Actually, if you think about it, it's all based on angular acceleration versus potential energy.
Essentially, you'd need to generate geometric identity per-rotation. On a triangle, that would mean a 30 deg turn per-wheel for triangular (rotate an equilateral triangle 120 deg and you have its identity. Divide that by four wheels and you have your needed angle). That means the weight would need to move the assembly by a larger angular interval per 1/4 rotation. Possible efficiency problems with smaller angles per wheel (for 2-sided to reach identity, you'd need a 45 deg angle; this could be difficult).
Meanwhile, I for one am glad that we're getting past the one-sided wheel and welcome the multisided wheel into our world.
It's all about the source. CO2 that comes from fossil fuel wasn't in the environment beforehand, while CO2 from biofuel was.
It's another form of recycling; we're taking the CO2 that plants have integrated into themselves, and reliberating it, thus not increasing the total environmental CO2.
Meanwhile, we're still producing a large amount of waste heat - which, by the way, is my personal assertion as to the cause of global warming, along with higher atmospheric H2O concentrations, as well as environmental cycle. There's just not enough atmospheric CO2 to account for the effect of global warming.
Why H2O? Water vapor is denser than CO2, more heat-conductive, more concentrated in the atmosphere, is produced in equivalent molar concentrations with hydrocarbon combustion (on average), and is increased _BY_ the effect of global warming.
NEVER underestimate the potentially damaging effect of dihydrogen monoxide.
There's also the potential for wide scale human waste and garbage conversion (lookit: http://www.changingworldtech.com/ ) to provide a larger patch. It provides a good deal of diesel fuel.
The problem with this is that adpotion of the tech is moving slowly; the demand for diesel in consumer vehicles is pretty low. Still, I have high hopes for it; it would reduce the amount of carbon being liberated from underground.
'Course, I have a pretty odd vision of the future - hundereds of cities full of huge archologies and the rest of the world being farming constructs (huge buildings with efficient hydroponic agricultural systems within them). solar coating all of these and supplemental "walk-away safe" multifuel nuke plants (multifuel types are the sort that can run off of both fuel-grade and 'spent' uranium).
Yeah. And bureaucracy will be reduced to computers and be quick and efficient. Never happen, but it's a nice dream.
Re:You liking your jump to conclusions mat?
on
PHP 5.1.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
doot doo doo doooooo!
Geez, make a wrapper for it if you don't like the way a function works.
Personally, I like that there's no "From" argument. It makes sending out automated website mail slightly simpler (without a from, it uses the webmaster entry from apache). Meanwhile, in most instances, you'll not be taking user input as a "from" field. That sort of behavior makes it very easy to perform exploits that can't be caught by user input validation (a happy little script that spams through your interface). You'd more likely have a pregenerated set of e-mail addresses.
You don't use PHP. Funny, then, how you seem to have a handle on its quirks.
As for making functions "incredibly easy to misuse", how about RTFM? Sorry, but I've got this thing about taking personal responsibility for being a shitty programmer. If you validate your input, than this is a nonissue. If you don't, then take responsibility for that (and never try to get hired anywhere).
As for "easy to create exploits", sorry, but it's a powerful language that's accessible to the newb programmer. If a newb doesn't know what a header is, chances are the newb shouldn't be trying to fuck with 'em... or, better yet, the newb SHOULD be reading the damned manual.
'Course, you seem to have a problem with giving a little power to a newb. There's a word for that, but I can't remember it.
Once I got over the cool factor, it was time to learn a bit, and figure out which distro was best for me. It ended up being Knoppix (Debian power with easy installation - don't even try to claim Ubuntu has easy installation. It's scripts are broken for my ancient machine.)
The 90's, on the other hand, was the first derivative reincarnation of 60's and 70's styles.
The present Naughties seems to be a resurrection of 80's and 90's styles. So, no. The 60's aren't coming back. f'(80's,f'(60's,70's)) is coming into style.
Hmm... good idea. I should patent the concept of rythmic speech spoken over rythm and blues-based music samples. Wouldn't cover the whole of the rap world, but enough of it to get rich over unfairly induced royalties.
I know how artists get payed; I go to shows. I donate to PBS. I pay for cable. I buy open source on disc.
I just refuse to let the middle men get any cash.
And if I seem arrogant, superior, or any of that other shite, it's because day-in and day-out, I see the levels of denial people will go to to convince themselves that everything's alright and they shouldn't make any trouble.
Screw that.
Seriously, do what you like, bitch and whine about how it's the other guy's fault that your rights and toys are being removed. Me? I'll write to my congressman, practice civil disobedience, and you know what? When I finally do get taken to court, I'll fight tooth and nail for your rights and my own.
But one thing I will not do is acqueice to a law that I don't believe should exist.
And yet, when someone uses the "Nokia Tune" on their phone, I get the incredibly strong urge to stab them, repeatedly, with the shards of the phone to which I take a hammer.
What I'm describing is a concept known as "nonmarket pressure". Basically it goes like this:
Fact: There is a growing population of people who have no problem with filesharing Fact: The recording industry is weakening their own public image with lawsuits against everyday citizens and with stunts like this rootkit. Fact: Unrestricted filesharing software is difficult to exterminate before a new species has a chance to promulgate. Fact: Record companies have been posting massive profits every year dating all the way back to the first download of Napster. Fact (opinion?): The population has been statistically dissatisfied with the quality of product from both the RIAA and MPAA in recent years. Fact: Prices of CDs, DVDs, and movie tickets have sharply increased in the last few years.
Now, this information suggests that something's wrong with these companies' existing business model. They post a profit, yet claim they are losing money. They act with no accord to public opinion. They use legislation to support their business practices. THEY ARE BEHAVING LIKE THE COMPANIES THAT _CAUSED_ THE ANTITRUST LAWS TO EXIST, except they can get away with it - copyrights give them an unlimited monopoly on each copyrighted material for more than 95 years (and growing - we're about due for another extension).
If these companies don't wise up, eventually, they will so enrage the public that massive boycotts will shut them all down. Why not? The primary impediment of a mass boycott is cost of switching, and filesharing carries that cost in negative. It's free while CDs aren't. It's free while DVDs aren't.
The media companies are in a very BAD position, and they know it. It's why they're grasping at legal straws to keep their monopolies, even though the public will obviously not stand for it.
You know what? I think I forgot my point. Fact is, you didn't really have much of one either; you essentially stated that there is no logical motive for filesharing, despite the empirical evidence to the contrary.
Oh, and for reference, I pey the artists I like by going to their concerts and buying the T-shirt. Better that way - the record company doesn't get much for shows and merch.
Slashdot Mirror
"Safe", of course being relative...
Or, as Arthur Dent said best, "This must be some new definition of 'safe' that I am unfamiliar with"
And where'd you see that?
Geez, if you're going to mention outside info, cite the outside sources.
The penis, contrary to popular belief, is not actually a muscle. It's (to put it dead simply) a partitioned blood balloon.
The question is whether or not the muscle growth consumes fat tissue. That would be necessary for many sports players to take it seriously.
Please note that sarcasm will often be completely missed on slashdot. Note to slashdotters: parent was a joke.
Actually, if you think about it, it's all based on angular acceleration versus potential energy.
Essentially, you'd need to generate geometric identity per-rotation. On a triangle, that would mean a 30 deg turn per-wheel for triangular (rotate an equilateral triangle 120 deg and you have its identity. Divide that by four wheels and you have your needed angle). That means the weight would need to move the assembly by a larger angular interval per 1/4 rotation. Possible efficiency problems with smaller angles per wheel (for 2-sided to reach identity, you'd need a 45 deg angle; this could be difficult).
Meanwhile, I for one am glad that we're getting past the one-sided wheel and welcome the multisided wheel into our world.
Ohhhh... it's saying 180Solutions is Spyware.
One word: Duh.
I have no idea what this article is on about.
*sigh*
It's all about the source. CO2 that comes from fossil fuel wasn't in the environment beforehand, while CO2 from biofuel was.
It's another form of recycling; we're taking the CO2 that plants have integrated into themselves, and reliberating it, thus not increasing the total environmental CO2.
Meanwhile, we're still producing a large amount of waste heat - which, by the way, is my personal assertion as to the cause of global warming, along with higher atmospheric H2O concentrations, as well as environmental cycle. There's just not enough atmospheric CO2 to account for the effect of global warming.
Why H2O? Water vapor is denser than CO2, more heat-conductive, more concentrated in the atmosphere, is produced in equivalent molar concentrations with hydrocarbon combustion (on average), and is increased _BY_ the effect of global warming.
NEVER underestimate the potentially damaging effect of dihydrogen monoxide.
There's also the potential for wide scale human waste and garbage conversion (lookit: http://www.changingworldtech.com/ ) to provide a larger patch. It provides a good deal of diesel fuel.
The problem with this is that adpotion of the tech is moving slowly; the demand for diesel in consumer vehicles is pretty low. Still, I have high hopes for it; it would reduce the amount of carbon being liberated from underground.
'Course, I have a pretty odd vision of the future - hundereds of cities full of huge archologies and the rest of the world being farming constructs (huge buildings with efficient hydroponic agricultural systems within them). solar coating all of these and supplemental "walk-away safe" multifuel nuke plants (multifuel types are the sort that can run off of both fuel-grade and 'spent' uranium).
Yeah. And bureaucracy will be reduced to computers and be quick and efficient. Never happen, but it's a nice dream.
Yes, but you talk about it, so that's cool.
doot doo doo doooooo!
Geez, make a wrapper for it if you don't like the way a function works.
Personally, I like that there's no "From" argument. It makes sending out automated website mail slightly simpler (without a from, it uses the webmaster entry from apache). Meanwhile, in most instances, you'll not be taking user input as a "from" field. That sort of behavior makes it very easy to perform exploits that can't be caught by user input validation (a happy little script that spams through your interface). You'd more likely have a pregenerated set of e-mail addresses.
You don't use PHP. Funny, then, how you seem to have a handle on its quirks.
As for making functions "incredibly easy to misuse", how about RTFM? Sorry, but I've got this thing about taking personal responsibility for being a shitty programmer. If you validate your input, than this is a nonissue. If you don't, then take responsibility for that (and never try to get hired anywhere).
As for "easy to create exploits", sorry, but it's a powerful language that's accessible to the newb programmer. If a newb doesn't know what a header is, chances are the newb shouldn't be trying to fuck with 'em... or, better yet, the newb SHOULD be reading the damned manual.
'Course, you seem to have a problem with giving a little power to a newb. There's a word for that, but I can't remember it.
She gets to veto, obviously.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
"profit" and "for the good of humanity" don't often go in the same sentence.
Hey, I did something like that.
Once I got over the cool factor, it was time to learn a bit, and figure out which distro was best for me. It ended up being Knoppix (Debian power with easy installation - don't even try to claim Ubuntu has easy installation. It's scripts are broken for my ancient machine.)
O.o
The 80's was nothing like the 60's.
The 90's, on the other hand, was the first derivative reincarnation of 60's and 70's styles.
The present Naughties seems to be a resurrection of 80's and 90's styles. So, no. The 60's aren't coming back. f'(80's,f'(60's,70's)) is coming into style.
Hmm... good idea. I should patent the concept of rythmic speech spoken over rythm and blues-based music samples. Wouldn't cover the whole of the rap world, but enough of it to get rich over unfairly induced royalties.
Better version of your sig:
I'm getting really tired of people bitching and whining endlessly about the lengths of signatures. Isn't 120 chars enoug
(Actually IS 120 chars long)
Meh, somehow, I don't think Trey knew, and is probably sensing the powderkeg of "What the Fucks" coming his way.
Meanwhile, is it just me, or is this article reporting on the biggest pack of mistruths ever heard?
So, bow down to laws that don't help anyone?
I know how artists get payed; I go to shows. I donate to PBS. I pay for cable. I buy open source on disc.
I just refuse to let the middle men get any cash.
And if I seem arrogant, superior, or any of that other shite, it's because day-in and day-out, I see the levels of denial people will go to to convince themselves that everything's alright and they shouldn't make any trouble.
Screw that.
Seriously, do what you like, bitch and whine about how it's the other guy's fault that your rights and toys are being removed. Me? I'll write to my congressman, practice civil disobedience, and you know what? When I finally do get taken to court, I'll fight tooth and nail for your rights and my own.
But one thing I will not do is acqueice to a law that I don't believe should exist.
I didn't ask for anyone else's sake. I asked for mine. See, *I* would want to do that. Just to see that it can be done.
And yet, when someone uses the "Nokia Tune" on their phone, I get the incredibly strong urge to stab them, repeatedly, with the shards of the phone to which I take a hammer.
That's the first intelligent comment I've seen on this article.
$quote="Everybody knows... that the world is full of stupid people";
$quote=preg_replace("/stupid\speople/", "flaming fucktards", $quote);
You misread me. Let me write it in simple terms.
What I'm describing is a concept known as "nonmarket pressure". Basically it goes like this:
Fact: There is a growing population of people who have no problem with filesharing
Fact: The recording industry is weakening their own public image with lawsuits against everyday citizens and with stunts like this rootkit.
Fact: Unrestricted filesharing software is difficult to exterminate before a new species has a chance to promulgate.
Fact: Record companies have been posting massive profits every year dating all the way back to the first download of Napster.
Fact (opinion?): The population has been statistically dissatisfied with the quality of product from both the RIAA and MPAA in recent years.
Fact: Prices of CDs, DVDs, and movie tickets have sharply increased in the last few years.
Now, this information suggests that something's wrong with these companies' existing business model. They post a profit, yet claim they are losing money. They act with no accord to public opinion. They use legislation to support their business practices. THEY ARE BEHAVING LIKE THE COMPANIES THAT _CAUSED_ THE ANTITRUST LAWS TO EXIST, except they can get away with it - copyrights give them an unlimited monopoly on each copyrighted material for more than 95 years (and growing - we're about due for another extension).
If these companies don't wise up, eventually, they will so enrage the public that massive boycotts will shut them all down. Why not? The primary impediment of a mass boycott is cost of switching, and filesharing carries that cost in negative. It's free while CDs aren't. It's free while DVDs aren't.
The media companies are in a very BAD position, and they know it. It's why they're grasping at legal straws to keep their monopolies, even though the public will obviously not stand for it.
You know what? I think I forgot my point. Fact is, you didn't really have much of one either; you essentially stated that there is no logical motive for filesharing, despite the empirical evidence to the contrary.
Oh, and for reference, I pey the artists I like by going to their concerts and buying the T-shirt. Better that way - the record company doesn't get much for shows and merch.