L4 and L5 are on an equilateral triangle with the Earth and moon at the other two points, so* you get 60 degrees of moon longitude into the dark side that would be visible from there, 1/3 of that hemisphere. In other words, not enough to see the center of the hemisphere if you wanted to put a telescope right there.
* - Ignoring the size of the moon and perspective - basically, taking an orthographic projection
Would that by cynthiosynchronous? I'm not sure, although I know that pericynthion is to the moon as perigee is to the Earth. At any rate, I suspect that the month-long rotational period of the moon means that a synchronous orbit would be outside of the moon's influence to the point it would be picked off by the Earth. In fact, rough figuring with my calculator shows that the radius of a moon-synchronous orbit is 230 times the distance of the moon from the Earth. You'll have to just play around with Lagrangian points and hope for the best.
Or Kaiser or Caesar. But Czar is the commonly accepted spelling in the context of American government officials who have supreme oversight over things that do not necessarily need or in fact should not have supreme oversight vested in one man with no other job.
The thing is that full-time ranch hands are not needed at most normal-size ranches. Where I grew up, it worked more like this. You need to round up your cattle about twice a year (branding and slaughter). This can be accomplished with four to ten people, depending on the terrain and size of your pastures. You also have to actually do the branding (which includes neutering, dehorning, etc.), once a year. You have several neighboring ranches, all of which also need to do round-up about twice a year and branding one time a year. Their days don't have to coincide with yours. So what you do is help each other out, exchanging labor for labor.
I don't see this technology being remotely economically viable for quite some time. That doesn't mean I am opposed to people developing it on their own dime, though.
Actually, we breed them to be docile. Extreme docility and stupidity seem to go hand in hand. I would venture that 100% of the delta-stupidity of a cow beyond that of a similar wild animal (perhaps a bison or a wild boar) can be attributed to human preferences.
What is the actual economy, in the form of an equation into which I can plug values for current gasoline price, current electricity price, number of hours per day plugged into wall power, and number of miles driven per day?
What is the actual environmental impact of using that much more wall electricity and that much less gasoline? I don't care about electric motors being 90% efficient vs. gas engines at 20%, because I know that current power plants are not 100% efficient and because I also know that efficiency is a measure of energy delivery, not of pollution avoidance.
Note that I am ignoring the initial cost of such a vehicle, both the financial cost to create it and the environmental cost to create the components that go into it. Those two factors are probably enough to render these vehicles pointless, but that's a debate not worth having until the costs of operation are shown to be better than traditional gasoline-powered cars.
That doesn't even take into account issues such as running the heater in cold climates, reliability in cold weather (cold-starting an engine once a day is hard enough in some months in a large portion of the world; doing so ten times on one drive is going to become Russian roulette and will ruin the engine in the process), survivability if you end up stuck in a snowbank, and other safety issues that nobody's really talking about because the only people who think this is currently a consumer-viable idea are yuppies in California.
"First failed attempt" implies nothing about a later successful attempt. It just points out that you need an ordinal to tell which of the many failed attempts was meant.
It doesn't matter - if it was bought out, the shareholders are entitled to value for their shares, no matter how little that might be. Wouldn't you be pissed off if you held a couple thousand shares and got deprived of your $1.25?
I think you should just trademark the term "whalegasm" and you'll be set for life, financially. You, sir, have taken the lead for Best New Word of 2008.
Judges aren't usually supposed to ask the parties questions. They're supposed to decide issues of law and if a question needs to be asked, the lawyers are supposed to be smart enough to ask it. A jury is supposed to decide the facts, but whether it's a jury or a judge who decides the facts it is the job of the lawyers to ensure that evidence is presented to educate the fact-finder sufficiently to make the correct decision. I really don't want to live in a world where judges have to have technical expertise in every kind of case that comes before them - they'd have no opportunity to learn the law, and that's a hard enough area for them to get right as it is.
The purpose of an expert witness is to assist the trier of fact on matters beyond lay experience, as you know. You have certainly seen a pretty heinous example of a judge getting it wrong, but it sounds like the error got fixed "easily enough" (I put that in quotes because it's such a relative term, relative here to paying 25%+ annual interest). In general, though, there is a lawyer who did not sufficiently educate the judge for the decision he had to make.
Let judges dedicate their time to studying the law. It's critically important that they don't suck at making legal decisions.
A court is generally not supposed to know anything that's not brought to its attention in the case, other than legal issues which the court is supposed to know all about. If a court issues an opinion in which it is wrong about how e-mail and IP addresses work, that is simply because one of the following things went wrong:
The court took judicial notice of something that is at odds with reality (this would be extremely rare, as what courts can take judicial notice of is very limited in scope; also, one of the attorneys would normally have had to ask the court to take such judicial notice, although it could do so sua sponte)
One of the lawyers argued the issue and got it wrong, and the other lawyer(s) failed to point out the error
Evidence supporting the wrong finding was presented by an incompetent expert witness
The finder of fact at trial (jury or judge, depending on the specific case) interpreted the evidence wrong
The appellate court decided that the finder of fact at trial interpreted the evidence so horrendously wrong as to justify overturning the factual decision and coming up with the wrong answer in the process
On technical matters, when a court gets it wrong it is usually not the court's fault.
I was using the code to explain my comment, not the error message. The error message, of course, is probably assembled by sprintf(s, "The instruction at '%p' referenced memory at '%p'. The memory could not be '%s'. Click OK to crash your computer.", iaddr, daddr, opname).
Someone should mod you down for posting a link to an xkcd image, depriving us of the alt text. Granted, that one wasn't the best, but it's still as much a part of the comic as Jon is part of Garfield.
Yeah, but he did so in the same sentence as he used the word suiformes. Learn the basics, and then progress to more "difficult" things. This is like someone (with no other programming experience) taking Visual Basic 101, getting a D in the class, and then starting to write kernel drivers the next day.
But you're all forgetting that I said the quotes go around "read" as in a string literal. Here's how it'd work in Perl (aka the Slashdot lingua franca):
sub surround_with_quotes { '"' . $_[0] . '"' }
print "The memory could not be " . surround_with_quotes("read");
Slashdot Mirror
L4 and L5 are on an equilateral triangle with the Earth and moon at the other two points, so* you get 60 degrees of moon longitude into the dark side that would be visible from there, 1/3 of that hemisphere. In other words, not enough to see the center of the hemisphere if you wanted to put a telescope right there.
* - Ignoring the size of the moon and perspective - basically, taking an orthographic projection
Would that by cynthiosynchronous? I'm not sure, although I know that pericynthion is to the moon as perigee is to the Earth. At any rate, I suspect that the month-long rotational period of the moon means that a synchronous orbit would be outside of the moon's influence to the point it would be picked off by the Earth. In fact, rough figuring with my calculator shows that the radius of a moon-synchronous orbit is 230 times the distance of the moon from the Earth. You'll have to just play around with Lagrangian points and hope for the best.
Everyone, sing with me:
We're whalers on the moon
We carry a harpoon
But there ain't no whales
So we tell tall tales
And sing a whaling tune
Or Kaiser or Caesar. But Czar is the commonly accepted spelling in the context of American government officials who have supreme oversight over things that do not necessarily need or in fact should not have supreme oversight vested in one man with no other job.
Only after extensive prodding by the U.S. Department of the Anterior.
The thing is that full-time ranch hands are not needed at most normal-size ranches. Where I grew up, it worked more like this. You need to round up your cattle about twice a year (branding and slaughter). This can be accomplished with four to ten people, depending on the terrain and size of your pastures. You also have to actually do the branding (which includes neutering, dehorning, etc.), once a year. You have several neighboring ranches, all of which also need to do round-up about twice a year and branding one time a year. Their days don't have to coincide with yours. So what you do is help each other out, exchanging labor for labor.
I don't see this technology being remotely economically viable for quite some time. That doesn't mean I am opposed to people developing it on their own dime, though.
Actually, we breed them to be docile. Extreme docility and stupidity seem to go hand in hand. I would venture that 100% of the delta-stupidity of a cow beyond that of a similar wild animal (perhaps a bison or a wild boar) can be attributed to human preferences.
Note that I am ignoring the initial cost of such a vehicle, both the financial cost to create it and the environmental cost to create the components that go into it. Those two factors are probably enough to render these vehicles pointless, but that's a debate not worth having until the costs of operation are shown to be better than traditional gasoline-powered cars.
That doesn't even take into account issues such as running the heater in cold climates, reliability in cold weather (cold-starting an engine once a day is hard enough in some months in a large portion of the world; doing so ten times on one drive is going to become Russian roulette and will ruin the engine in the process), survivability if you end up stuck in a snowbank, and other safety issues that nobody's really talking about because the only people who think this is currently a consumer-viable idea are yuppies in California.
"First failed attempt" implies nothing about a later successful attempt. It just points out that you need an ordinal to tell which of the many failed attempts was meant.
It doesn't matter - if it was bought out, the shareholders are entitled to value for their shares, no matter how little that might be. Wouldn't you be pissed off if you held a couple thousand shares and got deprived of your $1.25?
I think you should just trademark the term "whalegasm" and you'll be set for life, financially. You, sir, have taken the lead for Best New Word of 2008.
Ah, yes. OpenBSD, home of many a humble opinion.
Judges aren't usually supposed to ask the parties questions. They're supposed to decide issues of law and if a question needs to be asked, the lawyers are supposed to be smart enough to ask it. A jury is supposed to decide the facts, but whether it's a jury or a judge who decides the facts it is the job of the lawyers to ensure that evidence is presented to educate the fact-finder sufficiently to make the correct decision. I really don't want to live in a world where judges have to have technical expertise in every kind of case that comes before them - they'd have no opportunity to learn the law, and that's a hard enough area for them to get right as it is.
The purpose of an expert witness is to assist the trier of fact on matters beyond lay experience, as you know. You have certainly seen a pretty heinous example of a judge getting it wrong, but it sounds like the error got fixed "easily enough" (I put that in quotes because it's such a relative term, relative here to paying 25%+ annual interest). In general, though, there is a lawyer who did not sufficiently educate the judge for the decision he had to make.
Let judges dedicate their time to studying the law. It's critically important that they don't suck at making legal decisions.
A court is generally not supposed to know anything that's not brought to its attention in the case, other than legal issues which the court is supposed to know all about. If a court issues an opinion in which it is wrong about how e-mail and IP addresses work, that is simply because one of the following things went wrong:
On technical matters, when a court gets it wrong it is usually not the court's fault.
I was using the code to explain my comment, not the error message. The error message, of course, is probably assembled by sprintf(s, "The instruction at '%p' referenced memory at '%p'. The memory could not be '%s'. Click OK to crash your computer.", iaddr, daddr, opname).
Someone should mod you down for posting a link to an xkcd image, depriving us of the alt text. Granted, that one wasn't the best, but it's still as much a part of the comic as Jon is part of Garfield.
Yeah, but he did so in the same sentence as he used the word suiformes. Learn the basics, and then progress to more "difficult" things. This is like someone (with no other programming experience) taking Visual Basic 101, getting a D in the class, and then starting to write kernel drivers the next day.
Now, classic bugs would be another great (better than error messages) topic. For that matter, let's limit it to non-crash bugs like that one.
Bugs != error messages.
But you're all forgetting that I said the quotes go around "read" as in a string literal. Here's how it'd work in Perl (aka the Slashdot lingua franca):
sub surround_with_quotes { '"' . $_[0] . '"' } print "The memory could not be " . surround_with_quotes("read");
See my other comment regarding the difference between reading as in streams and reading as in books.
Thanks ... I think. ;-)
I was actually referring to the difference between read as in the system call and read as in what you do with a book.
Define "read."