Nonsense, the petty ramblings of some American lawyer aside (and they do that in court too), the Law of Confidence in the UK applies if information is communicated in circumstances imposing an obligation of confidence... which is exactly what this tries to do.
Not that I'm a fan of this rubbish being attached to the bottom of every mail, but I'm far from convinced by that article that it's not effective here.
I'm sorry, but I'd like to venture that there very likely is a logic that would lead to a mechanised proof and, what's more (I'm not sure what community you're talking about - Software Engineers?), we Computer Scientists shouldn't accept a theorem until it is so proven. Long live type theory!
It's a direct part of the system being considered - if you took out the soybean it wouldn't work (unlike the hypothetical solar panels - anything being able to fuel the electrolysis).
You were the one concerned to compare like with like, but then you support writing off energy costs on one side of the comparison?!? (In reponse, I'd simply say that all processes - transport, Haber-Bosch etc. - are driven by solar power on the other side...)
*Ulp* fair point - I'd forgotten that you'd replied to yourself while I went to visit the page... so you see it's your fault really!;) (jk, I take this on the chin really...)
If it was a closed system, yes. But if it was a closed system every ratio would be 100% because you've have to include all of the forms to which energy has been converted!
You didn't say it was deceptive (perhaps it is an unfair comparison, that's a different matter), you said it broke (or would have to) the 2nd law of thermodynamics... which isn't implied.
But implicit in your argument is the contrary position (not made clear: you have an 'until' but not a 'from')...
Before the printing press, literacy among Roman Catholics was surely higher than among the populations of non-Catholic countries since the Roman Catholic Church was actually able and willing to educate people (albeit, in some part, to copy the vulgate bible... and paid for by scaring the laiety by reading and misinterpreting only the Latin therein!)
(This also extends to your analogy: RIAA versus P2P - because, before the change in technological climate, RIAA, like the Roman Catholic Church, did do some good... Just not enough to justify their own existence in the modern world, imho.)
Congratulations, you have shown me a REPRESENTATION of a HOMOGENEOUS tree.
You have NOT shown me a QUERY for a HETEROGENEOUS subtree.
(Which, if you remember, was the first of two trivial things I asked for.)
You haven't even shown me a query for a homogenous subtree... if you're finding all this too confusing, just try do that! (It's been all day!)
("You said that 'The relational model is not set theory, it's the relational calculus.' which is incorrect" - No it isn't! Set theory is set theory; the relational model is the combination of relations (from set theory) with the relational calculus... which is first order only. This calculus no more represents all of set theory than trees represent all graphs!)
I'm with you. There's no way in hell I would ever pay anything approaching the price of the physical, packaged medium for an electronic approximation of the contents.
Sorry, I've used the wrong term, this time - I didn't mean 'conservatively', I meant 'faithfully'; cf. 'Codd's zeroth rule':
For a system to qualify as a RELATIONAL, DATABASE, MANAGEMENT system, that system must
use its RELATIONAL facilities (exclusively) to MANAGE the DATABASE.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, as I wrote to the (skeptical) guy when he put it up, he's perhaps never been in a nightclub...
(What? People want to communicate where it's noisy and dark? These kids...)
Oh God, that actually makes sense... please don't tell anyone!
Nonsense, the petty ramblings of some American lawyer aside (and they do that in court too), the Law of Confidence in the UK applies if information is communicated in circumstances imposing an obligation of confidence... which is exactly what this tries to do.
Not that I'm a fan of this rubbish being attached to the bottom of every mail, but I'm far from convinced by that article that it's not effective here.
I'm sorry, but I'd like to venture that there very likely is a logic that would lead to a mechanised proof and, what's more (I'm not sure what community you're talking about - Software Engineers?), we Computer Scientists shouldn't accept a theorem until it is so proven. Long live type theory!
You seem to be confusing the two models they're offering...
I think you should learn what Napster are offering (as well as outright purchase) before you try to correct the guy...
It's a direct part of the system being considered - if you took out the soybean it wouldn't work (unlike the hypothetical solar panels - anything being able to fuel the electrolysis).
You were the one concerned to compare like with like, but then you support writing off energy costs on one side of the comparison?!? (In reponse, I'd simply say that all processes - transport, Haber-Bosch etc. - are driven by solar power on the other side...)
*Ulp* fair point - I'd forgotten that you'd replied to yourself while I went to visit the page... so you see it's your fault really! ;) (jk, I take this on the chin really...)
That's not direct - they're a separate source with their own lifetime efficiency (one with very good operating efficiency but high production costs).
Again, if we're to include everything the one thing that thermodynamics would tell us is that there's no energy created or lost...
How again does one harness solar energy in electrolysis?...
If it was a closed system, yes. But if it was a closed system every ratio would be 100% because you've have to include all of the forms to which energy has been converted!
You didn't say it was deceptive (perhaps it is an unfair comparison, that's a different matter), you said it broke (or would have to) the 2nd law of thermodynamics... which isn't implied.
Do you not think someone else might put in the extra... say, THE SUN!
(They're talking about how much energy you have to put in directly, versus how much you can harvest back.)
Yeah, damn them and their reluctance to heat a whole building just for themselves (?!?)
Doesn't that rather depend how efficiently it could be extracted and refined in smaller quantities?
I think you're missing the most important issue - the logo! ROFL
Yeah, I'm sorry but it's the very essence of HTML - if you've forgotten that, riding a bicycle must be hard for you these days!
But implicit in your argument is the contrary position (not made clear: you have an 'until' but not a 'from')...
Before the printing press, literacy among Roman Catholics was surely higher than among the populations of non-Catholic countries since the Roman Catholic Church was actually able and willing to educate people (albeit, in some part, to copy the vulgate bible... and paid for by scaring the laiety by reading and misinterpreting only the Latin therein!)
(This also extends to your analogy: RIAA versus P2P - because, before the change in technological climate, RIAA, like the Roman Catholic Church, did do some good... Just not enough to justify their own existence in the modern world, imho.)
A shame we didn't sit back and talks things over a little more in the early 1600s, don't you think?
Congratulations, you have shown me a REPRESENTATION of a HOMOGENEOUS tree.
You have NOT shown me a QUERY for a HETEROGENEOUS subtree.
(Which, if you remember, was the first of two trivial things I asked for.)
You haven't even shown me a query for a homogenous subtree... if you're finding all this too confusing, just try do that! (It's been all day!)
("You said that 'The relational model is not set theory, it's the relational calculus.' which is incorrect" - No it isn't! Set theory is set theory; the relational model is the combination of relations (from set theory) with the relational calculus... which is first order only. This calculus no more represents all of set theory than trees represent all graphs!)
If the catalogue's so great, how come they don't allow one a proper search before registering?
Not to poke fun, but anyone who bought a shirt with that logo on, back in the day, must people a complete tw*t now!
Or stamp in a good meaty turd!
(Dog turd if there's one there, but if you have to squat...)
I'm with you. There's no way in hell I would ever pay anything approaching the price of the physical, packaged medium for an electronic approximation of the contents.
Sorry, I've used the wrong term, this time - I didn't mean 'conservatively', I meant 'faithfully'; cf. 'Codd's zeroth rule':