I don't get how this works without bleeding the efficiency of the systems it draws from.
I don't see what's wrong with having a parabolic mirror concentrate sunlight on the hot side, and running the cool side through a finned radiator, and blowing ambient air through it (mounted under the mirror to take advantage of its shade would be most efficient, I think). You could go stirling (more efficient, lower speed) or turbine (less efficient, higher speed) that way.
I wouldn't be worried about night-time or cloudy-day stuff. Electrical use is highest when the sun is beatin'est.
I figure they all have the "Don't be a dick" rule, and if I keep to that, and there does happen to be an afterlife of some sort, I'll at least get some nosebleed seats in the cooler side of eternity.
'Course, I'm assuming there's degrees of being a dick. Like first degree dickness could be applied to causing the holocaust, while ninth degree penisitude could be dismissing someone as a fucktard on Slashdot.
Mostly, determining hardware, subdependencies, thumb twiddling, locating eye of newt, and individual file accesses make everything take much longer than it needs to.
Image-based installs are generally faster as you're just decompressing a filesystem image directly onto the target disc; no seeks involved.
Nice to see Microsoft catching up on something Mac and Linux have known for years.
Which is fine, actually. Using boot.ini, you can configure NTLDR to chainload your linux partition.
This whole argument is stupid, mind you. No, Windows doesn't assume you might want to boot linux - but it does give you a choice as to which drive to install itself to.
Same with linux, though some distros are designed to work with windows or even scoot the windows partition over to make room for itself (it does it all nice and delicate-like, mind you).
Either way, dual booting is not the nightmare of misconfigurations it once was. You just gotta read the fucking manual.
Apple makes an OS that is light-years better in terms of polish, features and interface, and yet somehow doesn't compete on near equal footing.
Meanwhile, Linux with KDE is presently featurewise-competitive with Win - even moreso in some cases, as it doesn't really force things down your throat. My girlfriend (a non-geek) even picked up on the one I use (Slax, mainly unmodified) without any kind of primer.
Straw man as that may be, it forces me to wonder why there isn't greater Linux adoption. Or greater Mac adoption.
Simple. Microsoft's wares are in every businesses ear, telling them how bad things would be if they used that/other/ OS. They're in every home, pretending to be your best friend as they spam and overcharge. They have enough of the server market to require their certifications - an investment so expensive that those who achieve certification tend to install more microsoft servers.
They've got, if not a proper monopoly, a market position of near complete dominance.
And actually, I'm not exactly for or against the past and present monopoly suits. They're applicable; its what happens when a company reaches a market saturation above 66% or so; the local economy, and thus the local government, reasonably rely on the products of the near-monopolist. The government would prefer that not be the case, generally, especially if it's a foreign-owned company.
In the case of EU / Microsoft, the only way for the EU to separate themselves from Microsoft would be to have them comply with some interoperability demands.
And, in this case, MS failed (or, moreover, pretended) to comply. Cryptic documentation is not documentation.
So, the EU is fining MS, and you know what? Fine. The population of the EU needs that money more than good ole' Bill does anyway (actually, any population needs that money more than MS does. MS needs more money like a full glass of water needs more water.)
There are practical limits to the extent that capitalism is useful to the public interest, and monopolies are one of them.
"'Clearly their only motivation is to be anti-competitive, which is what one expects from a convicted monopolist.'
"That's just stupid."
You're right. One would expect a convicted monopolist to take the damn hint and be all kinds of cooperative with the demands of the consumers and authorities. 'cept Microsoft hasn't. Hence, their behavior is, as you said, quite stupid.
There is no usable swf decompiler for linux. This makes flash hacking difficult to say the least.
Adobe's linux pdf reader offering and gv are substandard, being slow and often buggy. If I absolutely have to read a pdf, and kpdf's being bitchy, I need Windows.
Neither Openoffice.org nor kWrite render my resume properly. That's really annoying.
Hip Hop eJay 4 is an excellent 'I want a beat for the song I'm writing and I want it now' program. One that completely fails to run in Wine.
Need I go on? It's always little things, mind you, but if you don't feel like / have time to / know how to hack your way through an issue in Linux, it's nice to have Windows to fall back on.
Find TinyXP. Makes a very nice dual boot companion for the price of 2G. Replace your swap partition today with TinyXP and use pagefile.sys instead (nice trick: mkswap/mnt/hda3/pagefile.sys; swapon/mnt/hda3/pagefile.sys)
The image comes to your brain primarily unprocessed; it is projected onto your retina via the mechanical properties of your eye. Since the image is mainly unchanged between your eye and your brain, I consider that 'seeing'.
The combination of the images from the left and right eyes, however, is not seeing. It's a trick that happens entirely within the brain.
Meanwhile, true '3d' vision would (for example) enable you to see past the surfaces of opaque objects - even if all you saw was black (since the opaque surface would be obscuring ambient light); i.e., image data would be mapped to a three-dimentional array. This is different from stereoscopic vision, in which (to simplify it greatly), you have a 2d array of color and depth information.
A good example is the difference between an audio waveform and an image. An image is a 2d array of color information. An audio waveform (as you normally see it) is a 2d representation of a 1d signal - though, it's still 1d.
Honestly, it's like the difference between a relief map (a 2d representation of 3d surface information), and the kind of info you'd get if you intercepted (and, likely, decompressed) the data stream of a star trek type teleporter.
Why not two more? The parallax should be paralell, should it not?
Meanwhile, that would be unbelievably confusing (the eye would have to be displaced along time, but also be directed diagonal to time. Kinda like firing missiles at right angles to reality).
No. Stereoscopic vision gives you the ability to percieve distance in a 3d environment. You're still only/seeing/ in 2-d. Specifically, two 2-d images. The 3-d you percieve is those two images as processed by your brain.
Actually, you'd be able to see through and into things. All at the same time. Possibly in a conic section extending into time (like our 2-d vision is a conic section extending into depth).
Slashdot Mirror
You're a moron.
Be more fucking direct.
It's called a 'Slashback'. They've been doing this fluff for months now. Way to wake up.
Not if you're a graphic designer.
I don't get how this works without bleeding the efficiency of the systems it draws from.
I don't see what's wrong with having a parabolic mirror concentrate sunlight on the hot side, and running the cool side through a finned radiator, and blowing ambient air through it (mounted under the mirror to take advantage of its shade would be most efficient, I think). You could go stirling (more efficient, lower speed) or turbine (less efficient, higher speed) that way.
I wouldn't be worried about night-time or cloudy-day stuff. Electrical use is highest when the sun is beatin'est.
No, it won't. It wont boot off the CD, even after doing everything the manual says to.
I would guess a similar percent as stated, based on purchasing power.
I'd like to see these statistics normalised to population.
I figure they all have the "Don't be a dick" rule, and if I keep to that, and there does happen to be an afterlife of some sort, I'll at least get some nosebleed seats in the cooler side of eternity.
'Course, I'm assuming there's degrees of being a dick. Like first degree dickness could be applied to causing the holocaust, while ninth degree penisitude could be dismissing someone as a fucktard on Slashdot.
?
Dude, we live 100 years and don't seem to care what happens 25 years down the line.
Not if you upgraded it back in 2001.
Mostly, determining hardware, subdependencies, thumb twiddling, locating eye of newt, and individual file accesses make everything take much longer than it needs to.
Image-based installs are generally faster as you're just decompressing a filesystem image directly onto the target disc; no seeks involved.
Nice to see Microsoft catching up on something Mac and Linux have known for years.
I dunno. I just recently set up my machine for Dual Boot, coming from a strictly linux system.
Just shrunk my Linux partition, installed windows on it, and used a livecd (which I keep in case I fuck up royally anyways) to chroot and re-lilo.
Not difficult. It'd be even easier if I used grub (you don't need to chroot with grub), but I like lilo's graphical capabilities.
*pokes you*
Incorrect, over.
If you give Windows the MBR, it will use NTLDR.
Which is fine, actually. Using boot.ini, you can configure NTLDR to chainload your linux partition.
This whole argument is stupid, mind you. No, Windows doesn't assume you might want to boot linux - but it does give you a choice as to which drive to install itself to.
Same with linux, though some distros are designed to work with windows or even scoot the windows partition over to make room for itself (it does it all nice and delicate-like, mind you).
Either way, dual booting is not the nightmare of misconfigurations it once was. You just gotta read the fucking manual.
Funny.
/other/ OS. They're in every home, pretending to be your best friend as they spam and overcharge. They have enough of the server market to require their certifications - an investment so expensive that those who achieve certification tend to install more microsoft servers.
Apple makes an OS that is light-years better in terms of polish, features and interface, and yet somehow doesn't compete on near equal footing.
Meanwhile, Linux with KDE is presently featurewise-competitive with Win - even moreso in some cases, as it doesn't really force things down your throat. My girlfriend (a non-geek) even picked up on the one I use (Slax, mainly unmodified) without any kind of primer.
Straw man as that may be, it forces me to wonder why there isn't greater Linux adoption. Or greater Mac adoption.
Simple. Microsoft's wares are in every businesses ear, telling them how bad things would be if they used that
They've got, if not a proper monopoly, a market position of near complete dominance.
And actually, I'm not exactly for or against the past and present monopoly suits. They're applicable; its what happens when a company reaches a market saturation above 66% or so; the local economy, and thus the local government, reasonably rely on the products of the near-monopolist. The government would prefer that not be the case, generally, especially if it's a foreign-owned company.
In the case of EU / Microsoft, the only way for the EU to separate themselves from Microsoft would be to have them comply with some interoperability demands.
And, in this case, MS failed (or, moreover, pretended) to comply. Cryptic documentation is not documentation.
So, the EU is fining MS, and you know what? Fine. The population of the EU needs that money more than good ole' Bill does anyway (actually, any population needs that money more than MS does. MS needs more money like a full glass of water needs more water.)
There are practical limits to the extent that capitalism is useful to the public interest, and monopolies are one of them.
"'Clearly their only motivation is to be anti-competitive, which is what one expects from a convicted monopolist.'
"That's just stupid."
You're right. One would expect a convicted monopolist to take the damn hint and be all kinds of cooperative with the demands of the consumers and authorities. 'cept Microsoft hasn't. Hence, their behavior is, as you said, quite stupid.
G4 AIO Beige iMac. Completely fails to install 10.3, let alone 4.
There is no usable swf decompiler for linux. This makes flash hacking difficult to say the least.
/mnt/hda3/pagefile.sys; swapon /mnt/hda3/pagefile.sys)
Adobe's linux pdf reader offering and gv are substandard, being slow and often buggy. If I absolutely have to read a pdf, and kpdf's being bitchy, I need Windows.
Neither Openoffice.org nor kWrite render my resume properly. That's really annoying.
Hip Hop eJay 4 is an excellent 'I want a beat for the song I'm writing and I want it now' program. One that completely fails to run in Wine.
Need I go on? It's always little things, mind you, but if you don't feel like / have time to / know how to hack your way through an issue in Linux, it's nice to have Windows to fall back on.
Find TinyXP. Makes a very nice dual boot companion for the price of 2G. Replace your swap partition today with TinyXP and use pagefile.sys instead (nice trick: mkswap
The image comes to your brain primarily unprocessed; it is projected onto your retina via the mechanical properties of your eye. Since the image is mainly unchanged between your eye and your brain, I consider that 'seeing'.
The combination of the images from the left and right eyes, however, is not seeing. It's a trick that happens entirely within the brain.
Meanwhile, true '3d' vision would (for example) enable you to see past the surfaces of opaque objects - even if all you saw was black (since the opaque surface would be obscuring ambient light); i.e., image data would be mapped to a three-dimentional array. This is different from stereoscopic vision, in which (to simplify it greatly), you have a 2d array of color and depth information.
A good example is the difference between an audio waveform and an image. An image is a 2d array of color information. An audio waveform (as you normally see it) is a 2d representation of a 1d signal - though, it's still 1d.
Honestly, it's like the difference between a relief map (a 2d representation of 3d surface information), and the kind of info you'd get if you intercepted (and, likely, decompressed) the data stream of a star trek type teleporter.
You're a creationist. Fine.
Some people believe that their dead relatives talk to them, too. I don't call them delusional, so I'll leave you to it.
Why not two more? The parallax should be paralell, should it not?
Meanwhile, that would be unbelievably confusing (the eye would have to be displaced along time, but also be directed diagonal to time. Kinda like firing missiles at right angles to reality).
Argh! Help! Tony the Tiger has gone feral and is chewing on my head!
He says it tastes 'Gr-r-r-r-eat!'
No. Stereoscopic vision gives you the ability to percieve distance in a 3d environment. You're still only /seeing/ in 2-d. Specifically, two 2-d images. The 3-d you percieve is those two images as processed by your brain.
Hence percieve, not see.
Actually, you'd be able to see through and into things. All at the same time. Possibly in a conic section extending into time (like our 2-d vision is a conic section extending into depth).
I dunno. My mom says I used to like spiders when I was a baby.
You're talking about the crazy blue one, aren't you?
You forgot to hack the gibson. I mean, as long as we're doing unrelated things to guarantee profit...