In an infinite (bounded or unbounded), any point can be considered its centre --is that what you implied? (I got the joke, I'm just not sure I remember the logic correctly)
overshoot, I am not certain if you agree with the article, so don't take this as a personal attack. In any case, TFA is FUBAR:
Most internal combustion engines operate at about 35 per cent efficiency. CORRECT: This is more or less the accepted average of ICE efficiency.
This means that only 35 per cent of the fuel is fully burned. WRONG: This is FUD by William Marsden, the article author, whose strongest point definitely isn't chemistry. Modern ICE burn more than 97% of the fuel, it's just that 35% of the total energy produced turns into kinetic energy.
Your post was marked as funny, but it should be marked as insightful. This was my first thought too, considering that this 11" video spans about 24 hours. Any cloud formation should move noticeably at ~7800x...
If you don't mind the folding / rolling part, Hitachi's electronic paper might be what's best. We can always use a case resembling a hardcover book to carry such e-paper around.
Yes, you are absolutely right. I thought that all comments below my threshold showed up as single headers, but I was obviously mistaken. I'll check my settings, thanks a lot:)
Let me summarize, with my comments interspersed; perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
Fishbot: select foo.* from foo left join wheee on foo.bar = wheee.blib where wheee.blib is null
This is correct and functioning and produces what the OP wanted.
Fishbot: That's one left join, in case you were wondering, not 'all the joins I can think of'.
He's clear.
Sxooter: Uh, no. Regular joins are neither left nor right.
He never said that regular joins are left.
Sxooter: If some field means a row in either side has no match on the other, then the rows are not in the output.
This is correct for inner joins; note that Fishbot's query had no inner joins.
Sxooter: A left join is the SAME THING as a left outer join, the outer is syntactic sugar.
This is absolutely correct, and justifies Fishbot's LEFT JOIN.
Sxooter: If you're gonna correct people, try to actually have the right answer, k?
He was correct and he had the right answer.
tzot: If LEFT JOIN is the same thing as LEFT OUTER JOIN, then you are wrong and fishbot is right;
That "if" of mine was rhetorical, because I, like you, know very well that LEFT JOIN == LEFT OUTER JOIN, and also know that Fishbot's query was correct. Since I couldn't find anything wrong with Fishbot's post to explain your reply, I assumed that you mistakenly thought that Fishbot's query was an INNER JOIN.
Sxooter: No. Reread what he wrote. He said that ALL joins are left joins by default.
I reread what he, you and I wrote. I still don't see what you claim he wrote.
Perhaps I misunderstood your post, because you started it with a "Uh, no.", and it is a direct reply to Fishbot's post (unless my Firefox is borken). Fishbot's query is correct, and he never said that regular joins are left. You advised Fishbot to have a right answer before correcting people, in spite of Fishbot's providing a correct answer."
Uh, no. Regular joins are neither left nor right. If some field means a row in either side has no match on the other, then the rows are not in the output. A left join is the SAME THING as a left outer join, the outer is syntactic sugar.
Regular joins are INNER joins, and they are indeed nor left nor right.
If LEFT JOIN is the same thing as LEFT OUTER JOIN, then you are wrong and fishbot is right; did you actually run his query, and if yes, on what RDBMS?
It's possible that the algorithm uses Haar transformations (look it up on Google).
ImageSeek uses this transformation, and so do I in a custom Python script at work. Results are basically good even if you ignore chromacity (using only luminance).
This is important too (from their Terms And Conditions):
Changes to Terms and Conditions
Google reserves the right to modify these Terms and Conditions from time to time in its sole discretion, without notice or liability to you. You agree to be bound by these Terms and Conditions, as modified. Please review the most current version of the Terms and Conditions from time to time, located at http://webaccelerator.google.com/eula (or such successor URL as Google may provide), so that you will be apprised of any changes.
When MSDOS was written (stolen,...), there were
x86 C-compilers, but at the time, you could not
write an OS using C -- it was not the right tool.
I am not sure you mean what you seem to mean. C was invented for this very purpose: the writing of an OS (UNIX). Do you mean perhaps that C was not the right tool on that type of machine to write an OS for that type of machine?
Will it advise you not to ring your ex when you've had too many drinks?
Actually it will automatically text your ex with a "See what you got me into by ditching me? Please, please, come and pick me up at [longitude]/[latitude]"
Slashdot Mirror
In an infinite (bounded or unbounded), any point can be considered its centre --is that what you implied? (I got the joke, I'm just not sure I remember the logic correctly)
Most internal combustion engines operate at about 35 per cent efficiency.
CORRECT: This is more or less the accepted average of ICE efficiency.
This means that only 35 per cent of the fuel is fully burned.
WRONG: This is FUD by William Marsden, the article author, whose strongest point definitely isn't chemistry. Modern ICE burn more than 97% of the fuel, it's just that 35% of the total energy produced turns into kinetic energy.
Perhaps you and poofyhairguy82 should compare your environ(ment)s, and more specifically, locales.
Planting Internet Explorer icons on Gnome desktops, even on purpose because of a /. post, is Windows emulation.
Now back to our normal life...
But Apollo was an acronym: A Prank Of Lying Luna Observers... wasn't it?
Your post was marked as funny, but it should be marked as insightful. This was my first thought too, considering that this 11" video spans about 24 hours. Any cloud formation should move noticeably at ~7800x...
If you don't mind the folding / rolling part, Hitachi's electronic paper might be what's best. We can always use a case resembling a hardcover book to carry such e-paper around.
Yes, you are absolutely right. I thought that all comments below my threshold showed up as single headers, but I was obviously mistaken. I'll check my settings, thanks a lot :)
Fishbot: select foo.* from foo left join wheee on foo.bar = wheee.blib where wheee.blib is null
This is correct and functioning and produces what the OP wanted.
Fishbot: That's one left join, in case you were wondering, not 'all the joins I can think of'.
He's clear.
Sxooter: Uh, no. Regular joins are neither left nor right.
He never said that regular joins are left.
Sxooter: If some field means a row in either side has no match on the other, then the rows are not in the output.
This is correct for inner joins; note that Fishbot's query had no inner joins.
Sxooter: A left join is the SAME THING as a left outer join, the outer is syntactic sugar.
This is absolutely correct, and justifies Fishbot's LEFT JOIN.
Sxooter: If you're gonna correct people, try to actually have the right answer, k?
He was correct and he had the right answer.
tzot: If LEFT JOIN is the same thing as LEFT OUTER JOIN, then you are wrong and fishbot is right;
That "if" of mine was rhetorical, because I, like you, know very well that LEFT JOIN == LEFT OUTER JOIN, and also know that Fishbot's query was correct. Since I couldn't find anything wrong with Fishbot's post to explain your reply, I assumed that you mistakenly thought that Fishbot's query was an INNER JOIN.
Sxooter: No. Reread what he wrote. He said that ALL joins are left joins by default.
I reread what he, you and I wrote. I still don't see what you claim he wrote.
Perhaps I misunderstood your post, because you started it with a "Uh, no.", and it is a direct reply to Fishbot's post (unless my Firefox is borken). Fishbot's query is correct, and he never said that regular joins are left. You advised Fishbot to have a right answer before correcting people, in spite of Fishbot's providing a correct answer."
So what exactly was that "Uh, no" for?
Regular joins are INNER joins, and they are indeed nor left nor right.
If LEFT JOIN is the same thing as LEFT OUTER JOIN, then you are wrong and fishbot is right; did you actually run his query, and if yes, on what RDBMS?
So the joke goes like this:
...right?
Q- How does a cop open a StarOffice document?
A- Points the gun at the screen and shouts "Open! This is the police!"
Your rule breaks for "its" and "it's". Otherwise, it's (ass?) quite handy.
It's possible that the algorithm uses Haar transformations (look it up on Google). ImageSeek uses this transformation, and so do I in a custom Python script at work. Results are basically good even if you ignore chromacity (using only luminance).
When MSDOS was written (stolen, ...), there were
x86 C-compilers, but at the time, you could not
write an OS using C -- it was not the right tool.
I am not sure you mean what you seem to mean. C was invented for this very purpose: the writing of an OS (UNIX).
Do you mean perhaps that C was not the right tool on that type of machine to write an OS for that type of machine?
Check this site:
l .h tm
http://www.vacgen.com/catalogue/chambers/mumeta
Google is your precious friend, so I wonder why you two are not in talking terms anymore...
I have this haunting image of a TV interview with HAL, 20 years after the events:
Interviewer: What do you think about Dave's reaction?
HAL: Well, you know, Dave always exaggerated...
Will it advise you not to ring your ex when you've had too many drinks?
Actually it will automatically text your ex with a "See what you got me into by ditching me? Please, please, come and pick me up at [longitude]/[latitude]"