Yes, what if? Very good question. Let's find out without defrauding people, shall we?
And be happy if they're good.
I'll make a bet, that not a single one of the shady clinics show any real-life results beyond the brochures. This is an opportunity where any Joe Random can set up shop and give saline shots in exchange for bags of cash (it may or may not work!). Maybe I'm cynical, or maybe I'm just realistic.
Imagine the car at standstill just after being released, i.e. t=0. The wind is blowing from the back on the propeller (and car), but it has yet to accelerate forward. As the force of the wind overcomes the various resistances (wheel friction, bearings, and the connected prop shaft) the propeller will start moving forward (taking the car with it). Now you might assume that the force exerted upon the vehicle is the same as another vehicle with a fixed propeller and no shaft. This is wrong.
Because the propeller is connected to the wheels, and starts to rotate in the opposite direction compared to an entirely free-wheeling prop (moving air against the wind, propelling the vehicle with the wind), the wind ends up pushing with greater force for exactly the same reason the wind pushes with apparently greater force on a sailing boat moving at speed at an angle to the wind. The moving sail catches more wind by covering more area than the same sail on a boat standing still. The rotating sail (prop) catches more wind by rotating over a larger area than the individual prop blades standing still. Essentially, the wind is now being used for acceleration, rather than merely velocity.
The fallacy is in assuming that the wind force on the car body itself plays any significant part. But no, you can drop this to zero(*), because the wind blowing on the propeller is what's important for "faster-than-wind" travel, with the propeller rotating the "wrong way" compared to a freewheeling prop.
No magic needed.
(*)well, obviously it does play a part on the whole, but that's not relevant to the issue
Not quite. A non-strict superset would mean that Obj-C may or may not actually be a proper superset of C, they could be equal. A strict superset means Obj-C contains C and definitely some more. Subtracting some subset of C from Obj-C would mean having abandoned compatibility, and then Obj-C would no longer be any kind of superset, but merely intersecting.
The fact is that, by the "new" definition of a planet, Neptune isn't a planet either, because it hasn't cleared its orbit of Pluto which crosses it
Pluto is hardly in the neighbourhood of Neptune, and so need not be cleared away any more than comets and close-passing asteroids need be cleared by the Earth. In any case, the IAU definition of a planet does not exclude Neptune. See Clearing the neighbourhood.
if the safeguards are phased out, and people are forced to learn how to deal with each other as equals, then they might just rise to that challenge and, you know, keep the atrocities to a minimum.
It's a good idea, at least on paper. But I don't know to what extent the crappyness of a society is due to its government, culture, or inevitable stupidity of a varied population.
So essentially, the compromise is that rather than mindlessly following the horde, it is better to go through each restriction on freedom and evaluate whether it is worth it, and also consider the question "what do I owe everybody else"? And then actually not doing stuff that isn't worth it.
if you call me emo again, I'm going to cut myself
I was sort of expecting you to have well-striped arms already.:)
Have you considered that there may be no options? I.e., government is not just the worst/best, but the only way. If you don't make a government, somebody else will, and will rule over you. Being human, there's no way out of humankind. Also, reading your posts, I have coined a new term: political emo. Lighten up, man!
I don't think coypright and other legal protection is of any great concern to illegal pornographers. Also, the commercial businesses is just one side, there's also the Random Joes making their own stuff. No economic disincentive would work when there is no profit motive.
It may be that the controller on the device just doesn't know what to do when something goes pear-shaped. To be sure, you should be accessing the raw NAND chip itself.
Hardly a cardinal sin. I've made a few in my day with loops and multiple choices using labels and gotos and such. Declare all important variables upfront, comment reasonably, and give it the same amount of testing as you would in a "real" language. The fact that batch files have no dependencies is a pretty good advantage, and the interpreter is backwards compatible.
Shell scripts under *nix may be more functional, but batch files are perfectly serviceable, as long as you don't go on insane writing sprees with them.
Oh just look for yourself. But to ease your pain, I already looked through the relevant code (I'm assuming the jQuery code is fine), and found nothing sinister. It's less than 1000 LOC, well-formatted, and half of it is just CSS.
I read you post as: "I know some basic things about music and need others to know that I do."
I think you mean, "basic things about performing music..", and he actually has a good point. The accidentals are too small in proportion. Zooming out the test samples to about 75% makes them about equal in size to my printed scores, but then the accidentals have practically disappeared...
By contrast, the accidentals in the printed score are much larger. The central portion of each - the bottom of flats, center square of sharps is the same size as the note heads, and the extending lines make them 2-3 times taller.
Overall it looks good, but there's a few issues like this in there to iron out. Making scores easy to read is no easier than typesetting any other stuff.
CMYK wouldn't work, it's a subtractive color space, while screens are additive. Unless you somehow arrange for the backlight to shine through a stack of pixels, each switching between white (passthrough) and a color.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll try to say this as simply as possible: The characters *are* words.
Japanese is not Chinese.
And be happy if they're good.
I'll make a bet, that not a single one of the shady clinics show any real-life results beyond the brochures. This is an opportunity where any Joe Random can set up shop and give saline shots in exchange for bags of cash (it may or may not work!). Maybe I'm cynical, or maybe I'm just realistic.
And that driving force from the wheels to the prop is what keep the blades in an optimal angle at the wind.
Imagine the car at standstill just after being released, i.e. t=0. The wind is blowing from the back on the propeller (and car), but it has yet to accelerate forward. As the force of the wind overcomes the various resistances (wheel friction, bearings, and the connected prop shaft) the propeller will start moving forward (taking the car with it). Now you might assume that the force exerted upon the vehicle is the same as another vehicle with a fixed propeller and no shaft. This is wrong.
Because the propeller is connected to the wheels, and starts to rotate in the opposite direction compared to an entirely free-wheeling prop (moving air against the wind, propelling the vehicle with the wind), the wind ends up pushing with greater force for exactly the same reason the wind pushes with apparently greater force on a sailing boat moving at speed at an angle to the wind. The moving sail catches more wind by covering more area than the same sail on a boat standing still. The rotating sail (prop) catches more wind by rotating over a larger area than the individual prop blades standing still. Essentially, the wind is now being used for acceleration, rather than merely velocity.
The fallacy is in assuming that the wind force on the car body itself plays any significant part. But no, you can drop this to zero(*), because the wind blowing on the propeller is what's important for "faster-than-wind" travel, with the propeller rotating the "wrong way" compared to a freewheeling prop.
No magic needed.
(*)well, obviously it does play a part on the whole, but that's not relevant to the issue
Not quite. A non-strict superset would mean that Obj-C may or may not actually be a proper superset of C, they could be equal. A strict superset means Obj-C contains C and definitely some more. Subtracting some subset of C from Obj-C would mean having abandoned compatibility, and then Obj-C would no longer be any kind of superset, but merely intersecting.
$0.50 /kW doesn't make sense. Electricity is billed according to how much you use, which is Wh, or more commonly kWh.
The fact is that, by the "new" definition of a planet, Neptune isn't a planet either, because it hasn't cleared its orbit of Pluto which crosses it
Pluto is hardly in the neighbourhood of Neptune, and so need not be cleared away any more than comets and close-passing asteroids need be cleared by the Earth. In any case, the IAU definition of a planet does not exclude Neptune. See Clearing the neighbourhood.
if the safeguards are phased out, and people are forced to learn how to deal with each other as equals, then they might just rise to that challenge and, you know, keep the atrocities to a minimum.
It's a good idea, at least on paper. But I don't know to what extent the crappyness of a society is due to its government, culture, or inevitable stupidity of a varied population.
So essentially, the compromise is that rather than mindlessly following the horde, it is better to go through each restriction on freedom and evaluate whether it is worth it, and also consider the question "what do I owe everybody else"? And then actually not doing stuff that isn't worth it.
if you call me emo again, I'm going to cut myself
I was sort of expecting you to have well-striped arms already. :)
Have you considered that there may be no options? I.e., government is not just the worst/best, but the only way. If you don't make a government, somebody else will, and will rule over you. Being human, there's no way out of humankind. Also, reading your posts, I have coined a new term: political emo. Lighten up, man!
I don't think coypright and other legal protection is of any great concern to illegal pornographers. Also, the commercial businesses is just one side, there's also the Random Joes making their own stuff. No economic disincentive would work when there is no profit motive.
They're endangered.
Yes, many are, though not all of the whale species.
And they're smarter than you are.
Now that requires some serious references, please. Unless you were flamebaiting, of course.
It may be that the controller on the device just doesn't know what to do when something goes pear-shaped. To be sure, you should be accessing the raw NAND chip itself.
Hardly a cardinal sin. I've made a few in my day with loops and multiple choices using labels and gotos and such. Declare all important variables upfront, comment reasonably, and give it the same amount of testing as you would in a "real" language. The fact that batch files have no dependencies is a pretty good advantage, and the interpreter is backwards compatible.
Shell scripts under *nix may be more functional, but batch files are perfectly serviceable, as long as you don't go on insane writing sprees with them.
The defense booms went bust. Military-industrial complex requires more war!
Gigameter, actually..
But the strangest thing... searching for cougar dating brings a sponsored link for www.DateACougar.com. Maybe it's something about the site itself?
And the script itself is nicely formatted. Look towards the end for the actual code that matters. Have fun.
Oh just look for yourself. But to ease your pain, I already looked through the relevant code (I'm assuming the jQuery code is fine), and found nothing sinister. It's less than 1000 LOC, well-formatted, and half of it is just CSS.
Feel free to bootstrap a system from scratch if you need that level of paranoia. It's perfectly possible to do, and you only need to do it once.
Then just close f.lux and reset the color settings back to normal. In fact, there's a "disable for 1 hour" checkbox thing in the GUI.
I read you post as: "I know some basic things about music and need others to know that I do."
I think you mean, "basic things about performing music..", and he actually has a good point. The accidentals are too small in proportion. Zooming out the test samples to about 75% makes them about equal in size to my printed scores, but then the accidentals have practically disappeared...
By contrast, the accidentals in the printed score are much larger. The central portion of each - the bottom of flats, center square of sharps is the same size as the note heads, and the extending lines make them 2-3 times taller.
Overall it looks good, but there's a few issues like this in there to iron out. Making scores easy to read is no easier than typesetting any other stuff.
Actually, it's no surprise that the GP benefited from it, since back problems is the one thing it's good for.
Kagan: *thinking* Hm, the Obama administration is for software patents, let's see...
*type type*
Obama: Excellent work, just what I wanted to read!
No strawmen needed.
Also, the submitter is remarkably cool about having been scooped. :)
CMYK wouldn't work, it's a subtractive color space, while screens are additive. Unless you somehow arrange for the backlight to shine through a stack of pixels, each switching between white (passthrough) and a color.