well technically, sure: [sic] is what the grammar has to deal with quoting something grammatically incorrect.
but i'm not sure it's the right approach in this case, for a few reasons:
* it's often interpreted as assy
* if you're quoting a significant amount of this material, you'd have like hundreds of [sic]s in your own text, and that's just dumb. the alternative might be just putting in footnote asterisks and have the footnote be "[sic]".
i'm inclined to go w/ the summary's summary, which is to just quote it. the [sic]s are obvious and implicit.
i've seen this mistake made over and over again:people take as axiomatic the idea that making any application 3D makes it better. running-around-shooting-people games: yes. modeling the interior of a spaceflight cockpit: yes. doing a walkthrough of your proposed new corporate super-campus: arguably. demonstrating introductory physics: not really; it's better illustrated in 2D. archiving/curating paintings, collaborating on 2D documents, video/voice conferencing: no! many media are only damaged by the translation into 3D, yet there's a persistent unspoken assumption that if you take something and make it 3D, it will be better.
look at the "five key aspects" of wonderland quoted by the article and ask yourself if you really want a 3D application between you and the feature:
* Virtual meeting participants can use voice to communicate with one another;
* If necessary, participants can connect to a Wonderland meeting via telephone;
* Private conversations between participants are possible in a virtual meeting;
* Participants can share applications; and
* Anyone can try out Wonderland (see instructions below).
each of these are nifty features, certainly, but benefit nothing from 3D. the single possible exception is sharing applications, but unless the application you're sharing is fundamentally 3D in nature, you'd be way ahead researching ways to collaborate in good old native 2D. the example from the article is editing an OpenOffice document. It's just foolish to take a nice 2D OpenOffice document and couch it in a 3D world full of annoying perspective, occlusions, camera controls, rendering artifacts, and low framerates.
The main thing which a shared 3D world *can* provide is a sense of presence. If i were distributing the research dollars for improved collaborative apps, i'd aim them first at a generic collaboration framework for plain old 2D apps, and second on something sexy and possibly 3D, to provide a sense of presence, with just bindings out to the 2D framework.
water sublimation doesn't need to be exotic; it happens in your freezer all the time. you know how ice cubes gradually lose their sharp edges and finally become just little puddle-shaped lumps in the bottom of the ice try ? that's sublimation too.
for the first part, according to wikipedia, "the highest confirmed spectroscopic redshift of a galaxy is... z = 6.96.", and if i interpret the formulas there correctly, emittedWavelength = observedWavelength / (z + 1), so if this thing has the maximum known redshift and the observed wavelength is say 550nm, then the emitted wavelength would be about 70nm or 7e-6cm, so pretty well in the UV.
funny, i read yesterday's article about the continuing rise of p2p file sharing and thought "okay, i'm a big media entity. given that i clearly can no longer control the distribution of my product, and furthermore that interspersed commercials are easily skipped or edited out, how am i going to keep making lots of money ?". the most obvious answer is exactly this: integrate the advertisements further into the content itself.
ie, open content distribution results in shittier popular content.
Suppose I'm used to yellow lights lasting 6 seconds, and I know I can get through the light in 5 seconds. Now the city changes the yellow light length to 3 seconds, without warning. Do I have a choice then?
While i see your point, you seem to be arguing that motorists should rely on their previous experience with a light's pattern when driving, which seems like a very dangerous precedent. Drivers should assume that the conditions & patterns of their daily drives can change without warning.
however, notice that if an object is going *faster* than the speed of light, the nasty divide-by-zero goes away, and you have a nice, happy, and imaginary value for the momentum.
well that's sort of the magic of evolution, innit ? things don't evolve "to" [wards] anything. they mutate and if the mutation yields more vigourous offspring, then the mutation persists. kinda tautologically. so if these nepenthes can digest a small rat, then evolutionary-whoo-hoos for them and their offspring!
check this photo from the article.
it's clearly consistent with the rock pushing a considerable build-up, then changing course about ninety degrees and leaving the build-up behind.
the style-sheet or whatever for/. summaries should contain a mandatory "[sic]" at the end of the body. which this one in particular needs like seven of.
i love to think about how human culture might have developed if our orbital circumstances were different.
this is a great example - if we'd developed on a planet which had a single body always hanging in the same place in the sky, such as earth viewed from the moon, and which clearly waxed and waned in synchronicity with our own month-long day and night, it would be pretty unlikely we'd think of ourselves as the center of the universe with all things orbiting us.
or if say good old earth had more than one significant sattelite, we might not be so entrenched in the moon/sun, light/dark, yin/yang duality thing we've got going on.
oh but this is neat, if you use english units and assume that 1 AU = 1 inch, then you get (1 inch / 1 au) * 41 light years = 40.9 miles, which is kinda convenient !
ie, if AUs are Inches, just change Light Years to Miles.
my guess would be that this is the infamous Step Two for the BitTorrent Gnomes.
they probably have some new technology which they think is a substantial improvement over BT 1.0, and which can make them a bit of money before it's reverse-engineered.
Slashdot Mirror
well technically, sure: [sic] is what the grammar has to deal with quoting something grammatically incorrect.
but i'm not sure it's the right approach in this case, for a few reasons:
* it's often interpreted as assy
* if you're quoting a significant amount of this material, you'd have like hundreds of [sic]s in your own text, and that's just dumb. the alternative might be just putting in footnote asterisks and have the footnote be "[sic]".
i'm inclined to go w/ the summary's summary, which is to just quote it. the [sic]s are obvious and implicit.
what would david foster wallace do ?
are you hitting on me ?
in the lab you get things cold by pouring liquid nitrogen on them; that doesn't seem feasible w/ miles of line, so what's the method ? peltiers ?
that's a good definition of informative.
i've seen this mistake made over and over again:people take as axiomatic the idea that making any application 3D makes it better. running-around-shooting-people games: yes. modeling the interior of a spaceflight cockpit: yes. doing a walkthrough of your proposed new corporate super-campus: arguably. demonstrating introductory physics: not really; it's better illustrated in 2D. archiving/curating paintings, collaborating on 2D documents, video/voice conferencing: no! many media are only damaged by the translation into 3D, yet there's a persistent unspoken assumption that if you take something and make it 3D, it will be better.
look at the "five key aspects" of wonderland quoted by the article and ask yourself if you really want a 3D application between you and the feature:
* Virtual meeting participants can use voice to communicate with one another;
* If necessary, participants can connect to a Wonderland meeting via telephone;
* Private conversations between participants are possible in a virtual meeting;
* Participants can share applications; and
* Anyone can try out Wonderland (see instructions below).
each of these are nifty features, certainly, but benefit nothing from 3D. the single possible exception is sharing applications, but unless the application you're sharing is fundamentally 3D in nature, you'd be way ahead researching ways to collaborate in good old native 2D. the example from the article is editing an OpenOffice document. It's just foolish to take a nice 2D OpenOffice document and couch it in a 3D world full of annoying perspective, occlusions, camera controls, rendering artifacts, and low framerates.
The main thing which a shared 3D world *can* provide is a sense of presence. If i were distributing the research dollars for improved collaborative apps, i'd aim them first at a generic collaboration framework for plain old 2D apps, and second on something sexy and possibly 3D, to provide a sense of presence, with just bindings out to the 2D framework.
thank you.
water sublimation doesn't need to be exotic; it happens in your freezer all the time.
you know how ice cubes gradually lose their sharp edges and finally become just little puddle-shaped lumps in the bottom of the ice try ? that's sublimation too.
and you think that's not a reason to ask them here ?
for the first part, ... z = 6.96.", and if i interpret the formulas there correctly, emittedWavelength = observedWavelength / (z + 1), so if this thing has the maximum known redshift and the observed wavelength is say 550nm, then the emitted wavelength would be about 70nm or 7e-6cm, so pretty well in the UV.
according to wikipedia, "the highest confirmed spectroscopic redshift of a galaxy is
for the second part, atoms emit across a wide range of wavelengths.
so it's more a matter of how much energy is driving the emission.
.. but the experience is transcendent.
funny, i read yesterday's article about the continuing rise of p2p file sharing and thought "okay, i'm a big media entity. given that i clearly can no longer control the distribution of my product, and furthermore that interspersed commercials are easily skipped or edited out, how am i going to keep making lots of money ?". the most obvious answer is exactly this: integrate the advertisements further into the content itself.
ie,
open content distribution results in shittier popular content.
Suppose I'm used to yellow lights lasting 6 seconds, and I know I can get through the light in 5 seconds. Now the city changes the yellow light length to 3 seconds, without warning. Do I have a choice then?
While i see your point, you seem to be arguing that motorists should rely on their previous experience with a light's pattern when driving, which seems like a very dangerous precedent. Drivers should assume that the conditions & patterns of their daily drives can change without warning.
imaginary numbers play fine at a surface level w/ lots of physics equations.
for example,
the reason we're often told an object can't travel at the speed of light is that it would then acquire infinite energy,
because the energy (momentum) of an object is proportional to 1 / [sqrt(1 - (velocity^2 / the speed of light^2))],
so if velocity == speed of light, then momentum would be proportional to 1/0, aka infinite.
however, notice that if an object is going *faster* than the speed of light,
the nasty divide-by-zero goes away, and you have a nice, happy, and imaginary value for the momentum.
as subject, despite using the word withhold as two words. ;)
well that's sort of the magic of evolution, innit ?
things don't evolve "to" [wards] anything. they mutate and if the mutation yields more vigourous offspring, then the mutation persists. kinda tautologically.
so if these nepenthes can digest a small rat, then evolutionary-whoo-hoos for them and their offspring!
check this photo from the article.
it's clearly consistent with the rock pushing a considerable build-up, then changing course about ninety degrees and leaving the build-up behind.
as subject!
the style-sheet or whatever for /. summaries should contain a mandatory "[sic]" at the end of the body.
which this one in particular needs like seven of.
i love to think about how human culture might have developed if our orbital circumstances were different.
this is a great example - if we'd developed on a planet which had a single body always hanging in the same place in the sky, such as earth viewed from the moon, and which clearly waxed and waned in synchronicity with our own month-long day and night, it would be pretty unlikely we'd think of ourselves as the center of the universe with all things orbiting us.
or if say good old earth had more than one significant sattelite, we might not be so entrenched in the moon/sun, light/dark, yin/yang duality thing we've got going on.
oh but this is neat,
if you use english units and assume that 1 AU = 1 inch,
then you get (1 inch / 1 au) * 41 light years = 40.9 miles,
which is kinda convenient !
ie,
if AUs are Inches, just change Light Years to Miles.
i love how google handles unit conversions so nicely.
i say neither pish nor posh but woot and woot !
my guess would be that this is the infamous Step Two for the BitTorrent Gnomes.
they probably have some new technology which they think is a substantial improvement over BT 1.0,
and which can make them a bit of money before it's reverse-engineered.
what happens in law when Decision C is made based on earlier Decisions A and B,
and then Decision A is reversed ?
no, it's not a difference in lighting.
the central squares are in fact the same color on your monitor, (pretty close to hex: 647316).
this is very similar to this famous color constancy illusion.