite true for normal power plants.
Adding a second machine will increase the heat resistence of the cooling system, what does reduce the efficiency of the original machine. But, since the original engine isn't reversible, that reduced efficiency won't be enough to compensate the work added by the second machine.
Not exactly, it makes it so that you grant license to everybody use your patent on other GPLv3 programs, not all of them. You can still dual license your code and use your patents to squash the competition (unless they are GPLv3, of course).
The same happens with GPLv2, GPLv2+, and LGPL.
On my view, the biggest differences between GPLv2 and v3 are the compatibility clauses, the "anti MS-Novell like agreements" clause and the "hardware shall not prohibit modifications of my code" clause (AKA DRM clause). But I doubt the last one is really enforceable.
As far as it is possible to implement DRM on any kind of system, of course.
Funny, I don't see any clutter on your text. Ok it'd be easier to read if the \footnote was separated by a space (what you can't do), but I see is no other distraction in it.
Maybe it is because OpenOffice doesn't corrupt a document when you insert a figure, doesn't lose formating just because your document is too big and doesn't get confused when dealing with lists, so you can control on what number they start, nest and format them properly. Or maybe because it doesn't have dozens of other small bugs.
Both of them can't handle margins properly, though.
Thank God I've never being at the "real world". I've just being at academical world, private initiative and the governemnt... Except for content-free presentations, I never saw a document where formating and editing couldn't be separated.
Yep, I also learned Tex after I knew Word, and I also like Tex better.
The problem here is that people are complaining that with word they have too few options on how their text will look like. Well, with Tex they'll have fewer. All of them better than what Word provides, but still fewer.
Of course, a Tex guru can customize a document anyway he wants. But we are not talking about gurus here. By the way, I don't really know who are we talking about. What kind of writter wants fine control of the margins? Is TFA fusing writters and graphical designers on a single person? Tex has excelent support for writters and graphical designers separated into two different persons, but isn't good for the case where they are the same.
Well, ignoring the problems on how we can decide that a problem is non-computable, you are assuming that the "computer" simulating us is a turing machine. That may not be the case, the being simulating us don't need to follow our rules.
Well, on a few years we'll have no option.
Yes, but they'll never be allowed to perform any of the musics that made them sucessfull again. What will they do when the public ask for an old song during a show?
Altough usefull on some circunstances, that is bad advice to give to an unknown audience. All the above things make software good for a fraction of the population (and is very focused on it), but neglet the others.
The Inmates Are Running the Asylum, from Alan Cooper is a very nice introduction to usability that will make you think about it, not just devour gidelines. After you read it, you can search Jakob Nielsen's bibliography for specific techniques about usability, then, if you want more info, you can search it for actual gidelines.
By the way, Nielsen has a site where he archives some very nice articles for free. It is focused on web, not applications, but he goes out of his way to explain what generalizes.