On reflection, I need to cut down a dimension from my calculation as well.

The minimal and maximal heights can be replaced by the speed (scalar) of the satellite when crossing the equator.

So 5D at most.

Shachar

GP assumes that the Earth's mass is the Earth's mass (i.e. - an orbital around Earth). I am not aware of any affect the mass of the satellite has on its trajectory, so I'm not sure why you included it.

Which leaves us, in your analysis, three parameters. Vector of position, vector of velocity, and a time scalar. Let's call it a trajectory triplet. This results in 7D trajectory space. Those three are not, however, orthogonal (or even linearly independent).

Just as an isolated example, take a certain satellite triplet. Then take that same satellite's triplet a few seconds later. None of the values of the triplet are the same, and yet it obviously describes the same trajectory.

I am not an astrophysics, so I will not claim absolute knowledge in this field. My limited understanding suggests that all trajectories pass around the equator. Furthermore, for a satellite doing a perfect circle, the speed (scalar) is a direct function of its height. We can, therefor, narrow down the trajectory parameters to:
Height when over the equator
degree of elevation above said height
degree of descent below said height
angle crossing the equator
two phase scalars (one of accounting where above the equator we are talking about, and the other for accounting the possibility of two satellites following each other in the same trajectory).

That's 6 scalars (as opposed to your 2 vectors and two scalars). As far as I can tell (but see disclaimer above), those six are orthogonal. I am not 100% sure the two phases are, indeed, orthogonal, but I am fairly sure you can arbitrarily change any one (or more) of the others and still get a valid and different trajectory.

Still not one dimensional (not sure where that came from), but at least one dimension less than you claimed it was.

Shachar

Please do read George Orwell's 1984. You just described its main features.

Shachar

Assuming the click-wrap isn't binding, then I don't see how this can be legal even in one party consent jurisdictions.

Even if the click-wrap is binding, it is only binding to the person who "Agreed" to it. If I'm not allowed to implant a recording device in the room that will listen to your conversations with someone else when I'm not there, I don't see how I have the authority to let someone else do the same.

Of course, IANAL.

Shachar

As far as I know (IANAL), anyone can bring a civil suit against the police department. A specific cop has pretty much complete immunity from civil suits. The only thing that can touch a specific cop is internal affairs and the DA, as mentioned by GP.

It is true that should a specific cop start causing too much money lost through civil suits, it is likely that he/she will be fired. Again, however, it is up to the department to decide, not an independent jury.

Shachar

No, that's not a correct statement. The indirect costs may not be specifically for a specific Surface unit, but the Surface division does have indirect costs that are specifically its own costs. This means that there are, indeed, indirect costs that are specifically Surface's.

The Surface factory pays rent, taxes, electricity and utility. These are all indirect costs, and they are all specifically for Surface.

What's more, the number of units sold is crucial. If you only sold a million units and the gross profit per unit is $5 (and it is, likely, less), then it doesn't take the indirect expenses to be particularly high for the division to be running at a net loss.

Shachar

Your comment is definitely part of the 82% rule.

It says that 75.3% of statistics people quote are made up on the spot.

Shachar

I didn't say that was okay. I said that was Ireland's rationale.

If memory serves me well, Cayman Islands have a similar shtick. No income tax for either corporations or residents, but lots of taxes on product consumption (customs etc.)

It is the trade offs that countries do to attract the "right" type of economy.

Shachar

As far as Ireland is concerned, that is exactly it.

Google, Facebook and Microsoft (to name three, I'm fairly sure there are more) hold huge development and support centers in Ireland. While corporate tax in Ireland is low, income tax is fairly high. The Ireland government isn't losing from this deal.

Shachar

FTFY

To the best of my knowledge, no one has won multiple Nobels in a single field.

Okay, after checking that statement, it is not true. Frederick Sanger has won two Nobel prizes in Chemistry. He won it alone, in 1958, "for his work on the structure of proteins, especially that of insulin", and again in 1980, with Walter Gilbert, "for their contributions concerning the determination of base sequences in nucleic acids" (source).

It seems to me that the Nobel committee does not like to award the same prize twice. I think, had Frederick done the nucleic research on his own, he would not have won the second one. I think the committee only awarded him the second prize because not doing so would have denied Walter Gilbert the prize (and awarding only Walter a prize for joint work would be strange).

In that respect, Einstein got only one Nobel because he did his research alone.

Shachar

The action against Microsoft was based on anti-competitive acts, founded on the assumption (validated by the court) that Microsoft is a monopoly.

This action is based on strict copyright. Oracle is not alleging that Google are trying to harm Java, just that they didn't have the right to do what they did.

Shachar

Upon re-reading, I realize that parent might be joking. Still, it is important to note that Unicomp do, in fact, cater for the Model-M fanatics too.

Shachar

Did you buy the full size or what they call the "space saver"?

I am typing this on the space saver, and I can, indeed, flex it (if I try hard enough) by a few millimeters. For me, the reduced weight is a plus, though.

If you consider that a minus, you should go with the "Classic" version. I doubt you'll see any difference, USB and extra keys aside.

Shachar

Smart pointers in C++ are rarely larger in size than normal pointers.

std::unique_ptr has the same sizeof of void *. std::shared_ptr has the same sizeof as void *, but adds another allocation. Then again, boost::intrusive_ptr has the same sizeof as void *, does reference counting, does not require virtual functions in the destination class and carries no extra allocations (but does require that the class being indexed be aware it has references).

Shachar