|
|
 | | Re: Couldn't resist
|
| (...) I like the LEGO Castle set but I do not have the time (today) to speak with her. Maybe I can later? Please tell Shiri I said hello, is that acceptable, Larry? Thank you, Larry. Jesse Long (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Couldn't resist
|
| (...) I read them in an electronic mail account but not necessarily the messages. I simply type on Lugnet, then they send me a copy of the letter and I post the letter, then I take the Yahoo copy of the letter and I delete that copy of the letter (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Couldn't resist
|
| (...) I think it is safe to say that Shiri (she's of the female persuasion) does not hate you. I doubt that she hates anybody, actually. Since this seems to be the "isn't Shiri great" subsection of the thread, let me add my kudos, she does a lot of (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Couldn't resist
|
| (...) Shiri is a woman who hangs out in the Castle sub-theme more than Space. You can check over there to see what she's made. I haven't made a castle in years.... (...) Sounds like severe weather indeed. However, you need to pay closer attention to (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Couldn't resist
|
| (...) I am simply wondering why Shiri hates me. I was joking in part of the letter, which also means I also probably watch too much wrestling. I also have never seen any of the work that Shiri has made and simply wanted to know if Shiri (not sure (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Couldn't resist
|
| (...) What's the deal with that Shiri person? She never has a bad thing to say about anyone, she's always got some positive contribution to make, and her posts are uniformly well-reasoned. I'm tired of her consistency and good-spiritedness--she's (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Couldn't resist
|
| (...) Jesse, What does this have to do with the current thread? I also hope that you are joking (in which case you should be posting to .fun). Shiri is a good builder and a large contributor to the community. I'm a little confused as to where this (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Couldn't resist
|
| (...) Am I evil or annoying, Shiri? I am simply wanting to know and I want to know if you have built any LEGO sets of your own in your spare time. (We are evil! In-deed! Kaientai, WWF) Jesse Long (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Gallery speed
|
| (...) I'd go for amalgamating the two steps into one query - something like: SELECT id, name, icon_information, etc. FROM file_parent WHERE file_parent.id IN (SELECT file_parent from files) This avoids the problem of having to query for DISTINCT (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Gallery speed
|
| (...) This probably wouldn't help much - the cursor isn't indexed, so the SELECT DISTINCT would be slow. A better way to split it (assuming your back-end has a decent optimiser) may be to create an index on file_parent + file_modify_time, then do: (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Gallery speed
|
| Kevin Loch wrote in message ... (...) 24 (...) Might be quicker to do it in 2 stages, first the line above without the DISTINCT into a cursor, then do a SELECT DISTINCT from that. SELECT file_parent FROM files ORDER BY file_modify_time DESC into (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Gallery speed
|
| (...) One speed-up would be to store the modify date/time of each folder (updated when a file is added / updated / deleted) and then query directly against the folders. It also depends on your back-end query optimiser - even if you're only selecting (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Gallery speed
|
| I think I've fixed the painfully slow performance of the "recent" page. There were some indexes missing in the database that really should have been there. It loads reasonably fast now (~.8 seconds unless the machine is really busy). If there are (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Couldn't resist
|
| (...) As regard the math, I wouldn't know where to start, but surely even if the moon we're sitting on the earths surface the earth would still exert more force than the moon so you wouldn't be weightless. I don't know if you mean't, at the point (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Couldn't resist
|
| I should probably try to solve the problem myself, it'll help as prep for my college entrance exam. ;-) (...) Hmm, not bad at all - that gives people time enough to *realize* it's happening, broadcast it all over the world, and let everyone go (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Couldn't resist
|
| (...) Actually, when calculating the acceleration and taking the distance into account, it's not so bad. For my first attempt at solving this, I tried converting gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy. The resulting integral was (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Couldn't resist
|
| (...) Umm... It's not a poke. honest. Your value for the Earth-moon distance is off by a factor of ten. which means your answer should be 2.25ish days. And... The force of the moon's gravity doesn't really enter into this. We know Force = (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Couldn't resist
|
| (...) Calculus, yet another form of mathematics that I am unable to do in my life. Jesse Long (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Couldn't resist
|
| (...) Then it should be 2:26. Assuming that the relative acceleration between the Earth and the Moon is the sum of their local accelerations due to gravity. And assuming that acceleration is directly proportional to the force of gravity. Ie, when (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Couldn't resist
|
| (...) That'd be dy/dx = 2x. (I knew that calculus'd come in handy one day!) ROSCO (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
|
