Elsewhere in this discussion, it was calculated that the balloon would be about a meter and a half in diameter. That would easily fit in an attic or basement, inaccessible to disgruntled neighborhood kids. And if you have any gas appliances, you already have something potentially explosive in your house anyway!
Why not use a metal hydride storage both at home and in the car.
That makes sense for a car (although a normal battery might make more sense at the moment), but I can't imagine any sort of metal hydride thingy being cheaper than a simple balloon for the home.
Then your car tops itself off during the day
It doesn't make sense for cars to have solar panels. They cost too much, and give too little benefit, to be worth it in that application.
SimCity is a real-time strategy game, not turn-based.
It can be turn-based, if you pause it while you do stuff and then let it run while you sit back and watch the effects. I believe a lot of people, including myself, play this way.
And on the other side of the coin, there are those of us for whom even SimCity 4 wasn't complex enough. Or, at least, realistic enough.
I, for example, would like to see a SimCity that wasn't based on a rectangular grid, so that you could have proper curves in the roads. I'd also like to see the ability to make walking and/or cycling paths, so that you could potentially create a city with no cars whatsoever. Bus stops and subway stations that didn't take up a whole grid square would be nice, as would being able to build roads one lane at a time (including turn lanes). Finally, I'd like to see mixed-use zoning.
Of course, they could keep the complexity down by removing other stuff. I wouldn't mind them cutting the touchy-feely "my sims" junk, the driving missions (if somebody wants that, they ought to just make a new Streets of SimCity and do it properly instead), etc.
Who cares about volume? Solar panels can't power a car during the day anyway ('cause you can't fit enough of them on the surface area available on a car), let alone have enough capacity left over to split water for running at night! This technology is all about powering buildings, where hydrogen volume (and solar panel area) are not a problem.
No, it's really fucking not! Attorneys are also "officers of the court," and have the responsibility and obligation to uphold proper court procedure. The RIAA's lawyers are absolutely failing in their duty to the court, and should be sanctioned for it!
The problem with this logic is that it doesn't matter. The law doesn't work like mathematics, and lawyers don't reason using the same rules that geeks do.
To us, 2 = 2. All the time, period. To a lawyer, on the other hand, 2 may or may not equal 2, depending on the origin of each "2," the circumstances by which they were acquired and equated, etc.
To a lawyer, it doesn't matter the slightest bit what mathematical hoops you try to jump through; if the resulting large number sounds vaguely like the original song when you pipe it through an MP3 player, then it's the same song.
To a lawyer, copying a large number from another party and randomly generating it are entirely different, even though the end result is exactly the same number.
The point I'm trying to make is that the answer to this question:
Would disseminating these equations violate copyright?
Some 'copying', i.e. from from drive to RAM, has already been held to be legally exempt from the very definition you are trying to give it, in reference to various EULA's and such.
I realize that you are not a lawyer (as per your sig), but I desperately want a citation for that!
...and just as statistically likely to be the subject of an illegal wiretap.
Only if the government does fewer than about 475 illegal wiretaps per year, on average. I think it's reasonable to guess that the number is larger than that -- but more importantly, we can't know the real number because the damn thing's a secret, which itself is part of the problem!
Rather, it's the principle of the thing. You've got two sides, both sticking to their principles, to the extreme.
Yes and no. I agree that it's about principle, but it's only one side -- the side against illegal wiretapping, i.e., following the fucking law -- that has them.
Granted, I can understand how a government acting outside the law is problematic
WTF?! They didn't "act outside" the law, they BROKE the law! They are criminals. They deserve to be in prison. Why? Because that's where we send criminals that have broken the law! Q-E-fucking-D!
The rule of law is the most important thing in the entirety of our social and political system! If the government is free to ignore the law, then the law no longer exists. If the law no longer exists, then we have a dictatorship rather than a democracy. The fucking American Revolution was fought over less!
The truth of the matter is conversations originating overseas from known or suspected terrorist organizations to their contacts in the U.S. may be monitored. Your chats with Grandma about what to get little Jimmy for his birthday are of no interest to anyone and cannot be legally intercepted without a warrant.
The "conversations originating overseas" were illegal to monitor too! If they're going to break the fucking law to do that, then nothing stops them from doing exactly the same to Grandma and little Jimmy.
You're essentially saying, "they broke the law, but that's okay because they wouldn't break the law" which is just fucking stupid.
Trying to find out what next big operation terrorists are planning against us ought to be everybody's interest
No, it shouldn't! Statistically, I'm as likely to be struck by lightning as I am to be killed by a terrorist. And I'm vastly more likely to die in a car wreck, or by slipping in the shower, or doing any number of other things that everybody does every day without particularly worrying about it. So no, this hysterical, cowardly obsession with the terrorist boogeymen should not be in everybody's fucking interest!
I'm more scared of the Bush administration than I am of the terrorists. By a wide margin.
The whole point of LaTeX is to separate the formatting from the content, although you do have to annotate the content with tags to invoke the formatting (just like HTML + CSS).
The key word was "semantic." For example, I dislike \textit for the same reason I prefer <em/>, <cite/>, or other things that might produce italicized text instead of <i/>.
If you've ever been foolish enough volunteer to be the editor for a group project where everybody writes their own chapter, you'll understand that everybody formats their work differently. If you ever sought the more challenging task of making these independent submissions conform to an aesthetically pleasing palette, you'll be able to espouse how much it sucked because word processors aren't built to be able to intelligently mark the formatting of each word in the document.
Select all --> clear formatting --> start from scratch. (Having everybody email you their sections as plaintext works too.)
I tried it in OpenOffice (Insert->Object->Formula), and here's as close as I got (paste it into the textbox at the bottom of the window):
int binom{-1}{1} {{%delta x} over {nroot{3}{x^{2}}}} = lim csub{s rightarrow 0} int binom{-1}{-s} {{%delta x} over {nroot{3}{x^{2}}}} + lim csub{t rightarrow 0} int binom{t}{1} {{ %delta x} over {nroot{3}{x^{2}}}}newline lim csub{s rightarrow 0} 3 (1 - nroot{3}{s} ) + lim csub{t rightarrow 0} 3 (1 - nroot{3}{t} ) newline 3 + 3 newline 6
I couldn't figure out how to get the subsequent lines to have equal signs, or how to get them to line up. I think the correct solution is a table with separate formula objects.
LaTeX 3 seems to be going nowhere on the official branch
For the benefit of those who didn't get the in-joke, LaTeX's version numbers are such that it asymptotically approaches pi, with a digit added for each bug fix. It's "going nowhere" because it's complete. When Knuth dies the version number will be changed to pi, all remaining bugs will become features, and no other changes will be made.
Macro-based langauges can work, but most of them are just a pain to work with (M4 anyone?). Unfortunately, Knuth didn't have the advantage of a lot of language research that has been don't in the past few decades.
I'd say its main problem is that it's the wrong paradigm. Documents are declarative, not imperative. Therefore, the computer language used to express the document ought to be declarative too.
Personally, I tend to use HTML+CSS for writing documents (although lately I've gotten lazy and just used OpenOffice). The trouble with that method, though, is that despite "media:print" it really wasn't designed to be used in anything but a web browser (it's hard to control pagination, for example).
Unfortunately, because it's an imperative language used to perform an inherently declarative task. Maybe growing up with HTML spoiled me, but I'd rather describe what my document is, rather than sequential instructions on how to create it.
Also, I like the separation of semantic meaning and presentation that comes with modern HTML+CSS, and I don't think LaTeX offers that.
If you don't want to debate, then why do you keep posting?
You don't like the terms of their sale, so you act like the world's coming to an end and get all dramatic about the "precedent" it might set... when none of Apple's millions of customers care.
What a world we live in, where I'm getting berated for having principles by fucking sheep like yourself, who not only allow powerful entities like Apple create inequitable contracts, but even seem to like it!
Your statement doesn't make any sense. In the situation we're discussing, I would have paid -- and would have had no objection to paying -- for the copy of the software. The claim is that, because the software was legally purchased, Apple would have no cause to sue me if I installed it on my Thinkpad instead of my old iBook.
(And actually, I'd get the family pack instead so that I could install it on the Thinkpad, the iBook, and my parents' iMac -- both Macs are still running 10.4.)
You want people to suddenly give up all rights to something they created and worked hard on, because you think ONE COMPANY selling ONE PRODUCT and retaining COPYRIGHT on that product -- is a MONOPOLY?
Yes. It is a monopoly on the copying and distribution of that particular creative work. Nobody else is allowed to copy and distribute the same creative work, and the only perfect substitute for a creative work is itself. Hence, a monopoly.
And if I'm a loon, then Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were loons too, because that's what they called it!
Slashdot Mirror
Elsewhere in this discussion, it was calculated that the balloon would be about a meter and a half in diameter. That would easily fit in an attic or basement, inaccessible to disgruntled neighborhood kids. And if you have any gas appliances, you already have something potentially explosive in your house anyway!
That makes sense for a car (although a normal battery might make more sense at the moment), but I can't imagine any sort of metal hydride thingy being cheaper than a simple balloon for the home.
It doesn't make sense for cars to have solar panels. They cost too much, and give too little benefit, to be worth it in that application.
Hey, good idea! Of course, I think those would be better implemented as city-wide ordinances rather than ploppable individual objects.
It can be turn-based, if you pause it while you do stuff and then let it run while you sit back and watch the effects. I believe a lot of people, including myself, play this way.
And on the other side of the coin, there are those of us for whom even SimCity 4 wasn't complex enough. Or, at least, realistic enough.
I, for example, would like to see a SimCity that wasn't based on a rectangular grid, so that you could have proper curves in the roads. I'd also like to see the ability to make walking and/or cycling paths, so that you could potentially create a city with no cars whatsoever. Bus stops and subway stations that didn't take up a whole grid square would be nice, as would being able to build roads one lane at a time (including turn lanes). Finally, I'd like to see mixed-use zoning.
Of course, they could keep the complexity down by removing other stuff. I wouldn't mind them cutting the touchy-feely "my sims" junk, the driving missions (if somebody wants that, they ought to just make a new Streets of SimCity and do it properly instead), etc.
Who cares about volume? Solar panels can't power a car during the day anyway ('cause you can't fit enough of them on the surface area available on a car), let alone have enough capacity left over to split water for running at night! This technology is all about powering buildings, where hydrogen volume (and solar panel area) are not a problem.
No, it's really fucking not! Attorneys are also "officers of the court," and have the responsibility and obligation to uphold proper court procedure. The RIAA's lawyers are absolutely failing in their duty to the court, and should be sanctioned for it!
You've got it backwards: nobody downloads from MediaSentry, they upload to MediaSentry.
The problem with this logic is that it doesn't matter. The law doesn't work like mathematics, and lawyers don't reason using the same rules that geeks do.
To us, 2 = 2. All the time, period. To a lawyer, on the other hand, 2 may or may not equal 2, depending on the origin of each "2," the circumstances by which they were acquired and equated, etc.
To a lawyer, it doesn't matter the slightest bit what mathematical hoops you try to jump through; if the resulting large number sounds vaguely like the original song when you pipe it through an MP3 player, then it's the same song.
To a lawyer, copying a large number from another party and randomly generating it are entirely different, even though the end result is exactly the same number.
The point I'm trying to make is that the answer to this question:
Is yes.
I realize that you are not a lawyer (as per your sig), but I desperately want a citation for that!
Yes, yes it is... and they're not even bothering to follow that, you ignorant dumbfuck!
Only if the government does fewer than about 475 illegal wiretaps per year, on average. I think it's reasonable to guess that the number is larger than that -- but more importantly, we can't know the real number because the damn thing's a secret, which itself is part of the problem!
Yes and no. I agree that it's about principle, but it's only one side -- the side against illegal wiretapping, i.e., following the fucking law -- that has them.
WTF?! They didn't "act outside" the law, they BROKE the law! They are criminals. They deserve to be in prison. Why? Because that's where we send criminals that have broken the law! Q-E-fucking-D!
The rule of law is the most important thing in the entirety of our social and political system! If the government is free to ignore the law, then the law no longer exists. If the law no longer exists, then we have a dictatorship rather than a democracy. The fucking American Revolution was fought over less!
Strangely enough, my school tends to specify MLA or APA-style and "Works Cited" pages instead of footnotes.
The "conversations originating overseas" were illegal to monitor too! If they're going to break the fucking law to do that, then nothing stops them from doing exactly the same to Grandma and little Jimmy.
You're essentially saying, "they broke the law, but that's okay because they wouldn't break the law" which is just fucking stupid.
No, it shouldn't! Statistically, I'm as likely to be struck by lightning as I am to be killed by a terrorist. And I'm vastly more likely to die in a car wreck, or by slipping in the shower, or doing any number of other things that everybody does every day without particularly worrying about it. So no, this hysterical, cowardly obsession with the terrorist boogeymen should not be in everybody's fucking interest!
I'm more scared of the Bush administration than I am of the terrorists. By a wide margin.
The key word was "semantic." For example, I dislike \textit for the same reason I prefer <em/>, <cite/>, or other things that might produce italicized text instead of <i/>.
Select all --> clear formatting --> start from scratch. (Having everybody email you their sections as plaintext works too.)
I tried it in OpenOffice (Insert->Object->Formula), and here's as close as I got (paste it into the textbox at the bottom of the window):
I couldn't figure out how to get the subsequent lines to have equal signs, or how to get them to line up. I think the correct solution is a table with separate formula objects.
For the benefit of those who didn't get the in-joke, LaTeX's version numbers are such that it asymptotically approaches pi, with a digit added for each bug fix. It's "going nowhere" because it's complete. When Knuth dies the version number will be changed to pi, all remaining bugs will become features, and no other changes will be made.
I'd say its main problem is that it's the wrong paradigm. Documents are declarative, not imperative. Therefore, the computer language used to express the document ought to be declarative too.
Personally, I tend to use HTML+CSS for writing documents (although lately I've gotten lazy and just used OpenOffice). The trouble with that method, though, is that despite "media:print" it really wasn't designed to be used in anything but a web browser (it's hard to control pagination, for example).
Unfortunately, because it's an imperative language used to perform an inherently declarative task. Maybe growing up with HTML spoiled me, but I'd rather describe what my document is, rather than sequential instructions on how to create it.
Also, I like the separation of semantic meaning and presentation that comes with modern HTML+CSS, and I don't think LaTeX offers that.
Speaking of markup languages, what about Docbook? Would that do what he wants?
The superior solution is obviously the clit mouse.
If you don't want to debate, then why do you keep posting?
What a world we live in, where I'm getting berated for having principles by fucking sheep like yourself, who not only allow powerful entities like Apple create inequitable contracts, but even seem to like it!
Your statement doesn't make any sense. In the situation we're discussing, I would have paid -- and would have had no objection to paying -- for the copy of the software. The claim is that, because the software was legally purchased, Apple would have no cause to sue me if I installed it on my Thinkpad instead of my old iBook.
(And actually, I'd get the family pack instead so that I could install it on the Thinkpad, the iBook, and my parents' iMac -- both Macs are still running 10.4.)
Yes. It is a monopoly on the copying and distribution of that particular creative work. Nobody else is allowed to copy and distribute the same creative work, and the only perfect substitute for a creative work is itself. Hence, a monopoly.
And if I'm a loon, then Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were loons too, because that's what they called it!