Point #1 of my list: weight will not make your car go faster. This should be self-explanatory. Point #2 of my list: I specifically said exactly what you wrote.
I have a blog (down right now because my DirectTV DSL is fubar, and the new one isn't hooked up yet). I write it for ME, not YOU.
If you read it, fine, but I don't care. Basically it's written by me, for me, for my own use. Besides the stupid details of my life, I also sometimes put programming notes that I don't want to forget or lose, but always want access to. The web is perfect for that.
Even better, my grandkids will have absolute proof that their granddad was a boring old fuck. And in 50 years I'll be able to read about all the crap I did to waste 50 years of my life.
1) weight won't make your car go faster. See Galileo. 2) Weight might be useful in overcoming wheel friction, helping your car to keep it's speed on the level straightaway. So make your car as heavy as allowed. 3) Weight distribution: You can put all the weight in the front, or the back, or in the middle. It won't matter too much. Probably best to put it in the middle, as it's easiest. 4) Make sure the wheel nails are absolutely straight. If they're crooked, that's added drag. Test your car on a flat floor. It should track absolutely straight. If you have access to fancy tools to measure wheel or nail angle, use them to make those nails straight. 5) Don't make the wheel holes larger than the nail. That means no spinning the wheels without lubrication. No dropping the car on the wheels - that will move the nails too. 6) Always use a graphite lubricant before every run. Lubricate the inside of the wheel holes. Lubricate the outside of the wheels too. They rub against the track as the car goes down. 7) An ugly car will be just as fast as a pretty one. So no reason not to make it pretty. 8) Make sure that the wheels cannot move from side to side or slide on the axle. The nails shouldn't bind the wheels up. 9) It might help to polish the nails and the inside of the wheels to make them smooth. You can do this with a very very fine grit with just a *little* bit of rubbing. You don't want to remove material, just smooth what's there to a fine finish. 10) Polish the sides of the car where the wheels will rub. Or, if it's allowed, put a spacer on the axle that will prevent the wheels from touching the car body at all.
That's all I can think of. When I was in Cub Scouts my car took 2nd place. I didn't follow any of these rules except for the graphite lubrication though. I just got lucky.
These machines support 512 GB of RAM in one chunk. A Linux cluster might outperform this thing, but you'll need to chunk your data up to fit into the individual nodes' memory. Sometimes this can be a pain in the neck to do, hence the market for something like this.
I think it's different than real-estate property. Real-estate is limited, because the amount of land is finite. Domain names are unlimited. If the namespace is used up, it can be extended with no limit. Of course, the shorter names will tend to be more valuable than the really long ones. But the economics of an unlimited resource are different than the economics of a limited resource.
A genius is someone who can see something great when almost nobody else can.
I think it's quite obvious that this is going to be one of the most significant discoveries this year, possibly even more important than that. Any idiot can see that, and I just want to be the 87th person to point it out.
It's hard to maintain agnosticism, which is the only "religion" that science can claim to belong to. As a result, there's a significant portion of the population that listens to scientists and not priests, and so fall into a "scientific religion."
You're implying the necessity of religion here. I don't think that a person must always have a default religion - e.g.. whatever they believe is their religion. What a person believes must qualify as a religion to say that the person has a religion.
And I think you're confusing some terms. Agnosticism is the statement that you don't know. Strong atheism is the positive statement that there is no god anywhere.
I wouldn't call strong atheism a religion, though I am guessing you would. On the other hand, strong atheism relies on the same shaky foundations as religion, namely a positive statement without evidence.
Science cannot be a religion, because there is no faith. Faith is belief without evidence, and rationality is belief only with evidence. Science is the time proven process through which we can eventually figure out from the evidence what might be true, and what definitely isn't true. Also, it can tell us what we don't have a clue about, and what we will never have a clue about.
Science and religion are absolutely opposed to each other on that basis.
Jesus himself said to Thomas that believing without seeing is a good thing.
This wasn't intended as a flame, I'm just honestly pointing out what I see the relationship between science and religion to be.
I'm not saying 15% failure. I also was asking what is braggable. If your development skills are on level with your reading skills, I fear for the world.
At least you didn't say that it depended on what the definition of "is" is.
I recently had to write a simple desktop application that connected to a server and displays a nice little treeview.
Oh nice. I'm talking to a button programmer.
Maybe you are just too dense and cynical to realize there are actually people who can write a 2100 line application in 3 days and have it be stable.
Not at all. I've implemented 6000 lines in 1 week, with no bugs at all.
And my manager absolutely loves me, he bought me a very nice christmas gift too.
First it was 1000 lines with a 15% failure. Now it's 2000 lines with 5% failures. And what app has 2000 lines of code? Maybe you only write little applets for your web pages.
You must drive your manager absolutely nuts. You sound like one of those guys who when asked when it will be done alternates between "real soon" to "about a half hour". Then they work on it for the next two weeks.
There is just no good way to explain why all Klingons in movies and TV from Next Generation on are bumpy, and all Klingons in the prequel TV show Enterprise are bumpy, and the 1000-years-previous holy guy Keh'less (or however you spell it) was bumpy, but all the Klingons ever met by Kirk looked like Fu Manchu.
Actually, there's an excellent explanation: the budget for the old TV show was much smaller than the movie and subsequent TV show budgets.
I don't know why people always overlook the obvious.
If anyone comes up to you and asks you to provide a reference, NEVER NEVER NEVER shoot them down. The teacher in this story was the one who came up with the idea that he wasn't "ivy league material" whatever that means.
A reference isn't a chance for you to play god, to decide what happens to someone else. It's just a chance for you to lend your authority to someone who might need a little help.
If that person fails miserably, nobody will remember you at all. But if that person succeeds and you provided a negative reference, then you're going to get pasted by history.
Never shoot anyone down. Don't try to protect anyone else from their own mistakes. Either give a good reference, or give none at all.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, and that's why I said exactly that in point #2 on my list.
Point #1 of my list: weight will not make your car go faster. This should be self-explanatory.
Point #2 of my list: I specifically said exactly what you wrote.
So, I don't understand your point.
Speak for yourself. I was malloc'ed.
I have a blog (down right now because my DirectTV DSL is fubar, and the new one isn't hooked up yet). I write it for ME, not YOU.
If you read it, fine, but I don't care. Basically it's written by me, for me, for my own use. Besides the stupid details of my life, I also sometimes put programming notes that I don't want to forget or lose, but always want access to. The web is perfect for that.
Even better, my grandkids will have absolute proof that their granddad was a boring old fuck. And in 50 years I'll be able to read about all the crap I did to waste 50 years of my life.
Not enough to make much of a difference. The total amount of drag at the speeds these cars go is exceptionally small.
1) weight won't make your car go faster. See Galileo.
2) Weight might be useful in overcoming wheel friction, helping your car to keep it's speed on the level straightaway. So make your car as heavy as allowed.
3) Weight distribution: You can put all the weight in the front, or the back, or in the middle. It won't matter too much. Probably best to put it in the middle, as it's easiest.
4) Make sure the wheel nails are absolutely straight. If they're crooked, that's added drag. Test your car on a flat floor. It should track absolutely straight. If you have access to fancy tools to measure wheel or nail angle, use them to make those nails straight.
5) Don't make the wheel holes larger than the nail. That means no spinning the wheels without lubrication. No dropping the car on the wheels - that will move the nails too.
6) Always use a graphite lubricant before every run. Lubricate the inside of the wheel holes. Lubricate the outside of the wheels too. They rub against the track as the car goes down.
7) An ugly car will be just as fast as a pretty one. So no reason not to make it pretty.
8) Make sure that the wheels cannot move from side to side or slide on the axle. The nails shouldn't bind the wheels up.
9) It might help to polish the nails and the inside of the wheels to make them smooth. You can do this with a very very fine grit with just a *little* bit of rubbing. You don't want to remove material, just smooth what's there to a fine finish.
10) Polish the sides of the car where the wheels will rub. Or, if it's allowed, put a spacer on the axle that will prevent the wheels from touching the car body at all.
That's all I can think of. When I was in Cub Scouts my car took 2nd place. I didn't follow any of these rules except for the graphite lubrication though. I just got lucky.
There's still one family member out there who hasn't changed their name
These machines support 512 GB of RAM in one chunk. A Linux cluster might outperform this thing, but you'll need to chunk your data up to fit into the individual nodes' memory. Sometimes this can be a pain in the neck to do, hence the market for something like this.
I think it's different than real-estate property. Real-estate is limited, because the amount of land is finite. Domain names are unlimited. If the namespace is used up, it can be extended with no limit. Of course, the shorter names will tend to be more valuable than the really long ones. But the economics of an unlimited resource are different than the economics of a limited resource.
It's working for me right now. I'm using debian stable, and it's connecting to sourceforge.
A genius is someone who can see something great when almost nobody else can.
I think it's quite obvious that this is going to be one of the most significant discoveries this year, possibly even more important than that. Any idiot can see that, and I just want to be the 87th person to point it out.
I knew singin' the blues was cool, but damn, I never realized just how cool.
It's hard to maintain agnosticism, which is the only "religion" that science can claim to belong to. As a result, there's a significant portion of the population that listens to scientists and not priests, and so fall into a "scientific religion."
You're implying the necessity of religion here. I don't think that a person must always have a default religion - e.g.. whatever they believe is their religion. What a person believes must qualify as a religion to say that the person has a religion.
And I think you're confusing some terms. Agnosticism is the statement that you don't know. Strong atheism is the positive statement that there is no god anywhere.
I wouldn't call strong atheism a religion, though I am guessing you would. On the other hand, strong atheism relies on the same shaky foundations as religion, namely a positive statement without evidence.
I do need something... my personal stock of blue pills is running out and I really don't want one of those red ones. Thanks.
Science cannot be a religion, because there is no faith. Faith is belief without evidence, and rationality is belief only with evidence. Science is the time proven process through which we can eventually figure out from the evidence what might be true, and what definitely isn't true. Also, it can tell us what we don't have a clue about, and what we will never have a clue about.
Science and religion are absolutely opposed to each other on that basis.
Jesus himself said to Thomas that believing without seeing is a good thing.
This wasn't intended as a flame, I'm just honestly pointing out what I see the relationship between science and religion to be.
You forgot POVray!
Preference is console
What is this? Perhaps your blood DOES burn with the heat of code battle. Perhaps your heart is Klingon after all?
I'm not saying 15% failure. I also was asking what is braggable. If your development skills are on level with your reading skills, I fear for the world.
At least you didn't say that it depended on what the definition of "is" is.
I recently had to write a simple desktop application that connected to a server and displays a nice little treeview.
Oh nice. I'm talking to a button programmer.
Maybe you are just too dense and cynical to realize there are actually people who can write a 2100 line application in 3 days and have it be stable.
Not at all. I've implemented 6000 lines in 1 week, with no bugs at all.
And my manager absolutely loves me, he bought me a very nice christmas gift too.
Those backrubs are paying off. Good for you.
heh heh.
What is? 2000 lines with a 5% failure?
First it was 1000 lines with a 15% failure. Now it's 2000 lines with 5% failures. And what app has 2000 lines of code? Maybe you only write little applets for your web pages.
You must drive your manager absolutely nuts. You sound like one of those guys who when asked when it will be done alternates between "real soon" to "about a half hour". Then they work on it for the next two weeks.
Internet is like fortune cookie without rest of meal.
There is just no good way to explain why all Klingons in movies and TV from Next Generation on are bumpy, and all Klingons in the prequel TV show Enterprise are bumpy, and the 1000-years-previous holy guy Keh'less (or however you spell it) was bumpy, but all the Klingons ever met by Kirk looked like Fu Manchu.
Actually, there's an excellent explanation: the budget for the old TV show was much smaller than the movie and subsequent TV show budgets.
I don't know why people always overlook the obvious.
Maybe it is odd for you to code over 1,000 lines a day. I do it regularly, and I'd say 85%+ goes into production without change.
So if you write 1000 lines of code, someone has to go in behind you and rewrite 150 of those lines to get your stuff to work?
That's not much to brag about...
If anyone comes up to you and asks you to provide a reference, NEVER NEVER NEVER shoot them down. The teacher in this story was the one who came up with the idea that he wasn't "ivy league material" whatever that means.
A reference isn't a chance for you to play god, to decide what happens to someone else. It's just a chance for you to lend your authority to someone who might need a little help.
If that person fails miserably, nobody will remember you at all. But if that person succeeds and you provided a negative reference, then you're going to get pasted by history.
Never shoot anyone down. Don't try to protect anyone else from their own mistakes. Either give a good reference, or give none at all.
I'm in complete agreement with Phyllis Schlafley on something! This can't be happening!
No pictures.
here's one
here's another