|
is that a valid code, or just another hanging chad?
after many otherwise intelligent sounding suggestions that achieved nothing the nice folks at Technet said the only solution was to low level format my hard disk then reinstall my signature. Sadly, this still didn't fix the issue!
|
|
|
|
|
Learn to code for the Abacus and you'll find there are no OS problems.
Performance - unless you are 70 years old and Chinese - is pretty uninspiring though.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
reminds me so much of how linux and similar used to be 15, 20, even 30 years ago. (SCO unix)
weird stuff happens, and there will be a fix, it'll just take:
- some searching and downloading patches (warnings that it's a beta - last update 2014),
- running scripts and commands and moving things about
- download some more, if that didn't work try this other one, or this other other one
- more commands, move this, rename that one, change permissions over there, edit something...
.... and a 29 hour day or so later "not going till sleep yet, almost there" it'll be mostly half fixed.
but with age comes wisdom.
... bugger all that farting about, I'll just find another one that just works* as-is, out of the box.
If mint is working fine for you why change?
Why waste work/play time trying something else when the goal is to work/play?
For me lubuntu (ubuntu with less bundled apps) works fine - mint would have been the next one I tried if ubuntu didn't - but it did, so I simply stopped looking/testing. That job was done. who knows, mint probably world have worked too, dunno, not going to waste time just to find out.
* "it just works" - why apple succeeded back in Job's days.
and: "it works most of the time as long [as you don't push or run it too hard]" - why ordinary users should stick to windows. (it's true I dislike windows, but I also do not deny it's by far the best choice for 99% of the sheep out there.)
wait for it ... wait for it ...
...
too bad! you missed it!
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: For me lubuntu (ubuntu with less bundled apps) works fine
Same here.
|
|
|
|
|
i installed without extra apps, but not a special distro.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
The reason for ubuntu was mint doesn't have near as large an install base meaning the odds of me finding a fix for a problem with ubuntu is much higher. That's one of the reasons
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
My own personal experience?
With Windows, pray there's already a fix, and if so, go ahead and install it. Otherwise, you're SOL and whatever you're seeing could very well never get fixed and there's nothing you can do about it. So move on and find another way to accomplish whatever you're trying to do.
With Linux, you're never out of options for things you can try to fix some problem yourself--everything's open. The solution just depends on how much time you're willing to invest, and you could very well get to a point where you'll have to explain to Linus Torvalds why his code is wrong and he should use your fix. It's a double-edged sword.
[TL;DR]:
Windows: It's Microsoft's problem, wait for them to fix it.
Linux: You can make it your problem.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all,
I need help in a math issue:
Let's say I have 3 measuring devices which give me a distance.
Mechanically those 3 sensors are mounted more or less in the right position, but we can't be sure of the angle neither position the measuring devices are mounted.
I have 3 Mastering parts (3 circumferences of a known radius) that I can mount into the machine at any moment and that I want to use to calibrate the system.
The measuring error of the 3 measuring devices can be dismissed.
this is a small diagram to represent the problem: https://i.stack.imgur.com/a2AyG.png[^]
2 known master circumferences give me a distance [d1] between circumferences (d1 = radius 1 - radius 2).
For each circumference the sensor will give me a different measure m1 and m2.
Given the difference between r1-r2 and m2-m1 could I find the angle in which the measuring device is mounted?
Summarizing:
2 master circumferences mounted in the same center.
3 external measuring devices mounted completely unaligned with the center.
I don't know the measuring devices position.
The red lines in the drawing are the vector lines the measuring device measures would be placed into.
The real measures (in this drawing) would be the distance from the sensor to the position where the red line crosses a circle.
Any help will be welcome...
Thank you all...
modified 3-Feb-20 10:43am.
|
|
|
|
|
Joan M wrote: With 2 circumferences of a known radius I would know the distance between both (Radius 1 [r1] (big) - Radius 2 [r2] (small)).
Surely that will depend on where the two devices are situated? Or, are you saying that you know the distance between them? I am having difficulty picturing the actual setup of the devices, and the item they are trying to measure.
|
|
|
|
|
The 3 measuring devices are mounted around the circular part.
But I don't know the exact position and orientation of the measuring devices because the mechanical engineers can't guarantee it.
I need to find the position and angle of the 3 measuring devices given the known circular parts and the measures the devices take.
Circular parts are always mounted in the same center position.
modified 3-Feb-20 6:24am.
|
|
|
|
|
Joan M wrote: The 3 measuring devices are mounted around the circular part.
What does that mean; the circular part of what? I really think we need a picture.
|
|
|
|
|
https://i.stack.imgur.com/a2AyG.png[^]
You are super right, sorry...
You can see more explanations in the original question just under the link itself.
Thanks!
modified 3-Feb-20 10:44am.
|
|
|
|
|
Unless the devices are all measuring to the same known point in the circle you do not have any way of relating the values to each other.
|
|
|
|
|
I know it's Monday morning, and I'm still MucusMan: The Human Hagfish but I need a diagram to work out what the heck you are asking about there ...
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
https://i.stack.imgur.com/a2AyG.png[^]
2 circumferences mounted in the same center.
3 external measuring devices mounted completely unaligned with the center.
I don't know the measuring devices position.
But I get a distance from the measuring device to the circular master part mounted.
And I have 2 master circular parts.
The red lines in the drawing are the vector lines the measuring device measures would be placed into.
modified 3-Feb-20 10:44am.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, if I had the xy would be easy, I don't know the position of the measuring device neither the angle it is mounted...
|
|
|
|
|
Then I'm not sure what you're asking is possible. you need some way to get 2 points out of this to get an angle. That's the minimum you need (and the 3rd point is implicit)
So your task now is to divine two points. Somehow.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
yes... 
|
|
|
|
|
maybe try printing out your drawing and just trying to use a pen to draw the triangles you need. Then see where the points fall. From there, see where the points are in relation to the circles and see if that can't help you. It's a shot in the dark but it's the best i got.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
What I do not understand is what distances those 3 devices measuring...
What is the significance of endpoint of the red lines in the drawing?
"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012
|
|
|
|
|
The measured distances are the length of the red lines when they cross the circles.
|
|
|
|
|
Like a beam that hits the surface of the circle and you have the distance without the angle?
"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, in that case is a mechanical measuring device, but yes, the red line would represent a beam that measure the distance, but I don't know the incidence angle.
Thank you for spending time on that, I'm sure my super explanations are not making it easy to understand it.
|
|
|
|
|
Some observations:
1. Replacing the circle (disk) with an other one will not change the distance the devices measure as long as the circles are on the same plain...
2. There is an option when one or more of the devices will not hit the circle's surface (infinite or error)...
3. There is a whole sphere for each point on the circle's surface that will return the same measurement...
"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
