Slashdot Mirror

Already doing this, manually, in part as a protest of the price hiking practice, effectively nullifying it. Don't want to spend too much time on any specific streaming service anyway. Pausing all streaming services is helpful to concentrate on book reading too, for those of us daring to try to make a dent in the reading list.

What I'd really like to see happen though is for the content to become entirely disconnected from the distribution channels, i.e. streaming service brands, DVD & Blue-Ray manufacturers and sellers etc., so that we can get real competition for each level of the products and their delivery, rather than the current walled gardens (also known as vertical integration) where every streaming service put out seriously flawed player apps, for example (any competent software developer will understand). The barrier to market entry for new players is now artificially high, which further weakens the market and slows the rate of innovation.

We have much better competition in other markets, most notably perhaps in the mobile phone system. For digital content, though, few of the hard-earned lessons from making the other markets work properly have been applied so far.

Eventually the EU will fix this, too, as it always does. Maybe we then can actually deliver the full potential of the technology we developed, with full multi-lingual subtitle translations and optional dubbed audio of all content, without regional limitations.

Just about every day I notice to my dismay that some content on cable TV that might otherwise be worthy of my time has been dubbed and the original soundtrack deleted rather than kept as an option. I frequently switch off instead. The similar problem exists on eg. Netflix, who leaves out seasons from the European market, although they are available from Netflix for the U.S. market - it makes no sense. An example of this on Netflix is the series The Good Place, where only season one is available in the EU. Season 2, while available in the U.S. now, was briefly available in the EU, but removed for some unexplained reason. Perhaps Netflix has some reason for this, such as not wanting to dub or translate the subtitles for a number of languages, but given that I don't even care about the translation for most shows anyway, and I am hardly alone in this, just let customers pick content from any language or region as they see fit instead of reimplementing the tower of Babel in digital imprimatur form for audiovisual content.

The big picture is that this harms free movement in the EU by forming a kind of double cultural lock-in. You can't easily, in advance, familiarise yourself with a foreign language on a daily basis despite that the technology itself actually allows for it, and when you move to another region for studies or work, you are suddenly shut out from the content languages you know from before. It's all counter-productive, not to mention counter to the spirit of EU Fundamental Rights that include, in Article 45, the Freedom of movement and residence.

Which appears to be rather disputed.

In the pissy little Salon article from 1999, sure. The internet wasn't as good then and it was much harder to search for stuff. The thing is, her notes actually exist and you an go and look at them yourself and see the program with your eyes.

And even people claiming that she *did* write that one

She did write one. You can go and read this for yourself.

Finally, the article is clearly biased.

So there's an introduction and then follows with:

Reading Ada's letters, as published in Toole's book, we're treated to a very different Ada. This one is a mother...

In articles about male scientific luminaries, they basically never lead with descriptions of fatherhood and family life. But when it's about a femal one, that's the first thing to come up. That makes the article seem very very biased from the otuset. It then goes on about affairs and whatnot. Who the fuck cares?

Show me the code!

http://www.fourmilab.ch/babbag...

"Is Autodesk on the right course?" "Is Autodesk acting like a leader of an industry, seeking to create new markets and broaden the use of its products?" Ah John Walker, you asked questions, but not about this. https://www.fourmilab.ch/autof...

Einstein dis which led him to derive E=mc2 which no one else ever did and that was a fundamental difference in how humans viewed the Universe.

I'm sorry you don't understand that Einstein wasn't first to derive E=mc2. The fundamental contribution of Einstein in this area was the full rejection of a preferred frame of reference, not E=mc2 which was previously derived and well known (by Hasenöhrl and Poincare). This is why I mentioned that it is hard to appreciate Einstein's version of E=mc2 without ideas about inertia and radiation.

General Relativity is icing on the cake, the math may be harder but the concept of bent "space-time" is far easy to think about and demonstrate to little children. Again fundamentally changing human understanding of the Universe.

Although you might think you are "demo-ing" bent space-time to children, nearly all demonstrations made to children are mere analogies, which do not effectively demo the principles at all https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.389... http://www.fourmilab.ch/gravit... (IMO no better than a scientific-like "demo" that applies constant force to an object to maintain a constant velocity and thus confusing the student about F=ma because of friction).

So arguably Einstein helped fundamentally change our view of the Universe than any single human before or since. This is why the world knows Einstein and o my a handful know who Lorentz and Hilbert were.

Certainly Einstein helped to change our view of the universe, but the reason *why* Poincare, Lorenz and Hilbert are less known to the masses is that they weren't as good at PR as Einstein.

The real guidelines can be found here. The core (for adults):

• All adults should avoid inactivity. Some physical activity is better than none, and adults who participate in any amount of physical activity gain some health benefits.
• For substantial health benefits, adults should do at least 150 minutes (2 hours and 30 minutes) a week of moderate-intensity, or 75 minutes (1 hour and 15 minutes) a week of vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity, or an equivalent combination of moderate- and vigorous-intensity aerobic activity. Aerobic activity should be performed in episodes of at least 10 minutes, and preferably, it should be spread throughout the week.
• For additional and more extensive health benefits, adults should increase their aerobic physical activity to 300 minutes (5 hours) a week of moderate-intensity, or 150 minutes a week of vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity, or an equivalent combination of moderate- and vigorous-intensity activity. Additional health benefits are gained by engaging in physical activity beyond this amount.
• Adults should also do muscle-strengthening activities that are moderate or high intensity and involve all major muscle groups on 2 or more days a week, as these activities provide additional health benefits.

TL;DR -

If you are completely inactive, change that ASAP. If you can only take 5 steps at a brisk pace, take 5 steps today, then tomorrow try for 6 and keep increasing until you are walking 10 minutes twice each day.

If you are somewhat active, keep track of your time each week and increase it until you reach a minimum of 150 minutes. Then seriously consider increasing it to 300 minutes.

Also, everyone, everyone should lift weights. Do compound lifts (squat, deadlift, bench press, upright press, barbell row, power cleans, etc) using free weights (not machines). If you are an absolute beginner, get a copy of Starting Strength (highly recommended by just about everyone) or google StrongLifts which is possibly a knock-off, and possibly inferior in some trivial way. Go to ExRx right now and bookmark it, you'll refer back to it often, I promise.

Alternative to daily walking (you might need to walk a little once a week to fill in the minutes) - The hacker diet exercise plan (based on 5BX).

Well, it's never actually happened to me, personally, but that's because I heeded well the warnings I was given during the presentation that was mandatory for all those assigned to the male gender at birth to attend during university orientation. Attendance for womyn-born-womyn was optional.

For example, I was specifically warned to not ever be seen within 20 feet of any womyn-born-womyn after dark.

That worked out pretty well for me. I was also told that if I even thought about using the restroom of the gender I look like (female), I'd be expelled for attempted rape, and my transcript would be permanently sealed. I hadn't even asked if I'd be able to use the womyn-born-womyn bathroom! It was merely what the feminist club on campus assumed. I've never felt a compelling need to use a specific restroom, since I have no idea what the fuck is in the women's room that isn't in the men's room.

Rather than waste more money on a university that was obviously run by transphobic feminists, I dropped out. I only realized later that I probably had a pretty good Title IX lawsuit (focusing on the sexist orientation policy--far be it from me to attempt to press the bathroom issue these days), but only recently have I had the resources to even think about starting a lawsuit with a university. Oh well.

BUT! Why the fuck did I just try to communicate something to you? Am I fucking stupid? Yes, I must be fucking stupid. Let me FTFY!

Be careful, or "welcoming and inclusive" becomes sexual harassment.

No it doesn't. Whatever it was you did to upset that particular cisgendered woman, whether it was telling her that she didn't get the right answer on her algebra homework because she didn't apply the theorem correctly, or whether it was telling her that her computer program didn't produce the correct answer because she didn't perform her analysis correctly, and because I'm a sexually frustrated white night who's desperate for pussy, I'm totally not going to quote Ada Lovelace:

The Analytical Engine has no pretensions whatever to originate anything. It can do whatever we know how to order it to perform. It can follow analysis; but it has no power of anticipating any analytical relations or truths. Its province is to assist us in making available what we are already acquainted with.

So, since I'm convinced that I'm the One Good Man and how dare you imply that My Hunnies are less than perfect!!!, I'm totally not going to quote ADA LOVELACE HERSELF, nope!

Anyway, where was I. Right! You are only a sexual and financial object for womyn-born-womyn. You are an incomplete being that was not created with a womb. Therefore, you are, by all definition handed to me by Yahweh's alter ego, the goddess Diane, a completely useless being, completely useless at servicing womyn-born-womyn, no matter how capricious their needs, which is your sole reason for existence, so you deserve whatever came to you.

True, thermodynamics isn't very helpful when the problem is hunger. There's psychology to consider beyond the physics.

Unfortunately, being hungry goes hand-in-hand with dieting. I know some people say Atkins solves that problem, which may be true, but studies of Atkins dieters indicate that it really only works because it's a reduced-calorie diet, not because of the change in source of calories (fat, carb, protein).

So a 300 pound person, on average, will be 285 after a year on Weight Watchers and 292.5 after three years.

That's another thing, people think that they can put on the weight over ten years and lose it in one year. Need I say how unrealistic that is?

The trick is to get on a downard trend and continue it for an extended period. The Hacker's Diet is one approach. I didn't use it but a friend of mine had good success with it.

Almost a quarter-century ago, people were suggesting that way to drive down launch costs: http://www.fourmilab.ch/docume...

It seems to me that it is a safe bet that the known limitations of Physics will never be overcome, to such an extent that we will be able to dominate the galaxy. I.e. FTL travel doesn't seem like it will ever be more than science fiction. Many phenomena are governed by a dipole curve, where things start slowly, then hit a tipping point where they rapidly accelerate until they reach a new level of stability. You see this in economics, in Physics / Chemistry, in the evolution of new species, etc.

Why are we alone then? If alien civilizations had arisen 1 billion years before ours, and developed technology beyond our dreams, wouldn't they at least leave a trail of some kind?

Something to consider is that radioactivity decreases with the age of the universe. There is a certain probability that a % of an element will be a radioactive isotope when such elements are created. Less and less heavy elements are being created as the universe ages, and existing ones decay. This means that life will arise more easily.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/docume...

I have a scrambled 100,000+ English word dictionary. I have a javascript script that I feed 100 random bits drawn from John Walker's Hotbits. The script produces 4 random words when taken together are at least 16 characters long. To remember the four words, I construct a single sentence story that says something about the site.

Since I have the source code which I run in a browser that has never seen the web, I don't have to trust the author - that's me - to keep my passwords secret. The only thing I need to trust are the 72 bits are what Walker says they are and that his site isn't recording the bits he's handing out. If it ever comes to thinking otherwise, I have a lava lamp. Yeah, I'm that old.

I only use the script on moderately and very important to secure like email and work. For sites that I don't care if someone pretends to be me, I use one word passwords.

There are 10^20 possible combinations . Adding a fifth word for banking cranks that up to 10^25 combinations. I can type quickly so 4-6 word phrases aren't a problem for me.

I suspect a clever cryptologists could find several weaknesses in the approach (etaoin shrdlu comes to mind) but I think the resulting pass phrase will defeat most attacks.

The problem wasn't the slow metabolism, that just means you have to eat less. The problem was, even after eating enough to give themselves energy, they still felt hungry.

In other words, they needed the hacker's diet, which takes into consideration the fact that your hunger doesn't match your eating needs.

Meh. I mean, look. Sometimes you've got a gaggle of SJWs who are trying to label you sexist because their program doesn't work or keeps producing the wrong output or even worse: you've written some SJW bitches a program that works just fine, but they keep giving it bad input!

There's nothing that shuts them up faster than quoting relevant parts from Lovelace's notes. Stright from Note G*:

The Analytical Engine has no pretensions whatever to originate anything. It can do whatever we know how to order it to perform. It can follow analysis; but it has no power of anticipating any analytical relations or truths. Its province is to assist us in making available what we are already acquainted with.

BAM! Let the fucking SJWs suck on that! No, programming isn't harder for the cisgendered hunnies because they have vaginas, it's harder for them because everyone keeps telling them the only reason they aren't programmers is because evil assigned male lizard people like me who have woman suits trying to invade female restrooms to rape have somehow hidden away the secret of programming because for some damned reason I've yet to fathom, I don't think women should be programmers! For fuck's sake! News to fucking me! I don't think women should be programmers! I NEVER KNEW THAT BEFORE! THANKS FOR TELLING ME HOW I REALLY FEEL AND ALSO CALLING ME A LIAR!

* Sketch of the Analytical Engine

Google "The Hacker's Diet." In it, John Walker explains the basics of how it's all about just doing the math every day. I lost 33 lbs last year with a slightly modified version of this method. When I tell people I lost weight, the first words, almost invariably, are, "What's your secret?"

When I say "I counted calories every day" they are underwhelmed. The only other "secret" is that you have to be willing to be -a little- hungry, but not starving.

Web edition: https://www.fourmilab.ch/hackd...

I lost 30lbs in 3 months. Never felt hungry, didn't count calories, didn't even change what I ate. I simply ate less. My dinner meals were basically either beef or chicken with rice almost every day of the week. While I did cut out snack foods (in fact I made sure to keep no snack food in the kitchen), I didn't stop drinking soda or sports drinks. Never starved myself, never went hungry; I ate until I didn't feel hungry then stopped. I also went from doing a workout designed to maintain conditioning and improve strength (I had just finished up my final season of college football) to a workout designed to improve cardiovascular activity and maintain muscle mass/strength. I weighed a little more than the lightest I had been in the last 10 years (which was my freshman year of high school) but was still skinnier than I had ever been.

The secret to weight loss is there is no secret. There's no magic formula, or algorithm you can plug numbers into, or a fad diet that will make the weight melt away. You simply have to decide on what your goal is: 1lb a week, 10lbs a month, 30lbs by the end of the year, whatever. Then you have to make the changes(severity of the changes depends on your goal): eat a little less, exercise a little more. Don't cut out foods you love, it will only make you want them more and eventually you will cheat; just have less of them. And lastly, you need to actually have the will and motivation to do it and stick with it. And I say this as someone who both got down to their ideal weight in only 3 months, but 7 years later is about 100lbs heavier than that ideal weight. I got down there, but didn't stick with it and eventually it slowly came back on. I am starting to slowly get the motivation to get back onto it though.

Of course, what worked for me may not work for people diagnosed with conditions that affect weight such as PCOS or thyroid issues.

Google "The Hacker's Diet." In it, John Walker explains the basics of how it's all about just doing the math every day. I lost 33 lbs last year with a slightly modified version of this method. When I tell people I lost weight, the first words, almost invariably, are, "What's your secret?"

When I say "I counted calories every day" they are underwhelmed. The only other "secret" is that you have to be willing to be -a little- hungry, but not starving.

Web edition: https://www.fourmilab.ch/hackd...

*sigh*

The difference engine. Really? Seriously?

Repeat after me: Ada Lovelace wrote a program for the Analytical Engine architecture.

I'm sure Babbage's Difference Engine is fascinating, but it can't be programmed. The architecture you're looking for is the Analytical Engine. At least get the basics right.

Here: A Sketch of the Analytical Engine. It has never actually been built, although I understand one of the mills almost was.

The woman page. (That's a joke, son.)

And finally, the table of contents in case I've missed something in my nerd rage.

In fairness, you can't go to see an Analytical Engine reconstruction., because there isn't one. So the best you can do is the Difference Engine, which, as you correctly point out, Ada had nothing to do with. It's still worth seeing. And it's in Mountain View, not Santa Clara...sorry, about that.

*sigh*

The difference engine. Really? Seriously?

Repeat after me: Ada Lovelace wrote a program for the Analytical Engine architecture.

I'm sure Babbage's Difference Engine is fascinating, but it can't be programmed. The architecture you're looking for is the Analytical Engine. At least get the basics right.

Here: A Sketch of the Analytical Engine. It has never actually been built, although I understand one of the mills almost was.

The woman page. (That's a joke, son.)

And finally, the table of contents in case I've missed something in my nerd rage.

In fairness, you can't go to see an Analytical Engine reconstruction., because there isn't one. So the best you can do is the Difference Engine, which, as you correctly point out, Ada had nothing to do with. It's still worth seeing. And it's in Mountain View, not Santa Clara...sorry, about that.

*sigh*

The difference engine. Really? Seriously?

Repeat after me: Ada Lovelace wrote a program for the Analytical Engine architecture.

I'm sure Babbage's Difference Engine is fascinating, but it can't be programmed. The architecture you're looking for is the Analytical Engine. At least get the basics right.

Here: A Sketch of the Analytical Engine. It has never actually been built, although I understand one of the mills almost was.

The woman page. (That's a joke, son.)

And finally, the table of contents in case I've missed something in my nerd rage.

In fairness, you can't go to see an Analytical Engine reconstruction., because there isn't one. So the best you can do is the Difference Engine, which, as you correctly point out, Ada had nothing to do with. It's still worth seeing. And it's in Mountain View, not Santa Clara...sorry, about that.

*sigh*

The difference engine. Really? Seriously?

Repeat after me: Ada Lovelace wrote a program for the Analytical Engine architecture.

I'm sure Babbage's Difference Engine is fascinating, but it can't be programmed. The architecture you're looking for is the Analytical Engine. At least get the basics right.

Here: A Sketch of the Analytical Engine. It has never actually been built, although I understand one of the mills almost was.

The woman page. (That's a joke, son.)

And finally, the table of contents in case I've missed something in my nerd rage.

In fairness, you can't go to see an Analytical Engine reconstruction., because there isn't one. So the best you can do is the Difference Engine, which, as you correctly point out, Ada had nothing to do with. It's still worth seeing. And it's in Mountain View, not Santa Clara...sorry, about that.

*sigh*

The difference engine. Really? Seriously?

Repeat after me: Ada Lovelace wrote a program for the Analytical Engine architecture.

I'm sure Babbage's Difference Engine is fascinating, but it can't be programmed. The architecture you're looking for is the Analytical Engine. At least get the basics right.

Here: A Sketch of the Analytical Engine. It has never actually been built, although I understand one of the mills almost was.

The woman page. (That's a joke, son.)

And finally, the table of contents in case I've missed something in my nerd rage.

*sigh*

The difference engine. Really? Seriously?

Repeat after me: Ada Lovelace wrote a program for the Analytical Engine architecture.

I'm sure Babbage's Difference Engine is fascinating, but it can't be programmed. The architecture you're looking for is the Analytical Engine. At least get the basics right.

Here: A Sketch of the Analytical Engine. It has never actually been built, although I understand one of the mills almost was.

The woman page. (That's a joke, son.)

And finally, the table of contents in case I've missed something in my nerd rage.

*sigh*

The difference engine. Really? Seriously?

Repeat after me: Ada Lovelace wrote a program for the Analytical Engine architecture.

I'm sure Babbage's Difference Engine is fascinating, but it can't be programmed. The architecture you're looking for is the Analytical Engine. At least get the basics right.

Here: A Sketch of the Analytical Engine. It has never actually been built, although I understand one of the mills almost was.

The woman page. (That's a joke, son.)

And finally, the table of contents in case I've missed something in my nerd rage.

*sigh*

The difference engine. Really? Seriously?

Repeat after me: Ada Lovelace wrote a program for the Analytical Engine architecture.

I'm sure Babbage's Difference Engine is fascinating, but it can't be programmed. The architecture you're looking for is the Analytical Engine. At least get the basics right.

Here: A Sketch of the Analytical Engine. It has never actually been built, although I understand one of the mills almost was.

The woman page. (That's a joke, son.)

And finally, the table of contents in case I've missed something in my nerd rage.

If you ever want to dispel the perception that scientists have become deceitful manipulators, you'll need to support the idea of communicating clearly.

What is clear for "the average person" would be needlessly redundant and boring for the scientists working in the same field. What is clear to the other scientists is, unfortunately, opaque to the average person. "Good writing" considers not only good grammar and spelling and punctuation, but an appreciation for the intended audience and their shared backgrounds. That means that "good writing" for the New York Times Science page is a lot different than good writing for PhysRev A.

Complaining that articles in PhysRev A are not understandable to the average person is like complaining that your car doesn't understand the molecular formula for gasoline. They aren't written for the average person.

The hallmark of a good science journalist is the ability to take the things the scientists tells her and then write it in a way her intended audience can understand. Some scientists can write at that level. The example given in a previous comment using Einstein's paper "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES" fails. For example: "Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good." If you don't know what is meant by "Newtonian mechanics" you are lost in the first sentence. If you think the "common people" know who Newton was or what "Newtonian mechanics" means, you're wrong.

Advocates citing scientific papers have been aggressively destroying what trust remains in scientific integrity.

Those advocates are most often NOT the people writing the papers. It is the advocates' fault that the arrogance reaches the common person, not the fault of the people writing the papers intended for other scientists to read.

For theoretical physics I think it is hopeless. There are just too man concepts that would take too long to introduce. I'm a PhD physicist and I can't read theoretical physics papers - not the jargon, but I'm just not comfortable with the concepts. .

You should try this elegant paper, written by a smart and humble physicist, whose primary language was not English. The best example of crystal clear writing.

similar than the non-standard MS symbols, which still hunt me sometimes. Since more than a decade, I use https://www.fourmilab.ch/webto... to get rid of nonstandard Latin 1. There is nothing more frustrating than have two versions of a program, which both look the same, but only one actually does the right thing.

This is debatable. I would encourage everyone to hop over to fourmilab.ch and read A Sketch of the Analytical Engine along with Lovelace's Notes and see for yourself. There is also the theory that most of what's in the Notes are Babbage's ideas. In particular, we'll probably never know who was the first to note what we know as "garbage in, garbage out."

Babbage (as written up by Menabrea) would appear to have written the "first" computer program, albeit a "hello world" program, and made the basic observations. Lovelace should get credit for expanding on those ideas. Notably she touches on procedural programming, calling what we know as functions/methods/subprograms cycles. A charitable reading of some of her other points would indicate she foresaw MP3 players.

It's possible the reason we can wonder why we don't have a Grace Hopper day is because Lovelace had the misfortune of being stuck in the 19th century and programming for an architecture that may never be built. (There is an emulator, however!)

Yup. Already seeing them.

I'm overweight. There are reasons for it. The biggest one, though, is simply eating too much. I'm making no excuses, and am not going to call myself beautiful or healthy. I'm not. I know what healthy feels like, and I am not there right now.

Push your fat ass away from the table. People on slashdot should know better.

Here, check this out from one of our own: https://www.fourmilab.ch/hackd...

The Hacker's Diet hits all the main points.

If you know of other studies, that definitely supports the hypothesis.

Either way, it doesn't contradict John Walker's point, that if you want to lose weight, you can do it.

The Hacker's Diet supports and expands on your points.

How on earth can you be that huge and JOG?

Lots of people do, because exercise makes you hungrier. If you jog for an hour, you'll burn ~400 calories, which is the number of calories in a good sized bagel with cream cheese.

Exercise to keep yourself healthy and strong. If you want to lose weight, change what you eat.

Just as close as possible to C
https://www.fourmilab.ch/cship...

Time dilation allows for interstellar travel, of course speeding up and slowing down throws off the numbers.

How far can one travel from the Earth?

Since one might not travel faster than light, one might conclude that a human can never travel further from the earth than 40 light-years if the traveler is active between the age of 20 and 60. A traveler would then never be able to reach more than the very few star systems which exist within the limit of 20-40 light-years from the Earth. This is a mistaken conclusion: because of time dilation, the traveler can travel thousands of light-years during their 40 active years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

That's at least three sorts of nonsense:

https://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbi...

https://www.random.org/

http://random.hd.org/

The OS has no magic either, or are you saying that it's random seeds all the way down?

Rgds

Damon

Yes. There is for thing dedicated random number hardware and there is hardware that can produce partially random data, such as network cards and radios, but the latter are only really good when combined with eachother and with a random number tracker, which is something the OS can do.

That's at least three sorts of nonsense:

https://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbi...

https://www.random.org/

http://random.hd.org/

The OS has no magic either, or are you saying that it's random seeds all the way down?

Rgds

Damon

The looney left thinks that planning ahead is racism. People who plan ahead typically do better in life, but the idea is to claim that anybody who "does better" is in that position due to societal structures that benefit them.

The Seattle Public Schools issued a statement that talked about racism and one of the elements was "future time orientation", another way of saying "planning ahead".

http://www.seattlepi.com/local...

According to the district's official Web site, "having a future time orientation" (academese for having long-term goals) is among the "aspects of society that overtly and covertly attribute value and normality to white people and Whiteness, and devalue, stereotype and label people of color."

The school district took the site down a few days later after widespread criticism, but you can see it here:

https://www.fourmilab.ch/fourm...

Cultural Racism:
Those aspects of society that overtly and covertly attribute value and normality to white people and Whiteness, and devalue, stereotype, and label people of color as “other”, different, less than, or render them invisible. Examples of these norms include defining white skin tones as nude or flesh colored, having a future time orientation, emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology, defining one form of English as standard, and identifying only Whites as great writers or composers.

Ironically the anybody who would come up with this stuff, particularly planning ahead and individualism, is acting in a racist manner. It's pathetic.

An enormous hole had been made by the impact of the projectile, and the sand and gravel had been flung violently in every direction over the heath, forming heaps visible a mile and a half away. The heather was on fire eastward, and a thin blue smoke rose against the dawn. Link here (e.g.)

The particle's energy is equivalent to an American baseball travelling fifty-five miles an hour

How much is that in Volkswagens? And how fast is it travelling relative to imperial standard sheep? Can you measure the kinetic energy in terms of double-decker busses?

The particle's energy is equivalent to an American baseball travelling fifty-five miles an hour

Is there a book, website, or some other resource you followed? I'd like to try it myself—I lost 50 pounds back in 2010 when I was in college by following The Hacker's Diet, but since then I've put almost all of it back on.

Let me google that for you:
Wikipedia page on Hardware RNGs
Wikipedia list of Hardware RNGs for sale
Raspberry Pi has hardware RNG built-in
Don't trust manufacturers? Build your own!
Here's how HotBits did it
LavaRnd uses your lens-capped webcam to generate random numbers
Once you have it, make sure you test it!

Sorry for the snark, it just makes me sad to see a post get modded to +5 for asking a question that's long since been answered, on this site, even.

All of this can be conveniently calculated by this tool, and neither of this will help you to distinguish actual randomness from a result of cryptographic algorithm working on extremely predictable input.

For example, here's what it says about 32M of random bytes:
Entropy = 7.999994 bits per byte.

Optimum compression would reduce the size
of this 33554432 byte file by 0 percent.

Chi square distribution for 33554432 samples is 257.80, and randomly
would exceed this value 43.91 percent of the times.

Arithmetic mean value of data bytes is 127.4968 (127.5 = random).
Monte Carlo value for Pi is 3.140698143 (error 0.03 percent).
Serial correlation coefficient is 0.000015 (totally uncorrelated = 0.0).

And here's what it says about 32 megabytes generated by SHA-256 hashing of 'Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel' concatenated with a 24 bit counter:
Entropy = 7.999994 bits per byte.

Optimum compression would reduce the size
of this 33554432 byte file by 0 percent.

Chi square distribution for 33554432 samples is 269.79, and randomly
would exceed this value 25.08 percent of the times.

Arithmetic mean value of data bytes is 127.4839 (127.5 = random).
Monte Carlo value for Pi is 3.141798922 (error 0.01 percent).
Serial correlation coefficient is 0.000266 (totally uncorrelated = 0.0).

See how different the results look?.. Oh, wait, they don't :(

For comparison, here's results for 32MB of simply ('Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel' concatenated with a 24 bit counter):
Entropy = 3.465109 bits per byte.

Optimum compression would reduce the size
of this 33554432 byte file by 56 percent.

Chi square distribution for 33554432 samples is 1153826816.00, and randomly
would exceed this value less than 0.01 percent of the times.

Arithmetic mean value of data bytes is 91.5781 (127.5 = random).
Monte Carlo value for Pi is 3.948254105 (error 25.68 percent).
Serial correlation coefficient is 0.079051 (totally uncorrelated = 0.0).

It is too easy to eavesdrop on communication. There is no way to avoid it happening, whether by corporation, the government, or a criminal gang.

We could decide to keep ourselves safe by self-censorship and accept the loss of freedom of speech. Or, we can continue to act normally. If the government has to contend with 0.1% of the population who are loud malcontents, the malcontents have a problem. If the government has to deal with 90% of the population who are loud malcontents, the government has a problem. They can't put us all in jail or shoot us.

I'll be damned if I let freedom of speech slip away. We didn't get it because of government benevolence (see The Old Issue by Kipling), and we won't keep it by being timid.

Here http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ is another paper which did not, itself, contain sufficient evidence to form "definitive conclusions." But publishing it sure put other scientists on a path to do research that eventually did provide some definitive conclusions...

Good stuff, mcgrew. A little searching goes a long way. Here's one for you,
http://www.fourmilab.ch/
guy has Tom Swift books on a page; putting 'em up is one of his hobbies. Interesting site. Spent some hours there recently. His stuff on physics is interesting. Among other things.

Last para is good. Treat people right, they'll return the favor. Seems to be changing these days, tho, but it could just be I need new glasses.

I was curious to know how the length of the Affordable Care Act compared with other major pieces of legislation. Take, for example, the Wisconsin state budget (officially known as Act 32) signed into law last July by Gov. Scott Walker. The PDF of the budget, as approved, is 532 pages long. I cut and pasted the text into my word processor, and learned the budget ran to 409,629 words (give or take -- the figure includes some page headers and other extraneous verbiage). How long is the Affordable Care Act? By my count, it’s 418,779 words (again, that’s approximate).

In other words (pardon the pun), a law refashioning one of the major sectors of the U.S. economy is only slightly longer than a law setting the two-year budget for one of the 50 states.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/uscode/26usc/

The complete Internal Revenue Code is more than 24 megabytes in length, and contains more than 3.4 million words; printed 60 lines to the page, it would fill more than 7500 letter-size pages.

Part of The Big Lie strategy is repeating a lie over and over again till it's common enough people start to believe it. Don't fall for that type of dishonest stupidity.

The Hacker's Diet did this quite a while ago.

The concept is pretty simple: To lose weight, eat fewer calories than you burn. To not gain weight, eat only as much as you burn. You can increase how much you burn with exercise, or you can decrease how much you eat, or both. Anything else as far as dieting is concerned is window dressing.

Well, as we are looking at the category of "diets tailored for programmers", I guess The Hacker's Diet is an obligatory mention. I guess most of you know that book already though. Tell me if you know any others.

It is a true argument however mostly incomplete and causes a large amount of misunderstanding. However it still holds that the body can be hacked like any other beautiful machine it simply takes study, will power and discipline. There is a big misconception is that a calorie is a calorie as the body consumes different types of foods differently and this can be used to hack the metabolism. Granted everyone has their challenges and sometimes you are fighting genetics and decades of abuse.

There have been several geeks that have published items on loosing large amounts of weight.
Tim Ferris: http://fourhourbody.com/ after you get past all the trendy and uptalked bulshit he actually has some pretty good points on hacking the body / metabolism
From the geek who wrote autocad and got tired of being fat: http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/

See now you made me actually log in and make a post. (This is from a guy who finally tipped the scales at 300lbs and was tired of being fat one year took me down to 230lbs and it wasn't all bad it sucked at some times and took a shitload of will power at others but hey its worth it)

If that technology is too arcane, perhaps this helpful tool might be useful.

On the other hand, it might backfire and wipe out half of the site's users, so maybe that's not such a good idea.

Indeed. It's also interesting to note that Einstein's original papers are eminently readable to the Layman, compared to the kind of papers we see in journals today. Perhaps that's due to the complexity of the mathematics now advanced at the bleeding edge, or perhaps it's because journals try to be even more economical with space than they used to be. I don't know.

Be careful, they seem readable but they're full of subtilities (and in some places even contain errors) especially his 1905 article on the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.

And furthermore while they "are" readable to today's audiences because we have almost a century dealing with special relativistic phenomena (it has even entered popular culture) it was not so at the time.
Take that into account.