I don't want to get off on a tangent, but the whole group seem kind of irrational.
How does someone become a member of this finite group? Do they have to stand in the middle while the rest of them form a perfect square around them? I wonder if they have to hide their identity?
Let's just get this out of the way first. BULLSHIT!
The rest of the world knows something suspicious went on, but America has their head in the sand. Not long after this shit, there was a building in Europe, where the fire was so intense, it burned everything off. The steel structure was still standing but oxidizing flame was enough to melt or buckle steel in the trade center? The sheer ignorance of the American populace astounds me.
How about if we get this out of the way:
A statement that one building somewhere at sometime didn't collapse under certain conditions is no grounds (in fact it's a logical fallacy) for saying a building couldn't collapse under the same conditions... and worse, it's also no grounds to subsequently stereotype an entire group of people and flame them.
Last time I checked the definition of universe is still "all existing matter and space considered as a whole"
So if the universe is "everything" can someone tell me how there can be "many?" in a way that isn't a mathematical fantasy proven in the minds of few and no where else?
The hypothesis that is being discussed involves what is essentially an extra-dimensional and strictly theoretical version of our own universe. Basically it explores what our universe would be like under different physical constraints than our own.
As for the definition of universe, it essentially is "all existing matter and space considered as a whole" but that definition deals with human perception itself. Because there are versions of our own universe which are theoretical even if they only exist in a theoretical experiment like the above (i.e. matter and energy existing on a 2nd - nth other 3 dimensional slice of a larger dimensional space having different constants as proposed above) this is the definition being used for the multiple universe hypothesis.
Just so I'm not misinterpreted I'll say again that the scientist isn't by any means proving the existence of another theoretical universe, he is simply running simulations to see what this universe could look like under different constraints and how hard/easy it is for stars and other similar objects to form.
In this aspect it is a mathematical fantasy (to some degree - no evidence against or for), but it is by no means "proven" even in mind of mathematicians.
In four years Distros made to be user-friendly like Ubuntu will probably be heavier on system requirements but nearing the ease of use of Windows (IE easier driver and plugin installs as some are still a bit touch-and-go)
Distros like Puppy will still be lightweight and have little change to fit on those old Pentium 2s you just can't bear to part with.
Distros like Gentoo will still be hardcore users only with every option available only after heavy config and compiles.
I think usability for the average user will improve on the "fluffy" side of linux, but a lot of the distros do exactly what they're made to.
Definitely agreed - and my first thought also. It's like trying to run a political poll when all you can detect is phone numbers of Green party members.
I actually think that planetary "migration" as they say is quite rare instead of quite common. I know that in the 80s NASA scientists ran computer models to see when the moon would eventually crash into earth due to friction and it turned out it was on the order of tens of billions of years. With that being said the distance from the Earth to the moon averages around 238,000 miles and the distance from the sun to Jupiter is 480 million miles - 2000 times longer. Even if Jupiter only requires half that distance to start affecting earth it's still a long way off - in fact, probably after the death of our own sun.
I'm not saying there are bad patents - there are, nor am I defending the system, but everyone seems to be overlooking the fact this is not a patent in any way shape or form.
By the way, one click was appealed and rejected and is no longer a patent.
The summary is incorrect - this is a patent application. It has not yet been examined in any way shape or form.
I can't give my own opinion of patentability because I am an examiner, but I can say that due to obviousness requirements produced by KSR v. Teleflex the combination of a known object (such as a power source) to another known object (such as a camera) for the same purpose as provided by the original object (such as providing power) is considered obvious - and therefore not patentable.
Unless they have a new type of fuel cell, what gives them the ability to patent "using a fuel cell in a camera"
Nobody has said anything about their ability to patent a fuel cell powered camera. The summary incorrectly says "patent" when it is actually an application which has not yet been examined.
as a patent examiner, I'm not allowed to post my opinion of patentability, but I will say that most cases are heavily modified from their original application form as this one is in now.
Slashdot Mirror
Pardon me, but it is "blowing down the doors" (and the house too)
Yes, the write speeds aren't exactly compelling but for IO and read-heavy uses it's completely mindblowing
Great, first the doors, then the house and now your mind...
I guess if there's anything we've learned is this drive really blows.
Apparently if it asks you if you're a god, you say YES!
I don't think it matters where it moves to.
With all the enthusiasm behind it, I'm sure it will live long and prosper.
Oh man, his policy changed. Now it's "Server not found"
He's already flip-flopping on the issues!
You can think of it as 'electronic LEGOs' that let you build different devices depending on how you plug the modules together.
The BUG looks pretty slick, but it's $350 just for the base module! Add on modules like an LCD or GPS are about $100 each. Ouch.
Wow, so they're CHEAP Legos!
I don't want to get off on a tangent, but the whole group seem kind of irrational.
How does someone become a member of this finite group? Do they have to stand in the middle while the rest of them form a perfect square around them? I wonder if they have to hide their identity?
oh well, at least at the end there's pi!
Yes it runs...
And my name isn't Linux.
Regardless it's a lot better than quantum teleportation.
What's the rush??!?!
...should on no account be allowed to make "statements".
printf(%s, "Why no... whoops"); //well if we can't make a statement, we should just leave a comment instead.
Let's just get this out of the way first. BULLSHIT!
The rest of the world knows something suspicious went on, but America has their head in the sand. Not long after this shit, there was a building in Europe, where the fire was so intense, it burned everything off. The steel structure was still standing but oxidizing flame was enough to melt or buckle steel in the trade center? The sheer ignorance of the American populace astounds me.
How about if we get this out of the way:
A statement that one building somewhere at sometime didn't collapse under certain conditions is no grounds (in fact it's a logical fallacy) for saying a building couldn't collapse under the same conditions... and worse, it's also no grounds to subsequently stereotype an entire group of people and flame them.
Thank you and have a nice day.
I'm glad they did something useful with those server seeds. I heard something somewhere about Pharmers opening up packets...
they must have done an INSERT INTO ground.
i thought "uni" meant one and only.
doesn't "uni" mean one and only?
Which is why I find your double post so delightfully ironic!
Last time I checked the definition of universe is still "all existing matter and space considered as a whole"
So if the universe is "everything" can someone tell me how there can be "many?" in a way that isn't a mathematical fantasy proven in the minds of few and no where else?
The hypothesis that is being discussed involves what is essentially an extra-dimensional and strictly theoretical version of our own universe. Basically it explores what our universe would be like under different physical constraints than our own.
As for the definition of universe, it essentially is "all existing matter and space considered as a whole" but that definition deals with human perception itself. Because there are versions of our own universe which are theoretical even if they only exist in a theoretical experiment like the above (i.e. matter and energy existing on a 2nd - nth other 3 dimensional slice of a larger dimensional space having different constants as proposed above) this is the definition being used for the multiple universe hypothesis.
Just so I'm not misinterpreted I'll say again that the scientist isn't by any means proving the existence of another theoretical universe, he is simply running simulations to see what this universe could look like under different constraints and how hard/easy it is for stars and other similar objects to form.
In this aspect it is a mathematical fantasy (to some degree - no evidence against or for), but it is by no means "proven" even in mind of mathematicians.
like the way they "stereoscopically" create a depth-map from a _single_ still photograph.
No no no, read the fine print
Stereocycloptically, not stereoscopically!
Linux distros into one category.
In four years Distros made to be user-friendly like Ubuntu will probably be heavier on system requirements but nearing the ease of use of Windows (IE easier driver and plugin installs as some are still a bit touch-and-go)
Distros like Puppy will still be lightweight and have little change to fit on those old Pentium 2s you just can't bear to part with.
Distros like Gentoo will still be hardcore users only with every option available only after heavy config and compiles.
I think usability for the average user will improve on the "fluffy" side of linux, but a lot of the distros do exactly what they're made to.
The site that has been the number 1 most efficient waster of my time at work just got more efficient?!?!?
I can smell the pink slip from here!
My mother's maiden name was 12345
ahh, then you must be C3PO!
Fooled them. My first car was a Chevy!
*database updated*
Yes, because we all know upgrade paths are all completely linear...
Yeah, and the US is next in line... so we should get it sometime next year!
Definitely agreed - and my first thought also. It's like trying to run a political poll when all you can detect is phone numbers of Green party members.
I actually think that planetary "migration" as they say is quite rare instead of quite common. I know that in the 80s NASA scientists ran computer models to see when the moon would eventually crash into earth due to friction and it turned out it was on the order of tens of billions of years. With that being said the distance from the Earth to the moon averages around 238,000 miles and the distance from the sun to Jupiter is 480 million miles - 2000 times longer. Even if Jupiter only requires half that distance to start affecting earth it's still a long way off - in fact, probably after the death of our own sun.
the irony is that now cooking is actually making us dumber again -- well fast food, high fructose corn syrup, and brewing specifically.
No. Sorry. I do NOT believe a word of this wildly-speculative pseudoscience. How can it be that people get grants for this kind of research?
I know I feel a lot smarter after a couple of brews - heck, I know and have an opinion on just about anything.
Perhaps if you have a couple it will also answer your second question too!
I'm not saying there are bad patents - there are, nor am I defending the system, but everyone seems to be overlooking the fact this is not a patent in any way shape or form.
By the way, one click was appealed and rejected and is no longer a patent.
The summary is incorrect - this is a patent application. It has not yet been examined in any way shape or form. I can't give my own opinion of patentability because I am an examiner, but I can say that due to obviousness requirements produced by KSR v. Teleflex the combination of a known object (such as a power source) to another known object (such as a camera) for the same purpose as provided by the original object (such as providing power) is considered obvious - and therefore not patentable.
Unless they have a new type of fuel cell, what gives them the ability to patent "using a fuel cell in a camera"
Nobody has said anything about their ability to patent a fuel cell powered camera. The summary incorrectly says "patent" when it is actually an application which has not yet been examined.
as a patent examiner, I'm not allowed to post my opinion of patentability, but I will say that most cases are heavily modified from their original application form as this one is in now.