Unfortunately, you didn't debug the REALLY important bit: the actual wget part. Doesn't work, and that's a shame. I can't seem to find a way to download the archive.
I don't think so. He seems very vocal about the "not imposing limitations to usage" side, but the part where if you use his code you have to share yours seems to be important. I'd sum it up as saying: Linus is happy with the GPL v2 license rather than the GPL v3 one.
That anomaly is why linux works well as a poster child, in a sense.
Linus wants his code to be free, on a share-and-share-alike sort of basis. The GPL enforces this nicely, and is the right tool for the right job. Being a remarkably smart fellow, Linus also feared stallman might get too greedy and set the kernel on a static license rather than have it evolve to the last license version by default. That keeps it on its original objective: sharing.
What better poster child than the work of a man who just wants his code out there in this most selfless manner, and stalwartly refuses to play politics?
I have to disagree. I find that WoW playing (especially considering how conducive it is to LONG play sessions) completely wrecks my hands and lower arms.
I believe the GP meant that KDE, GNOME et al are as vulnerable as the linux kernel proper to the "patent infringement" bat that microsoft is swinging around.
1) If we're going to use future proofing as an argument, don't tell me what I need or don't need RIGHT NOW, and think of what I might need in a couple more years. Also, don't quote one single application class when discussing overall processor capabilities. Take raytracing, for example. POV-Ray does not have, nor does it intend to have, Altivec support, because it's single precision and they need double precision floats to keep the output decent.
2) What's being discussed is performance, not programmer-friendliness. Or compiler friendliness for that matter. Of course, without branch prediction, and with 8 cores (or, rather, a general purpose cores and 7 strange things) to feed code to, I hardly think the cell to be a programmer's dream either. And writing compilers for it...?
No. Microsoft decided NOT to put the cart in front of the horses. They're using DirectX 9 for the UI, so they can use both present day GPUs and those with a couple of years without much hassle. DirectX 10.0 would prevent that. But, on the other hand, is a major feature for the gamers, who "obviously" have the latest and greatest dx10 running card.
This all discussion would, however, be a lot more useful if it actuallY MATTERED. DX10 or DX9, I still get funky graphics corruption at the composition level when I tell vista RC1 to use both my monitors.
Problem being, the non-CDs are in the same packaging as CDs, look like CDs, play like CDs (in your home stereo at least, hopefully), and are in the middle of all the REAL CDs. So no one who's not tech-savvy will ever get it by themselves, and most will not even get it when you explain it to them. The exact same will happen with DVDs
I wager that's precisely why their results were on par with watching too much TV, FMV Fantasy umpteenth for the win anyone?
No kid will ever lose academic results from playing, say, sokoban.
FYI, most of NASA's satellite mission control software is written by a top-notch portuguese company (who also happen to work with the european and japanese space agencies). For the most part, software doesn't get much more critical and demanding than that.
I had the same problem. It was solved by getting compilation albums to have just one "Album Artist". Some times it's "Various Artists" (think soundtracks et al), others it's an actual artist name (Like setting Santana's "Supernatural" to compilation, because most songs are collaborations and you want the collaborating artist in the artist field, but setting album artist to Carlos Santana, because that's the actual artist behind the album)
Just because you haven't played it doesn't mean that it hasn't taken a very large portion of the market that is MMORPG players, or that it hasn't expanded that market, or that it hasn't greatly influenced game design since. I'm pretty sure you can find a few people in the US that think that they'd be better off as a british colony. That doesn't make the american revolution any less valid.
I'd hardly call perl or python languages for code monkeys, yet they both include GC. Personally, I rather like ObjC from what little I tried it, and can tell you that I consider this a welcome addition. Because you know what? I'm a computer engineering student with a very maths-heavy background. I want to worry about analyzing the algorithm and making sure the algorithm itself it optimal. Having to keep track of memory just gets in the way of that. Then, once I have the algorithm nailed properly, it MIGHT be interesting/useful to manage memory manually. But that's not really my primary concern.
Completely wrong. The denser the body, the less parallel the field lines are at the surface. The less dense the body, the more parallel the field lines are at the surface.
So, essentially, if we were to suppose every single argument I used is wrong, you just said I was right in my original assertion either way: the notion of density is completely without meaning for point masses, yet you state it is relevant to the problem!
However, that's not the case. Consider 2 system, each composed of 4 particles (ie, point masses), and a test particle. In both cases, place the test particle 3 length units away from the center of the 4-particle system. In both cases place the 4 particles drawing a square with its center at the origin, and with the particles placed over the cartesian axes. In one system place the masses 1 length unit away from the center, in the other 2 units away. Calculate the field intensity at the test particle's position
I'll even do it for you. the following python code calculates the field value at the position of the test particle.
for point in points: field1 += sqrt((mass[0] + point[0]) ** 2 + (mass[1] + point[1]) ** 2)
for point in points2: field2 += sqrt((mass[0] + point[0]) ** 2 + (mass[1] + point[1]) ** 2)
print "field1: ", field1 print "field2: ", field2
Which outputs:
field1: 12.3245553203 field2: 13.2111025509
The code neatly assumes no scale constant like epsilon or G, so as to make it unit system agnostic, and also a simpler read. Now, I think you'll agree that the continuous mass distribution case is essentially the same as the discrete mass distribution system. You'll also agree that these two mass distributions yielded different field values at the same point. Yet, had the distance between the test mass and the system been much greater, it'd have behaved like it was one single point mass, with little difference between the two values.
What's the problem with your assumptions? Well, it's twofold. On one end is that your invocation of Gauss's law is invalid. To quote your own reference, Gauss's law gives the relation between the electric or graviational flux flowing out a closed surface and, respectively, the electric charge or mass enclosed in the surface. Field intensity at a given point in space != flux. When you have a particle travelling through space, what you care about is the field intensity at all points in the trajectory. The second problem is that all your statements assume a constant mass density inside the sphere, which is assuming too much. Look at earth's magnetic field for an example of a non-homogeneous charge distribution that yields a distorted field, despite a more or less spherical distribution.
However, in the end I'll agree with you on one thing: in practice these differences are minuscule and horrendously hard to discern. Probably way out of the sensitivity of our instruments.
"stand" close enough to a massive spherical mass (like a human being standing on the surface of the earth), and it will essentially behave like parallel field lines perpendicular to the ("almost flat") surface, rather than radial field lines like a point mass. Spherical masses = point masses is a gross oversimplification. It's just one that is valid in some cases.
No, spherical masses do NOT act as point masses. They can be modelled by them without too much loss of detail if the difference between the radius of the sphere and the distance to the other body is big enough, but ultimately the two are mathematically different (if infinitesimally so). When the very thing you're trying to determine is that difference, you're suggesting we toss out the baby with the bath water.
FTFA: Black holes is collapsed matter, MECOs stand on the idea that matter CAN'T fully collapse like that and stays in a permanent state of collapsing (but is never actually done collapsing).
Well, there are a couple of things that can be said about the button design.
One is that it defaults to "single button" mode, where the whole top works as a single button, so only people who want to use it as a two-button mouse have to worry about it. No one will right click without knowing they can do so.
Also, in typical apple fashion, it has no visible seams, which is a plus for the aesthetically conscious.
Also, the LED theory doesn't hold much water, because you'd have to keep looking at the mouse to examine its status, which isn't good. Also, because until you train yourself to think in terms of "red = right, blue = left, green = center", or some other order or whatever, you won't be doing anything particularly productive with the whole color coded thing, I don't see why you shouldn't just stick to using the "little miniature stylized mouse with a shaded button" way Windows solves that issue.
Actually, no. The horde's definitely ugly. But I don't see a race of nature loving bullmen as evil. Despite the long years of warring with the humans, neither the orcs or the trolls are "evil" per se. Orcs in particular are shown as honourable people. Trolls are just trying to get along. Peace, mon. The Forsaken? They're a bit ruthless and devious, but are otherwise just trying to butress their new-found independence, and get back at the people who are trying to exterminate them as "unholy evil things" (like you!:P). Doesn't strike me as evil. But what do I know? My char's an Orc Hunter...
I play world of warcraft. I also play other games. More importantly, I still have plenty of time to be with my girlfriend, play the guitar, read, listen to music, write code for fun, paint, draw, and an unending list more of things (and not even considering work). It's all about how much (or how little) time you're willing to devote to each individual activity.
Right now I'm dedicating quite a bit of time to WoW. Which doesn't preclude me from choosing to alter that balance next week. Or even from getting the guitar out and playing some while flying from orgrimmar to un'goro...
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, you didn't debug the REALLY important bit: the actual wget part. Doesn't work, and that's a shame. I can't seem to find a way to download the archive.
I don't think so. He seems very vocal about the "not imposing limitations to usage" side, but the part where if you use his code you have to share yours seems to be important. I'd sum it up as saying: Linus is happy with the GPL v2 license rather than the GPL v3 one.
That anomaly is why linux works well as a poster child, in a sense.
Linus wants his code to be free, on a share-and-share-alike sort of basis. The GPL enforces this nicely, and is the right tool for the right job. Being a remarkably smart fellow, Linus also feared stallman might get too greedy and set the kernel on a static license rather than have it evolve to the last license version by default. That keeps it on its original objective: sharing.
What better poster child than the work of a man who just wants his code out there in this most selfless manner, and stalwartly refuses to play politics?
I'f say Go as well. But it's a lot easier to find chess partners.
I have to disagree. I find that WoW playing (especially considering how conducive it is to LONG play sessions) completely wrecks my hands and lower arms.
I believe the GP meant that KDE, GNOME et al are as vulnerable as the linux kernel proper to the "patent infringement" bat that microsoft is swinging around.
What of the 1940s? Apparently they needed to recap on that lesson...
1) If we're going to use future proofing as an argument, don't tell me what I need or don't need RIGHT NOW, and think of what I might need in a couple more years. Also, don't quote one single application class when discussing overall processor capabilities. Take raytracing, for example. POV-Ray does not have, nor does it intend to have, Altivec support, because it's single precision and they need double precision floats to keep the output decent.
2) What's being discussed is performance, not programmer-friendliness. Or compiler friendliness for that matter. Of course, without branch prediction, and with 8 cores (or, rather, a general purpose cores and 7 strange things) to feed code to, I hardly think the cell to be a programmer's dream either. And writing compilers for it...?
No. Microsoft decided NOT to put the cart in front of the horses. They're using DirectX 9 for the UI, so they can use both present day GPUs and those with a couple of years without much hassle. DirectX 10.0 would prevent that. But, on the other hand, is a major feature for the gamers, who "obviously" have the latest and greatest dx10 running card.
This all discussion would, however, be a lot more useful if it actuallY MATTERED. DX10 or DX9, I still get funky graphics corruption at the composition level when I tell vista RC1 to use both my monitors.
Problem being, the non-CDs are in the same packaging as CDs, look like CDs, play like CDs (in your home stereo at least, hopefully), and are in the middle of all the REAL CDs. So no one who's not tech-savvy will ever get it by themselves, and most will not even get it when you explain it to them. The exact same will happen with DVDs
I wager that's precisely why their results were on par with watching too much TV, FMV Fantasy umpteenth for the win anyone? No kid will ever lose academic results from playing, say, sokoban.
Nope, you DON'T run as admin in OS X. You run in a sudo-enabled account.
FYI, most of NASA's satellite mission control software is written by a top-notch portuguese company (who also happen to work with the european and japanese space agencies). For the most part, software doesn't get much more critical and demanding than that.
I had the same problem. It was solved by getting compilation albums to have just one "Album Artist". Some times it's "Various Artists" (think soundtracks et al), others it's an actual artist name (Like setting Santana's "Supernatural" to compilation, because most songs are collaborations and you want the collaborating artist in the artist field, but setting album artist to Carlos Santana, because that's the actual artist behind the album)
Just because you haven't played it doesn't mean that it hasn't taken a very large portion of the market that is MMORPG players, or that it hasn't expanded that market, or that it hasn't greatly influenced game design since. I'm pretty sure you can find a few people in the US that think that they'd be better off as a british colony. That doesn't make the american revolution any less valid.
I'd hardly call perl or python languages for code monkeys, yet they both include GC. Personally, I rather like ObjC from what little I tried it, and can tell you that I consider this a welcome addition. Because you know what? I'm a computer engineering student with a very maths-heavy background. I want to worry about analyzing the algorithm and making sure the algorithm itself it optimal. Having to keep track of memory just gets in the way of that. Then, once I have the algorithm nailed properly, it MIGHT be interesting/useful to manage memory manually. But that's not really my primary concern.
If there is a way, it's not easier than getting xcode to run on a ppc linux box.
Or just outright disable it.
So, essentially, if we were to suppose every single argument I used is wrong, you just said I was right in my original assertion either way: the notion of density is completely without meaning for point masses, yet you state it is relevant to the problem!
However, that's not the case. Consider 2 system, each composed of 4 particles (ie, point masses), and a test particle. In both cases, place the test particle 3 length units away from the center of the 4-particle system. In both cases place the 4 particles drawing a square with its center at the origin, and with the particles placed over the cartesian axes. In one system place the masses 1 length unit away from the center, in the other 2 units away. Calculate the field intensity at the test particle's position
I'll even do it for you. the following python code calculates the field value at the position of the test particle.
Which outputs:The code neatly assumes no scale constant like epsilon or G, so as to make it unit system agnostic, and also a simpler read. Now, I think you'll agree that the continuous mass distribution case is essentially the same as the discrete mass distribution system. You'll also agree that these two mass distributions yielded different field values at the same point. Yet, had the distance between the test mass and the system been much greater, it'd have behaved like it was one single point mass, with little difference between the two values.What's the problem with your assumptions? Well, it's twofold. On one end is that your invocation of Gauss's law is invalid. To quote your own reference, Gauss's law gives the relation between the electric or graviational flux flowing out a closed surface and, respectively, the electric charge or mass enclosed in the surface. Field intensity at a given point in space != flux. When you have a particle travelling through space, what you care about is the field intensity at all points in the trajectory. The second problem is that all your statements assume a constant mass density inside the sphere, which is assuming too much. Look at earth's magnetic field for an example of a non-homogeneous charge distribution that yields a distorted field, despite a more or less spherical distribution.
However, in the end I'll agree with you on one thing: in practice these differences are minuscule and horrendously hard to discern. Probably way out of the sensitivity of our instruments.
"stand" close enough to a massive spherical mass (like a human being standing on the surface of the earth), and it will essentially behave like parallel field lines perpendicular to the ("almost flat") surface, rather than radial field lines like a point mass. Spherical masses = point masses is a gross oversimplification. It's just one that is valid in some cases.
No, spherical masses do NOT act as point masses. They can be modelled by them without too much loss of detail if the difference between the radius of the sphere and the distance to the other body is big enough, but ultimately the two are mathematically different (if infinitesimally so). When the very thing you're trying to determine is that difference, you're suggesting we toss out the baby with the bath water.
FTFA: Black holes is collapsed matter, MECOs stand on the idea that matter CAN'T fully collapse like that and stays in a permanent state of collapsing (but is never actually done collapsing).
Well, there are a couple of things that can be said about the button design.
One is that it defaults to "single button" mode, where the whole top works as a single button, so only people who want to use it as a two-button mouse have to worry about it. No one will right click without knowing they can do so.
Also, in typical apple fashion, it has no visible seams, which is a plus for the aesthetically conscious.
Also, the LED theory doesn't hold much water, because you'd have to keep looking at the mouse to examine its status, which isn't good. Also, because until you train yourself to think in terms of "red = right, blue = left, green = center", or some other order or whatever, you won't be doing anything particularly productive with the whole color coded thing, I don't see why you shouldn't just stick to using the "little miniature stylized mouse with a shaded button" way Windows solves that issue.
Actually, no. The horde's definitely ugly. But I don't see a race of nature loving bullmen as evil. Despite the long years of warring with the humans, neither the orcs or the trolls are "evil" per se. Orcs in particular are shown as honourable people. Trolls are just trying to get along. Peace, mon. The Forsaken? They're a bit ruthless and devious, but are otherwise just trying to butress their new-found independence, and get back at the people who are trying to exterminate them as "unholy evil things" (like you! :P). Doesn't strike me as evil. But what do I know? My char's an Orc Hunter...
I play world of warcraft. I also play other games. More importantly, I still have plenty of time to be with my girlfriend, play the guitar, read, listen to music, write code for fun, paint, draw, and an unending list more of things (and not even considering work). It's all about how much (or how little) time you're willing to devote to each individual activity.
Right now I'm dedicating quite a bit of time to WoW. Which doesn't preclude me from choosing to alter that balance next week. Or even from getting the guitar out and playing some while flying from orgrimmar to un'goro...