Leaving out the space after the include was accidental -- I fixed up the tags to convert them to HTML and didn't preview. But the semicolon I specifically deleted from the code, hence the "Oh yeah???" tongue-in-cheek comment.
If anyones looking for a good beginners book thats similar tho this one then check out Steal This Computer Book 3: What They Won't Tell You About the Internet
A note to other geeks out there: I had to learn the hard way that, yes officer, you are expected to purchase this book before leaving the store.
In addition, if I set the angle by hand before I started out tot he store, then I would have to reset it when I came back - even assuming I did not have to make any turns on the way to the store.
Right. Even more reason why solar tracking likely won't be a feature of most consumer-level solar cars, or so I predict. But maybe something simple can be rigged up via a series of small rotating Fresnel lenses. The gradations of the lens aren't circular as with most Fresnel lenses but would be in a straight line. The lens can be at a fixed angle for most of North America and still get pretty good accuracy. Then just rotate the lens along the horizontal plane to point towards the sun. That way, the sunlight hits the lens and gets refracted downwards so that it's approximately perpendicular to the plane of the solar cell.
Hm... time to ring up the patent office I think.:)
Yes, the sqrt(2) comes from the angle alone. At 0 degrees (equator) a car's roof is perpendicular to the sunlight. At 45 degrees North/South the roof is naturally on a 45 degree angle, ignoring seasonal variations. Yes, it's true that you can have solar panels which automatically adjust to follow the sun but for a car's roof, any consumer model would not likely have this feature -- too likely it will get damaged, stolen, break down, etc.
There's also, as you mentioned, more atmosphere the sun needs to go through. I hadn't thought of that, but I don't know offhand how to calculate that anyways -- probably the same sqrt(2) multiplied by an atmospheric absorption factor, so if the atmosphere eats up 20% of the energy at the equator, it would eat up about 38% at 45 degrees North. However it factors in, that too would affect the amount of available energy.
You'll probably be highest here. Linux and *BSD can't get past ~497 days (42949672.96 seconds)
The *BSD distributions generally can, but you're right that Linux typically wraps at 497 days. See this page for more details. List of longest average uptimes here. Interesting that 2 Linux boxes made the top 50 list -- I guess they patched their uptime code so it doesn't wrap?
A game doesn't need the latest pixel shader support to look good. The two games mentioned (especially Wow, and not so much COH) rely on good world design. Castles, trees, islands, mountains... they have a distinct feel.
Design is a part of a good game, but I think what really makes a good game is an engaging story and well thought out objectives -- no MMORPG treadmill please!
I said that they have original, imaginative design and art.
I was thinking you meant design and artwork as displayed in the graphics, such as the design of a castle object with the texture map artwork on the walls. Perhaps "style" is more along the lines of what you meant?
I think that Everquest2 lacks something when compared to World of Warcraft or even City of Heroes. Those two games don't rely on graphics; they have original, imaginative design and art.
What's your point? WoW and CoH don't rely on graphics, they have original and imaginative graphics! You then compare screenshots showing castle scenes, as if Gothic pioneered the concept of the medieval setting.
If those games don't rely on graphics, I would expect you to expound on how they have amazing gameplay and storyline, an intuitive interface, or something along those lines.
In that particular case the fable's title is funny, not accurate. According to the dictionary, the lion's share is the majority, not the total.
I should have written my response as the "original" version of the lion's share. Yes, it has changed over time to mean something different. Those who initially referred to the lion's share probably knew Aesop's fables and what it really meant. It was undoubtedly overheard by others who didn't know the source and they just inferred that it meant about everything. Then they started using it and people two degrees of Kevin Bacon away learned it as the majority.
No doubt we'll see "could of" in the dictionary soon. Of course, it's "could have" but people who don't read much and only hear it in conversation hear the "could've" and it sounds like "could of". So they start using "could of" and boom... now it's the new English, "for all intensive purposes".:)
Give DirecTV a call. Tell them you want to give them your business, but you don't have any easy place to mount the dish and see if they have any suggestions. Heck, maybe they have some special kind of mounting gear for just your type of situation.
The only other thing that comes to mind is getting permission from the property manager to put the dish on the roof and then run some wire down the side of the building through the window, to the receiving unit. If you're in a low-rise unit and/or not far from the roof, this may work but I wouldn't count on running ten stories worth of wire just so you can get your TV fix.
What do you mean 'those countries'? There's nothing weird about the sunlight in Afghanistan...
I don't know about Afghanistan, but you get more energy per square meter from the sun on the equator than you do in, say, Portland Oregon which is at about 45 degrees North. In Kenya, you would get sqrt(2) or around 1.4 times more energy than you would in Portland. That 40% difference could easily be enough to get a car up to 25 km/h, which is 40% less than 25 mph.
I think I know where the lions share of dotters stand.
By the way (hey, the other guy got +5), the lion's share doesn't mean the majority. The lion's share is 100%... everything. It's from one of Aesop's Fables:
The Lion's Share
The Lion went once a-hunting along with the Fox, the Jackal, and the Wolf. They hunted and they hunted till at last they surprised a Stag, and soon took its life. Then came the question how the spoil should be divided. "Quarter me this Stag," roared the Lion; so the other animals skinned it and cut it into four parts. Then the Lion took his stand in front of the carcass and pronounced judgment: The first quarter is for me in my capacity as King of Beasts; the second is mine as arbiter; another share comes to me for my part in the chase; and as for the fourth quarter, well, as for that, I should like to see which of you will dare to lay a paw upon it."
"Humph," grumbled the Fox as he walked away with his tail between his legs; but he spoke in a low growl.
"You may share the labours of the great, but you will not share the spoil."
I used to be really against the idea of paying for unique organizations of electrons until I nearly broke my back throwing away all my issues of Maxim to lighten the load. [...] Death to paper!
In some instances, the unique organizations of hydrocarbon molecules is still preferred to the unique organization of sub-atomic particles. Though one can easily convert the information represented by those sub-atomic particles into an imperfect fascimile by outputting it onto hydrocarbon planes with the assistance of a jet or laser device.
Okay, I see what you mean. It's the difference between working for a person, and working for a business entity, even though that business entity might be controlled by the same person.
When I incorporated my company I didn't suddenly change my whole business practices. The only thing I do differently is sleep better at night knowing that someone can't take my house away from me should the business get sued, and I realize some tax advantages once the accountant gets through with it. I still deal with people in exactly the same manner as before.
Perhaps you know of cases where this is different, fine. Just don't paint your pessimistic picture with such a large brush.
In the case of unincorporated companies I would agree. But corporations exist for the purpose of avoiding liability. If the corporate rulers have no personal stake, no liability in the company, I see no reason to treat the company as a personified entity.
Yes, a mom-and-pop shop run as a partnership is a completely different story.
So should that mom and pop shop decide to incorporate for the tax benefits, all of a sudden it will magically lose touch with the people?
KDE announced they were acquiring the rights to the Knoppix distribution. A source at KDE who wished to remain anonymous said, "For some reason, we just liked the name."
Oh really, how do you know what is the cause of human intuition?
I'm stating what I think is how intuition works. Obviously, you may disagree with it. Feel free to argue why you think computers may never achieve what we perceive as intuition, but don't take the approach of ridiculing my attempt at an explanation.
Intuition could be caused by all kinds of things we don't understand perhaps our brains have a relation to quantum physics that allows us to actually have some feeling as to what will happen in the future.
The method of how our brains work is fairly well understood for the most part. Neurons firing, synapses, exchanges of chemicals, etc. We don't yet know all the facts, but the basics are understood enough for form theories. But given that there's something like 100 billion neurons in the brain and we don't know how it is all wired up, it's a bit difficult to speculate. Perhaps you're right. Maybe there's some kind of quantum entanglement going on and intuition is the mechanism by which we perceive things. However, given that the brain is just a bunch of cells which started out as sperm and egg and have divided, then it all but rules out this possibility. It's not as if the uterus is an appropriate environment for quantum entanglement to occur. Or even if it is the case, we could still produce computers which are biological in nature and share the same properties.
My point is no one really knows... or even comes close to having an idea.
I have an idea yet you dismiss it without stating reasons other than waving your hands and saying "well nobody knows". Are you against the exploration of new ideas?
You are stating a specific theory as if it is a fact and that is always dangerous. Or at least somewhat silly as many people who believed the earth was flat and the humors of the body had to be in balance for health could attest to if they were still alive.
I'm stating my theory. How is that dangerous? If you wish to prevent all scientists from stating theories unless they are first proven, then I guess we might as well scrap all scientific publications while we're at it. And really... is my theory so far-fetched? The human brain is a vastly complex parallel biological computer. Regular computers today are mostly linear and comparitively simple. If we manage to get computers to process massively parallel information and an order of magnitude more complex, I'm extrapolating that there's no reason why a computer, under those circumstances, couldn't achieve the processing power of the brain. What is perceived as intuition to us is, in all likelihood, simply an emergent result of highly complex parallel computations. Sure, we don't understand the mechanism. But let's not quell the effort of trying, shall we?
On a positive note, you're not alone. You're in the same club as those who initially ridiculed Einstein's theory of relativity... "Oh, he's just putting forth a specific theory as if it is fact. That's dangerous! Might as well call the earth flat!" Sure, some theories turn out to be false; others, true. But what's the point in insulting a man for trying?
Slashdot Mirror
Leaving out the space after the include was accidental -- I fixed up the tags to convert them to HTML and didn't preview. But the semicolon I specifically deleted from the code, hence the "Oh yeah???" tongue-in-cheek comment.
:)
And, no, my sig really doesn't have a typo.
If anyones looking for a good beginners book thats similar tho this one then check out Steal This Computer Book 3: What They Won't Tell You About the Internet
A note to other geeks out there: I had to learn the hard way that, yes officer, you are expected to purchase this book before leaving the store.
That's right... I "forgot" it.
In addition, if I set the angle by hand before I started out tot he store, then I would have to reset it when I came back - even assuming I did not have to make any turns on the way to the store.
:)
Right. Even more reason why solar tracking likely won't be a feature of most consumer-level solar cars, or so I predict. But maybe something simple can be rigged up via a series of small rotating Fresnel lenses. The gradations of the lens aren't circular as with most Fresnel lenses but would be in a straight line. The lens can be at a fixed angle for most of North America and still get pretty good accuracy. Then just rotate the lens along the horizontal plane to point towards the sun. That way, the sunlight hits the lens and gets refracted downwards so that it's approximately perpendicular to the plane of the solar cell.
Hm... time to ring up the patent office I think.
Oh yeah???
int main()
{
- printf("Hello World\n")
}return 0;
Speaking of logos, anyone know where to find a gallery of the submitted NetBSD logos? Is one available?
You forgot the mid-life Krisis.
You must be thinking of miKrosoft.
- AndroidCat wrote:
- You do realize you can set your phone that if someone calls you with their number not listed, they have to dial back unblocked
An easier method is the call block-block service, which I believe is a free option these days.That's what AndroidCat just said, isn't it?
Yes, the sqrt(2) comes from the angle alone. At 0 degrees (equator) a car's roof is perpendicular to the sunlight. At 45 degrees North/South the roof is naturally on a 45 degree angle, ignoring seasonal variations. Yes, it's true that you can have solar panels which automatically adjust to follow the sun but for a car's roof, any consumer model would not likely have this feature -- too likely it will get damaged, stolen, break down, etc.
There's also, as you mentioned, more atmosphere the sun needs to go through. I hadn't thought of that, but I don't know offhand how to calculate that anyways -- probably the same sqrt(2) multiplied by an atmospheric absorption factor, so if the atmosphere eats up 20% of the energy at the equator, it would eat up about 38% at 45 degrees North. However it factors in, that too would affect the amount of available energy.
You'll probably be highest here. Linux and *BSD can't get past ~497 days (42949672.96 seconds)
The *BSD distributions generally can, but you're right that Linux typically wraps at 497 days. See this page for more details. List of longest average uptimes here. Interesting that 2 Linux boxes made the top 50 list -- I guess they patched their uptime code so it doesn't wrap?
A game doesn't need the latest pixel shader support to look good. The two games mentioned (especially Wow, and not so much COH) rely on good world design. Castles, trees, islands, mountains... they have a distinct feel.
Design is a part of a good game, but I think what really makes a good game is an engaging story and well thought out objectives -- no MMORPG treadmill please!
I said that they have original, imaginative design and art.
I was thinking you meant design and artwork as displayed in the graphics, such as the design of a castle object with the texture map artwork on the walls. Perhaps "style" is more along the lines of what you meant?
I think that Everquest2 lacks something when compared to World of Warcraft or even City of Heroes. Those two games don't rely on graphics; they have original, imaginative design and art.
What's your point? WoW and CoH don't rely on graphics, they have original and imaginative graphics! You then compare screenshots showing castle scenes, as if Gothic pioneered the concept of the medieval setting.
If those games don't rely on graphics, I would expect you to expound on how they have amazing gameplay and storyline, an intuitive interface, or something along those lines.
In that particular case the fable's title is funny, not accurate. According to the dictionary, the lion's share is the majority, not the total.
:)
I should have written my response as the "original" version of the lion's share. Yes, it has changed over time to mean something different. Those who initially referred to the lion's share probably knew Aesop's fables and what it really meant. It was undoubtedly overheard by others who didn't know the source and they just inferred that it meant about everything. Then they started using it and people two degrees of Kevin Bacon away learned it as the majority.
No doubt we'll see "could of" in the dictionary soon. Of course, it's "could have" but people who don't read much and only hear it in conversation hear the "could've" and it sounds like "could of". So they start using "could of" and boom... now it's the new English, "for all intensive purposes".
Give DirecTV a call. Tell them you want to give them your business, but you don't have any easy place to mount the dish and see if they have any suggestions. Heck, maybe they have some special kind of mounting gear for just your type of situation.
The only other thing that comes to mind is getting permission from the property manager to put the dish on the roof and then run some wire down the side of the building through the window, to the receiving unit. If you're in a low-rise unit and/or not far from the roof, this may work but I wouldn't count on running ten stories worth of wire just so you can get your TV fix.
What do you mean 'those countries'? There's nothing weird about the sunlight in Afghanistan...
I don't know about Afghanistan, but you get more energy per square meter from the sun on the equator than you do in, say, Portland Oregon which is at about 45 degrees North. In Kenya, you would get sqrt(2) or around 1.4 times more energy than you would in Portland. That 40% difference could easily be enough to get a car up to 25 km/h, which is 40% less than 25 mph.
I think I know where the lions share of dotters stand.
By the way (hey, the other guy got +5), the lion's share doesn't mean the majority. The lion's share is 100%... everything. It's from one of Aesop's Fables:
The Lion's Share
The Lion went once a-hunting along with the Fox, the Jackal,
and the Wolf. They hunted and they hunted till at last they
surprised a Stag, and soon took its life. Then came the question
how the spoil should be divided. "Quarter me this Stag," roared
the Lion; so the other animals skinned it and cut it into four
parts. Then the Lion took his stand in front of the carcass and
pronounced judgment: The first quarter is for me in my capacity
as King of Beasts; the second is mine as arbiter; another share
comes to me for my part in the chase; and as for the fourth
quarter, well, as for that, I should like to see which of you
will dare to lay a paw upon it."
"Humph," grumbled the Fox as he walked away with his tail
between his legs; but he spoke in a low growl.
"You may share the labours of the great, but you will not
share the spoil."
I used to be really against the idea of paying for unique organizations of electrons until I nearly broke my back throwing away all my issues of Maxim to lighten the load. [...] Death to paper!
In some instances, the unique organizations of hydrocarbon molecules is still preferred to the unique organization of sub-atomic particles. Though one can easily convert the information represented by those sub-atomic particles into an imperfect fascimile by outputting it onto hydrocarbon planes with the assistance of a jet or laser device.
Save them some bandwidth:
Volume 2, Issue 1
Volume 2, Issue 2
Both are over 5MB, so freecache is perfect for this.
Okay, I see what you mean. It's the difference between working for a person, and working for a business entity, even though that business entity might be controlled by the same person.
When I incorporated my company I didn't suddenly change my whole business practices. The only thing I do differently is sleep better at night knowing that someone can't take my house away from me should the business get sued, and I realize some tax advantages once the accountant gets through with it. I still deal with people in exactly the same manner as before.
Perhaps you know of cases where this is different, fine. Just don't paint your pessimistic picture with such a large brush.
In the case of unincorporated companies I would agree. But corporations exist for the purpose of avoiding liability. If the corporate rulers have no personal stake, no liability in the company, I see no reason to treat the company as a personified entity.
Yes, a mom-and-pop shop run as a partnership is a completely different story.
So should that mom and pop shop decide to incorporate for the tax benefits, all of a sudden it will magically lose touch with the people?
Can someone help me write a poem about "nigritude ultramarine" in UML?
KDE announced they were acquiring the rights to the Knoppix distribution. A source at KDE who wished to remain anonymous said, "For some reason, we just liked the name."
Do you have to read the article to get your topic posted on /. or can you just put together random quotes that seem interesting?
The editors don't read the articles, so why should the submitters be subjected to the same burden?
Oh really, how do you know what is the cause of human intuition?
... or even comes close to having an idea.
I'm stating what I think is how intuition works. Obviously, you may disagree with it. Feel free to argue why you think computers may never achieve what we perceive as intuition, but don't take the approach of ridiculing my attempt at an explanation.
Intuition could be caused by all kinds of things we don't understand perhaps our brains have a relation to quantum physics that allows us to actually have some feeling as to what will happen in the future.
The method of how our brains work is fairly well understood for the most part. Neurons firing, synapses, exchanges of chemicals, etc. We don't yet know all the facts, but the basics are understood enough for form theories. But given that there's something like 100 billion neurons in the brain and we don't know how it is all wired up, it's a bit difficult to speculate. Perhaps you're right. Maybe there's some kind of quantum entanglement going on and intuition is the mechanism by which we perceive things. However, given that the brain is just a bunch of cells which started out as sperm and egg and have divided, then it all but rules out this possibility. It's not as if the uterus is an appropriate environment for quantum entanglement to occur. Or even if it is the case, we could still produce computers which are biological in nature and share the same properties.
My point is no one really knows
I have an idea yet you dismiss it without stating reasons other than waving your hands and saying "well nobody knows". Are you against the exploration of new ideas?
You are stating a specific theory as if it is a fact and that is always dangerous. Or at least somewhat silly as many people who believed the earth was flat and the humors of the body had to be in balance for health could attest to if they were still alive.
I'm stating my theory. How is that dangerous? If you wish to prevent all scientists from stating theories unless they are first proven, then I guess we might as well scrap all scientific publications while we're at it. And really... is my theory so far-fetched? The human brain is a vastly complex parallel biological computer. Regular computers today are mostly linear and comparitively simple. If we manage to get computers to process massively parallel information and an order of magnitude more complex, I'm extrapolating that there's no reason why a computer, under those circumstances, couldn't achieve the processing power of the brain. What is perceived as intuition to us is, in all likelihood, simply an emergent result of highly complex parallel computations. Sure, we don't understand the mechanism. But let's not quell the effort of trying, shall we?
On a positive note, you're not alone. You're in the same club as those who initially ridiculed Einstein's theory of relativity... "Oh, he's just putting forth a specific theory as if it is fact. That's dangerous! Might as well call the earth flat!" Sure, some theories turn out to be false; others, true. But what's the point in insulting a man for trying?