Would something like this actually work? Could it be done in stages? A tube stretching from one camp to the next?
All you'd have to do would be set up an internet connection. The only problem is you'd have to get permission from Al Gore, as he owns the patent on tubes in series.
This is a closely guarded secret, and revealing the answer would cause too much shock and social unrest. The answer is, of course: "Neither, WordPerfect is the best."
Taking this further, by rough guesstimate, you'd need around 4000 grams of methane to substitute for a gallon of gas
Why would you need to substitute for a gallon of gas, when methane already is a gas?
Anyway, the thing that I found curious about this whole thing is why they used the metric "400 1 litre bottles" - how would that be any different from filling a single 400 litre bottle?
What? Who didn't vote? I certainly voted, as did many of my pot-supporting friends.
You think people protesting a few decades ago is responsible for action happening this decade?
No, I'm talking about stuff 10-15 years ago.
Scientists did what they always do. They saw false science and debunked it. The other problem was the hippie mentality of separating themselves from the world. Marijuana isn't as taboo now as it was back then because everyone, and I mean everyone, knows a pot smoker that is a productive and normal member of society,
Which is exactly the shit I'm talking about. Scientists are not particularly good at effecting political or social change. It doesn't matter what scientists say, if popular opinion is against the facts. If it wasn't for people like my friends in the legalization movement, it would be much harder. They dispelled myths. Your average mother isn't looking at scientific journals - but if her son has the courage and honesty to tell the truth - that's what makes all the difference in political/social acceptance.
and also, to further my original point, because people are more open about it.
But I don't think that is accurate. people are getting much more closed about it, it's becoming a taboo again. Or at least something that is discussed with a nod and a wink. People were much more open about it 10-15 years ago. And there's less understanding among users about the drugs they are using. Old myths are rearing their heads again, when they should have stayed debunked.
If anything, marijuana has become more of a taboo in our society of hyper-consumerism and overwork - because it's a more "sleepy" drug than say cocaine or speed.
Their hearts were in the right place. I also do not mean to imply that protesting is worthless, but it becomes much more effective if the protesters are voters as well.
Pretty much every protester I know votes, so I'm not sure who you are talking about here.
Is that why I can only use my iTunes music with my iPod?
Wow, such ignorance. You can use music from many other sources on your iPod. You don't have to buy music from iTunes to use an iPod. But may I ask - if this is such a big concern for you, why did you buy an iPod?
Depends on what you mean by harmless. Many would consider attempting to DRM your own media is pretty malicious. Anyway, it's irrelevant. Even if Windows Media Player is harmless, it's only because Microsoft have failed in their attempts to have WMP rule the world. It would be a lot more harmful if MS had their way.
How exactly? Last time I checked Apple had been actively trying to shut out competing companies from reading their "FairPlay" content.
I'm talking about for users. I don't really care about a bunch of RIAA companies. It is more restrictive on how many machines you can use it on, product activation, and burning to CD, etc. PlaysforSure can hardly be considered more interoperable, as it only works on the Windows platform. Fairplay at least supports both Mac and Windows.
Apples intent is to own in it all, where as Microsoft is developing a platform that is far more interoperable.
Don't drink the Kool-aid man. Microsoft definitely wants to own it all. They only use "interoperability" as a means of having leverage over others. Microsoft would make washing machines if they thought they could dominate the market. At least Apple is a little more careful and focused about what markets it goes into, choosing things more along the lines of their core competencies, than just jumping on anything which might have a profit potential.
Apple offers one model, you buy it and can listen to it on 5 machines and burn it 7 times, and that's it.
And can easily burn to CD, can easily deauthorize computers and authorize new ones. And works on more than one platform.
Private, proprietary formats suck and the only people that lose are the consumers when a company like apple tries to control our choice.
Agreed, but the idea we were discussing is that Apple is worse on DRM, and has worsze intentions than Microsoft. I'm not sure why you are more worried about Apple, when Microsoft has been trying much harder to DRM everything we use, and not just music and video. Windows itself is a DRM timebomb. I haven't even mentioned Xbox or HD-DVD yet. You really believe that Microsoft doesn't want to own everything?
Microsoft has less of interest in owning your content, sure they have to assure content providers that their content will not be used in improper ways - however their OS isn't targeted specifically to content creation and consumption.
That's pretty delusional. Firstly, Microsoft runs a music store, and has been desperately trying to control media on the desktop with Windows Media Player and the Media Center edition of their OS. And their OS is geared towards consumption of products and content. Like Microsoft applications, and third-party applications and games.
Microsoft doesn't just want to own your media - they want to oen your whole system and have the ability to shut your OS down remotely. Hell, Microsoft even tries to put DRM on your pre-existing content - for example, if you rip a CD with Windows Media Player. And their "PlaysforSure" DRM is way more restrictive than Apple's.
Just because Microsoft hasn't been particularly successful with their plans, doesn't mean they aren't trying.
The people are slowly starting to learn that action is better than complaining, and they are slowly but surely beginning to prove it with their votes, and not with a hand painted sign dancing in the streets.
Marijuana protests were not just dancing in the streeat with signs. How the hell do you think it got to this point? Because protesters initiated action, and got the science on our side. It's pretty ignorant to think that people speaking out back in the day did not have an effect, and that there's no point to protest. And by the way, protest is not "complaining."
Actually, I was responding to a post which was specifically talking asbout someone having a drunken picture of himaelf on his own home page. So, obviously, this person did take the time to document his own social life.
that you can't do anything else with a PS3 while it's downloading,
Holy fuck! I don't care if I can't use it before it's downloaded. I just think it's amazing that you can download a PS3. Beats the hell out of going to the store and paying for one. Link please?
But the boat is not moving from the point of view of a true six degree of freedom motion tracker. It's rotating.
But rotation is a type of movement - and a six axis motion tracker would detect that motion, and report it as such.
By your logic, the propellor on an airplane is not moving when the engine is running, because it is rotating. But just about everybody, from a three-year-old child to a PhD physicist would say that the propellor blades are moving - because they are. They are moving in a circle around the hub/shaft.
I can freely change an object's position without modifying it's orientation and vice versa.
You can change an object's position without changing its orientation, but you cannot change its orientation without changing its position. By position, I mean its physical position. You can abstract the two concepts to simplify thinking - or implement them in a 3D engine. But you are still changing the absolute position of an object when you rotate it.
You are simply referring to a reference point (usually center of gravity) when you say that rotation doesn't cause movement. That's a useful reference point for many purposes, but it is "artificial," so to speak. An object is more than just a reference point. The rest of the object moves when it rotates.
Any regularly accepted definition of 'orientation' and 'position' makes them mutually exclusive.
How so? Would you care to link to such a definition?
Hence why you need two values to represent them (usually a rotation and a vector).
Having two values to represent two different types of position does not make them mutually exclusive.
So now you've moved beyond arguing ad nauseum to ad absurdum? You're trying to move the goalposts, so to speak. An object's position is not defined based on the positions of its molecules, especially since--except at absolute zero--those molecules are ALWAYS in motion.
No, you're the one going into absurdity. I'm the one sticking with the real world. An object is made up of molecules. We use "object" as a convenient way to describe that grouping of molecules. So, when it comes down to it, the position of those molecules defines the position of the object.
But let's back up a bit. How do you rotate something? You move it. How can you rotate it without moving it?
I think you've proven you've got nothing to rely upon but yourself, and based on the examples I've seen today you using an argument from authority is laughable.
Gosh, I'm so humbled. But you are the one making arguments from authority like "my friends are PhD physicists." I never invoked authority. Just looked at physical reality and the dictionary - not some construct you are creating through reference to 3D graphics and your friends being computer scientists.
Anyone interested in doing physical simulations also needs to have a way to represent a position and orientation of an object,
Oh, I should add that I think you have some fundamental logic/semantic problems going on. For example, in our earlier exchange, you wrote:
the boat is not "moving", it's rocking. Hence the word you used.
You seem to think that a word which describes a specific type of a general concept somehow prevents it from belonging to the general concept. Rocking is a type of motion. Just as running and walking are types of motion. Just because we use a more specific word for something, does not preclude it from the larger category. Pretty basic stuff, which you don't seem to grasp. I think they cover this at a pretty young age in school. Would you say that someone who is running is not moving?
So, back to "orientation" versus "position." Orientation is a subset of position. It is a type of position. So no, talking about changes in orientation does not preclude changes in position - because when you talk about orientation, you are talking about a type of position.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean, like rap songs?
All you'd have to do would be set up an internet connection. The only problem is you'd have to get permission from Al Gore, as he owns the patent on tubes in series.
This is a closely guarded secret, and revealing the answer would cause too much shock and social unrest. The answer is, of course: "Neither, WordPerfect is the best."
An ALF pog.
Why would you need to substitute for a gallon of gas, when methane already is a gas?
Anyway, the thing that I found curious about this whole thing is why they used the metric "400 1 litre bottles" - how would that be any different from filling a single 400 litre bottle?
What? Who didn't vote? I certainly voted, as did many of my pot-supporting friends.
You think people protesting a few decades ago is responsible for action happening this decade?No, I'm talking about stuff 10-15 years ago.
Scientists did what they always do. They saw false science and debunked it. The other problem was the hippie mentality of separating themselves from the world. Marijuana isn't as taboo now as it was back then because everyone, and I mean everyone, knows a pot smoker that is a productive and normal member of society,Which is exactly the shit I'm talking about. Scientists are not particularly good at effecting political or social change. It doesn't matter what scientists say, if popular opinion is against the facts. If it wasn't for people like my friends in the legalization movement, it would be much harder. They dispelled myths. Your average mother isn't looking at scientific journals - but if her son has the courage and honesty to tell the truth - that's what makes all the difference in political/social acceptance.
and also, to further my original point, because people are more open about it.But I don't think that is accurate. people are getting much more closed about it, it's becoming a taboo again. Or at least something that is discussed with a nod and a wink. People were much more open about it 10-15 years ago. And there's less understanding among users about the drugs they are using. Old myths are rearing their heads again, when they should have stayed debunked.
If anything, marijuana has become more of a taboo in our society of hyper-consumerism and overwork - because it's a more "sleepy" drug than say cocaine or speed.
Their hearts were in the right place. I also do not mean to imply that protesting is worthless, but it becomes much more effective if the protesters are voters as well.Pretty much every protester I know votes, so I'm not sure who you are talking about here.
Wow, such ignorance. You can use music from many other sources on your iPod. You don't have to buy music from iTunes to use an iPod. But may I ask - if this is such a big concern for you, why did you buy an iPod?
Depends on what you mean by harmless. Many would consider attempting to DRM your own media is pretty malicious. Anyway, it's irrelevant. Even if Windows Media Player is harmless, it's only because Microsoft have failed in their attempts to have WMP rule the world. It would be a lot more harmful if MS had their way.
How exactly? Last time I checked Apple had been actively trying to shut out competing companies from reading their "FairPlay" content.I'm talking about for users. I don't really care about a bunch of RIAA companies. It is more restrictive on how many machines you can use it on, product activation, and burning to CD, etc. PlaysforSure can hardly be considered more interoperable, as it only works on the Windows platform. Fairplay at least supports both Mac and Windows.
Apples intent is to own in it all, where as Microsoft is developing a platform that is far more interoperable.Don't drink the Kool-aid man. Microsoft definitely wants to own it all. They only use "interoperability" as a means of having leverage over others. Microsoft would make washing machines if they thought they could dominate the market. At least Apple is a little more careful and focused about what markets it goes into, choosing things more along the lines of their core competencies, than just jumping on anything which might have a profit potential.
Apple offers one model, you buy it and can listen to it on 5 machines and burn it 7 times, and that's it.And can easily burn to CD, can easily deauthorize computers and authorize new ones. And works on more than one platform.
Private, proprietary formats suck and the only people that lose are the consumers when a company like apple tries to control our choice.Agreed, but the idea we were discussing is that Apple is worse on DRM, and has worsze intentions than Microsoft. I'm not sure why you are more worried about Apple, when Microsoft has been trying much harder to DRM everything we use, and not just music and video. Windows itself is a DRM timebomb. I haven't even mentioned Xbox or HD-DVD yet. You really believe that Microsoft doesn't want to own everything?
That's pretty delusional. Firstly, Microsoft runs a music store, and has been desperately trying to control media on the desktop with Windows Media Player and the Media Center edition of their OS. And their OS is geared towards consumption of products and content. Like Microsoft applications, and third-party applications and games.
Microsoft doesn't just want to own your media - they want to oen your whole system and have the ability to shut your OS down remotely. Hell, Microsoft even tries to put DRM on your pre-existing content - for example, if you rip a CD with Windows Media Player. And their "PlaysforSure" DRM is way more restrictive than Apple's.
Just because Microsoft hasn't been particularly successful with their plans, doesn't mean they aren't trying.
That's not an assumption, it's a fact.
Why is that unfortunate? I grow weary of boring human vaginas and their pitiful lack of spikes.
That's because Betamax is eXtreme, dude.
Marijuana protests were not just dancing in the streeat with signs. How the hell do you think it got to this point? Because protesters initiated action, and got the science on our side. It's pretty ignorant to think that people speaking out back in the day did not have an effect, and that there's no point to protest. And by the way, protest is not "complaining."
Actually, I was responding to a post which was specifically talking asbout someone having a drunken picture of himaelf on his own home page. So, obviously, this person did take the time to document his own social life.
Maybe because resolution is not the only factor in visual quality, and far from the only important quality in choosing a game?
When your womenfolk cook dinner, does one of your brothers paint a sign that says "Cooking..." and a progress bar underneath it?
Is it a massive Christ who weighs even more than the typical massive Christl?
Holy fuck! I don't care if I can't use it before it's downloaded. I just think it's amazing that you can download a PS3. Beats the hell out of going to the store and paying for one. Link please?
They drug people to make them go to church now? Jeez, I thought most churches were anti-drugs.
Wii + penis = Natalie Portman
But rotation is a type of movement - and a six axis motion tracker would detect that motion, and report it as such.
By your logic, the propellor on an airplane is not moving when the engine is running, because it is rotating. But just about everybody, from a three-year-old child to a PhD physicist would say that the propellor blades are moving - because they are. They are moving in a circle around the hub/shaft.
I can freely change an object's position without modifying it's orientation and vice versa.You can change an object's position without changing its orientation, but you cannot change its orientation without changing its position. By position, I mean its physical position. You can abstract the two concepts to simplify thinking - or implement them in a 3D engine. But you are still changing the absolute position of an object when you rotate it.
You are simply referring to a reference point (usually center of gravity) when you say that rotation doesn't cause movement. That's a useful reference point for many purposes, but it is "artificial," so to speak. An object is more than just a reference point. The rest of the object moves when it rotates.
How so? Would you care to link to such a definition?
Hence why you need two values to represent them (usually a rotation and a vector).Having two values to represent two different types of position does not make them mutually exclusive.
So now you've moved beyond arguing ad nauseum to ad absurdum? You're trying to move the goalposts, so to speak. An object's position is not defined based on the positions of its molecules, especially since--except at absolute zero--those molecules are ALWAYS in motion.No, you're the one going into absurdity. I'm the one sticking with the real world. An object is made up of molecules. We use "object" as a convenient way to describe that grouping of molecules. So, when it comes down to it, the position of those molecules defines the position of the object.
But let's back up a bit. How do you rotate something? You move it. How can you rotate it without moving it?
I think you've proven you've got nothing to rely upon but yourself, and based on the examples I've seen today you using an argument from authority is laughable.Gosh, I'm so humbled. But you are the one making arguments from authority like "my friends are PhD physicists." I never invoked authority. Just looked at physical reality and the dictionary - not some construct you are creating through reference to 3D graphics and your friends being computer scientists.
Software Failure. Press left mouse button to continue.
Guru Meditation #8100000A.8400000C
That's why I modified my bread toaster with an extra-wide slot. Unfortunately, it's not compatible with my genlock.
Oh, I should add that I think you have some fundamental logic/semantic problems going on. For example, in our earlier exchange, you wrote:
You seem to think that a word which describes a specific type of a general concept somehow prevents it from belonging to the general concept. Rocking is a type of motion. Just as running and walking are types of motion. Just because we use a more specific word for something, does not preclude it from the larger category. Pretty basic stuff, which you don't seem to grasp. I think they cover this at a pretty young age in school. Would you say that someone who is running is not moving?So, back to "orientation" versus "position." Orientation is a subset of position. It is a type of position. So no, talking about changes in orientation does not preclude changes in position - because when you talk about orientation, you are talking about a type of position.