MathML is the worst way to store formulas ever. Anything that takes 5k of text to specify int(from 0 to infinity, exp(-lambda*x**2)dx) correctly is simply stupid. It means hand coding mathML just isn't a viable option for more than a couple very simple equations. We should agree on something similar to a C, Fortran, Matlab, or other programming language notation as the standard way to store equations in the file. The added benefit of potentially being able actually execute at least some of the functions is just icing on the cake.
On a related, but somewhat less relevant note is that I can't find any inexpensive programs that allow the generation of mathML easily. There are a few out there that generate mathML at all, but they seem to concentrate on the typesetting aspect of mathML* and on having an obtuse interface. Why isn't there a easy-to-find, cheap or free (beer or speech), mathML editor that is as easy to use as the equation interface in LyX? (and yes i've tried export-html options in LyX, and attempted to manually convert with commandline utilities but my latex2html functions all seem to be completely braindead.)
*iirc, there is a way to use mathML to store calculable functions, but I have yet to see this implemented, and it takes even MORE text to store the equations.
I think the lack of available editors, and tex converters, especially considering the potential academic utility of mathML is pretty good evidence that it is a poor standard: it hasn't generated enough interest for someone to scratch the itch and write a decent converter/generator/editor.
There can be inelasticities in either supply or demand and still have a functioning market. Where it gets difficult is when BOTH are relatively inelastic. i.e. oil: switching to conserve more takes time, and has it's limits anyhow on the demand side, and on the supply side, oil production is capped by government regulation and refinement is capped by existing infrastructure. So there are two very steep curves, and small perturbations in EITHER result in dramatic price fluctuations. Not however that this is not a market failure. Price rises to market clearing levels and there is no shortage.
With health care, the single-payer system obliterates the demand curve. It completely decouples it from price on both macro and microeconomic scales. This causes a market failure and creates a shortage. Countries with single-payer systems solve the shortage with government control. Everyone still pays too much, but at least most people can get a minimum of care, because some (or even many) are denied access. Another example of where this occured was the gas "crisis" during the Carter administration. Price controls lead to shortage, and rationing.
Also, your example is flawed. In a world where setting a broken bone was expensive, people would be MUCH more careful about where they put their bones, and demand working environments where bone-risk was mitigated.
Not really on topic, but I happened to be listening to "The suits are picking up the bill" by Squirrel Nut Zippers while reading your post. And it went.. well.
Ironically, the way the Constitution is structured, the Representatives cannot be distributed like that, but the Senators could be. Obviously, we could have a constitutional ammendment to achieve that goal, but it's only immediately realizable in the senate.
Gerrymandering might be popular among political hacks, but a little logic reveals it is almost certainly a bad decision to make.
1) The guy before you probably engaged in gerrymandering too, and look where it got him. 2) The disposition of your district is already such that enabled you to become elected. There are only two choices therefore wrt. changes:
a) arrange the districts so that the elections are closer, so as to maximize the number of representatives from your own party. This is very risky, and the other party's attempt at this is probably what got your party into power to begin with
b) arrange the districts so that the elections are more secure by increasing the margins. You'll be safe come next election, but it necessarily means that there will be fewer total party members from your own party. The other party's attempt at this is probably what what got your party into power to begin with.
The optimal solution therefore is to leave the districts in the configuration that brought you and your party into power, and concentrate on doing whatever it is that your voters wanted you to do when they voted for you, and ram through some bullshit "Campaign Finance Reform" to increase the cost of entry for newcomers. It's best if you ally with the other party to make sure that new parties can't really gain any footing. After all, they'll all be incumbants now, and therefore members of an elite club that even your own supporters aren't a party to.
Anyway, any party that attempts gerrymandering, I say, "Go for it." It can only end badly for them anyhow.
Also, a marginal cost of $800 per unit, even if they purchase ALL the parts from outside vendors seems awfully high considering what that $800 will be able to buy *retail* when the PS3 comes out.
Well it appears to make the assumption that the visits are sparse enough for the DSL Ips to change every time (and also that cable IPs are static. Mine is not, though it doesn't change for months at a time)
So, what IS the typical holding interval for a DSL ip?
as for properly estimating, If there are good enough statistics to have separate numbers for both {known, relatively static IPs over a month} and {known dynamic IPs} you could find the ratio of returning static IPs and normalize the dynamic ones to match that ratio.
In fact, I'd be surprised if this wasn't already being done for many sites.
A camera is always going to have void space, but afaik, a 1000 foot camera isn't particularly difficult to do, it's just that the market is very small. Cameras with 200 ft. ratings are going to do much better sales, already being overkill for the millions of recreational divers.
Heck, if your camera is remote, you could just drop a compressed gas cannister and keep the housing at equilibrium pressure. It might be difficult to test the optics on the surface, but by no means impossible.
What?? You use BCC so every recipient doesn't have a To: list that's a mile long to distract from the email, and more importantly, to limit exposure to spambots searching through one of the recipients logs. BCC is also nice because it makes the email seem more personal. BTW, how can you tell when you are the recipient of a BCC anyway?
4. the New-ager/Far Left wing hippie types that believe the gov and science is out to get them. So they do not vacinate, even though it is irresonsible on their part.
I keep hearing about "mercury levels" and Thimerosal on the radio from the "organic foods," chiropractic, and "alternative medicine" types that think vaccines are some kind of conspiracy put forth by the eeeevil medical establishment to make you treatably, but not curably ill, so they can continue to make money treating you.
Ah, but how about using sonar as a drop-in replacement for radar? at slow speeds, and short sampling intervals, the atmosphere is close enough to vacuum for your control system to deal with. radar/sonar might be interesting to deal with, but even that can be handled in the sensor side with appropriate interface circuitry. If your drop-in sensor unit provides "distance to nearest object in sensor beam" and not "time of return of last ping" then you can drop in any combined system that can handle that calculation.
Ok, I don't think that ministry thing is going to fly, since it explicitly has as its fundamental principle the smoking of weed. There's no way any government would recognize it as a legitimate religion and essencially make marijuana the same as peyote. But.. good luck with that.
I just don't see how you can equate THC consumption with the various civil rights struggles over the years. I think it appears selfish, and cheapens the efforts of the likes of Martin Luther King and Ghandi to try to associate them with your cause and I don't see how getting arrested on drug charges is going to garner the kind of sympathy that getting arrested for walking-peacefully-in-a-group-while-black does anyway.
I wish you luck, and I'd probably vote for a bill that aims to legalize recreational substance use (and possibly creates an agency to ensure purity and safety as best as can be done) for libertarian reasons. I disagree with your belief that it's "safer than alcohol," especially in the absence of any meaningful statistics (well duh, how could anyone collect 'em?), but I don't think "you might hurt yourself" is a good reason for a law.
I also have to ask, if you're a musician as would appear from your website, if you believe that the drug helps your music, and what your basis is for that belief (either way)?
But.. what I don't understand is, in the interim, while it's illegal, why do you feel compelled to do it at all? especially considering the penalties you are well aware of and have experienced?
The difference is the wording, and the force of the document. What you've presented appears to have the force of law, but as such is always going to be subject to the whim of parliament.
In the US, the constitution is ostensibly the final word. It is higher than mere law. It is the contract by which law can be made. It specificaly enumerates the powers the government may have, lists serveral rights which must never be infringed, and finally limites the government to powers explicitly mentioned. The US bill of rights is part of this document.
The only problem with this is that the constitution must still be enforced by men. It is therefore vulnerable to "interpretation" by the men charged with its defence and usurpation by the more powerful men it is intended to regulate.
The constitution states the rights of the government and denies those not mentioned. The english bill of rights states the rights of men and makes no claim on those not mentioned.
Slashdot Mirror
MathML is the worst way to store formulas ever. Anything that takes 5k of text to specify int(from 0 to infinity, exp(-lambda*x**2)dx) correctly is simply stupid. It means hand coding mathML just isn't a viable option for more than a couple very simple equations. We should agree on something similar to a C, Fortran, Matlab, or other programming language notation as the standard way to store equations in the file. The added benefit of potentially being able actually execute at least some of the functions is just icing on the cake.
On a related, but somewhat less relevant note is that I can't find any inexpensive programs that allow the generation of mathML easily. There are a few out there that generate mathML at all, but they seem to concentrate on the typesetting aspect of mathML* and on having an obtuse interface. Why isn't there a easy-to-find, cheap or free (beer or speech), mathML editor that is as easy to use as the equation interface in LyX? (and yes i've tried export-html options in LyX, and attempted to manually convert with commandline utilities but my latex2html functions all seem to be completely braindead.)
*iirc, there is a way to use mathML to store calculable functions, but I have yet to see this implemented, and it takes even MORE text to store the equations.
I think the lack of available editors, and tex converters, especially considering the potential academic utility of mathML is pretty good evidence that it is a poor standard: it hasn't generated enough interest for someone to scratch the itch and write a decent converter/generator/editor.
There can be inelasticities in either supply or demand and still have a functioning market. Where it gets difficult is when BOTH are relatively inelastic. i.e. oil: switching to conserve more takes time, and has it's limits anyhow on the demand side, and on the supply side, oil production is capped by government regulation and refinement is capped by existing infrastructure. So there are two very steep curves, and small perturbations in EITHER result in dramatic price fluctuations. Not however that this is not a market failure. Price rises to market clearing levels and there is no shortage.
With health care, the single-payer system obliterates the demand curve. It completely decouples it from price on both macro and microeconomic scales. This causes a market failure and creates a shortage. Countries with single-payer systems solve the shortage with government control. Everyone still pays too much, but at least most people can get a minimum of care, because some (or even many) are denied access. Another example of where this occured was the gas "crisis" during the Carter administration. Price controls lead to shortage, and rationing.
Also, your example is flawed. In a world where setting a broken bone was expensive, people would be MUCH more careful about where they put their bones, and demand working environments where bone-risk was mitigated.
erm.. won't it say UK citizen? UK is more than just britain you know.
How is streaming not downloading? Is not data entering your computer from somewhere else?
Not really on topic, but I happened to be listening to "The suits are picking up the bill" by Squirrel Nut Zippers while reading your post. And it went.. well.
UK is bicameral.
I think Commons is proportional, but Lords is not.
Ironically, the way the Constitution is structured, the Representatives cannot be distributed like that, but the Senators could be. Obviously, we could have a constitutional ammendment to achieve that goal, but it's only immediately realizable in the senate.
Gerrymandering might be popular among political hacks, but a little logic reveals it is almost certainly a bad decision to make.
1) The guy before you probably engaged in gerrymandering too, and look where it got him.
2) The disposition of your district is already such that enabled you to become elected. There are only two choices therefore wrt. changes:
a) arrange the districts so that the elections are closer, so as to maximize the number of representatives from your own party. This is very risky, and the other party's attempt at this is probably what got your party into power to begin with
b) arrange the districts so that the elections are more secure by increasing the margins. You'll be safe come next election, but it necessarily means that there will be fewer total party members from your own party. The other party's attempt at this is probably what what got your party into power to begin with.
The optimal solution therefore is to leave the districts in the configuration that brought you and your party into power, and concentrate on doing whatever it is that your voters wanted you to do when they voted for you, and ram through some bullshit "Campaign Finance Reform" to increase the cost of entry for newcomers. It's best if you ally with the other party to make sure that new parties can't really gain any footing. After all, they'll all be incumbants now, and therefore members of an elite club that even your own supporters aren't a party to.
Anyway, any party that attempts gerrymandering, I say, "Go for it." It can only end badly for them anyhow.
Also, a marginal cost of $800 per unit, even if they purchase ALL the parts from outside vendors seems awfully high considering what that $800 will be able to buy *retail* when the PS3 comes out.
Well either way, the people with that sig are all theives and liars.
Well it appears to make the assumption that the visits are sparse enough for the DSL Ips to change every time (and also that cable IPs are static. Mine is not, though it doesn't change for months at a time)
So, what IS the typical holding interval for a DSL ip?
as for properly estimating, If there are good enough statistics to have separate numbers for both {known, relatively static IPs over a month} and {known dynamic IPs} you could find the ratio of returning static IPs and normalize the dynamic ones to match that ratio.
In fact, I'd be surprised if this wasn't already being done for many sites.
A camera is always going to have void space, but afaik, a 1000 foot camera isn't particularly difficult to do, it's just that the market is very small. Cameras with 200 ft. ratings are going to do much better sales, already being overkill for the millions of recreational divers.
Heck, if your camera is remote, you could just drop a compressed gas cannister and keep the housing at equilibrium pressure. It might be difficult to test the optics on the surface, but by no means impossible.
What?? You use BCC so every recipient doesn't have a To: list that's a mile long to distract from the email, and more importantly, to limit exposure to spambots searching through one of the recipients logs. BCC is also nice because it makes the email seem more personal. BTW, how can you tell when you are the recipient of a BCC anyway?
No.. it might be success for the product, but it's a pricing failure. How much unrealized revinue did they miss out on because the price was too low?
If you couldn't tell the difference other than by being told, then what was the problem?
Or an UN-remake of the original trilogy..
But.. didn't they just remake poseidon adventure in a made-for-tv film last fall?
But why would you want to water down perfectly good Guinness?
perhaps, but they were not mentioned in GP's post.
you neglected
4. the New-ager/Far Left wing hippie types that believe the gov and science is out to get them. So they do not vacinate, even though it is irresonsible on their part.
I keep hearing about "mercury levels" and Thimerosal on the radio from the "organic foods," chiropractic, and "alternative medicine" types that think vaccines are some kind of conspiracy put forth by the eeeevil medical establishment to make you treatably, but not curably ill, so they can continue to make money treating you.
Ah, but how about using sonar as a drop-in replacement for radar? at slow speeds, and short sampling intervals, the atmosphere is close enough to vacuum for your control system to deal with. radar/sonar might be interesting to deal with, but even that can be handled in the sensor side with appropriate interface circuitry. If your drop-in sensor unit provides "distance to nearest object in sensor beam" and not "time of return of last ping" then you can drop in any combined system that can handle that calculation.
Miracle #1 WAS pretty impressive. It also makes me fail to understand all the tea-tottlers out there.
Ok, I don't think that ministry thing is going to fly, since it explicitly has as its fundamental principle the smoking of weed. There's no way any government would recognize it as a legitimate religion and essencially make marijuana the same as peyote. But.. good luck with that.
I just don't see how you can equate THC consumption with the various civil rights struggles over the years. I think it appears selfish, and cheapens the efforts of the likes of Martin Luther King and Ghandi to try to associate them with your cause and I don't see how getting arrested on drug charges is going to garner the kind of sympathy that getting arrested for walking-peacefully-in-a-group-while-black does anyway.
I wish you luck, and I'd probably vote for a bill that aims to legalize recreational substance use (and possibly creates an agency to ensure purity and safety as best as can be done) for libertarian reasons. I disagree with your belief that it's "safer than alcohol," especially in the absence of any meaningful statistics (well duh, how could anyone collect 'em?), but I don't think "you might hurt yourself" is a good reason for a law.
I also have to ask, if you're a musician as would appear from your website, if you believe that the drug helps your music, and what your basis is for that belief (either way)?
But.. what I don't understand is, in the interim, while it's illegal, why do you feel compelled to do it at all? especially considering the penalties you are well aware of and have experienced?
The difference is the wording, and the force of the document. What you've presented appears to have the force of law, but as such is always going to be subject to the whim of parliament.
In the US, the constitution is ostensibly the final word. It is higher than mere law. It is the contract by which law can be made. It specificaly enumerates the powers the government may have, lists serveral rights which must never be infringed, and finally limites the government to powers explicitly mentioned. The US bill of rights is part of this document.
The only problem with this is that the constitution must still be enforced by men. It is therefore vulnerable to "interpretation" by the men charged with its defence and usurpation by the more powerful men it is intended to regulate.
The constitution states the rights of the government and denies those not mentioned. The english bill of rights states the rights of men and makes no claim on those not mentioned.