## January 14th, 2003

### (no subject)

Every once in a while I decide I really want to have kids (like, in the future, not this second).

Every once in a while I change my mind.

This is a very strong argument.

I'm not sure which side it's an argument for, though.

### (no subject)

Signs that this lyrics site isn't top-notch:

It includes both "Ex Girlfriend" and "Ex-Girlfriend", as well as both "Bathwater" and "Bath Water".
Every single word is capitalized.
It tries to install Gator on your computer. (popped up while I was writing this, no less. :P)

### (no subject)

You know the gods are meddling with your life when even marnanel seems to be hinting at something.

(Explanations available on request, maybe. :P)

(Anyone who can figure out what I'm talking about without an explanation gets kudos.)
• Current Mood
amused

### (no subject)

AAAAGH

just when I think I'm making progress, it turns out that my MST implementation doesn't work because the shortest paths aren't necessarily trees! Now I have to go implement an approximated Steiner tree.

This is just going to be one of those days.
• Current Mood
frustrated

### (no subject)

For those who are curious, here's a basic description of the current algorithmic problem I'm working on:

Take an arbitrary surface. Let's use an orange peel with a cut in it as an example. Spread it out and flatten it onto a surface. Any places that resist too much (i.e. have too much curviness to flatten well), make a tear from the edge to that point to relax some of the tension. Repeat until it's adequately flat.

Remember this has to work on *any* surface (Platemail, anyone? Orc skin, perhaps? Topographic map of Nepal?) and you see why this can be rather difficult.

It gets even harder when you want to make tears in places that won't be very noticable.

### (no subject)

vtst[ instr.second.first.first ].second.second = instr.second.second;

Time to build classes instead of trying to construct data formats out of pair<>s. :P

### (no subject)

<Fecimann> that site doesn't give exact answers, but you can check...39 degrees is .680678408 radians
<Jason_R> The book says to convert degrees to radians you multiply by pi/180
<Jason_R> if I multiply 39 x pi/180
<Jason_R> I get 39pi/180
<Jason_R> which is 13pi/60
<meingtsil> nothing wrong there
<Jason_R> how do you get from 13pi/60 to .68?