If you keep distrupting the class, you will be removed from the classroom. Basically, it works the same way that you learn that sticking your finger in the electric socket hurts like hell.
That amateur hour psychiatrist crap* makes me want to puke. It blindly assumes that the child can't see what is wanted, and so "corrects" him in the basests ways possible, like a lab rat being trained which lever to push. Push this one and you get a pellet of food, push the other one and you get sprayed with ice water. How nice and tidy.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, humans are rather more complex. Often times they have other, stronger motivations, ones that can't easily be changed by punishment. In fact, the punishment can be nothing but pointless torture.
One scenario is the kid who's smart. Really smart, like a ten year old** who is "post high school" on the standardized tests. This poor kid has to sit there and do nothing, all day, every day. Nature designed normal kids in that situation to get bored out of their fucking skulls and make something for themselves to do. You might as well try to make a dog not scratch fleas. But if they do what millions of years of evolution hardwired into them, they're considered "disruptive" and punished.
Another scenario is a kid whose attention is hardwired to be easily attracted. In the natural world, he'd be a hunter and escaper par excellence, and a tremendous asset to his family. In the classroom he's labelled "disruptive" and he's punished until his spirit breaks. (Especially if he's a boy and the teacher subconsciously wants all kids to be her ideal good little girl. It seems obvious that boys and girls are different, but not to disciples of Education.)
You can come up with any number of similar scenarios. The point is that many (most?) classrooms exist to spoonfeed knowledge to average student. Some kids are left behind and made to feel hopelessly stupid. Other kids are "corrected" until they give up and let themselves be led around. Still other kids stop trying to conform and wander off down their own path. These are not useful lessons to teach.
Feh. I think I'm turning into Mark Twain.
*I'm talking about the article linked to above, not you personally.
**In third and fourth grades I needed eyeglasses so bad I couldn't see the blackboard. The fourth grade teacher literally beat me with a board because I was "disruptive". Yet I delivered good enough academic performance that the bitch didn't notice I couldn't see the fucking subject matter.
In the case of someone who has ADHD, they lack a certain brain chemical. Ritalin replaces that brain chemical to normalize the level in the brain and help with ADHD.
I'll believe that shite when I see a comprehensive proof, including gene sequences, protein morphologies and chemistries,and a comprehensive simulation of the brain in question. Given that placebo tends to have an efficacy rate around 30% for mind-altering drugs, anybody making statements about chemical imbalances is talking out their ass. The drug clomipramine causes some people to have orgasms when they yawn. What, those people were low on the come-when-you-yawn neurotransmitter?
Truth be told, nobody has much of an idea WTF happens to make the brain do anything, nonetheless what causes it to do odd things. "Research" involves randomly cooking up new chemicals in the lab and seeing what they do to living brains.
The image detector get spatial information down to the pixel size. Unfortunately, minimum-size features rarely line up exactly with the detector's pixels: a high-contrast feature one pixel wide is usually seen as a lower-contrast feature two pixels wide. Mathematically it's equivalent to convolving the feature with the pixel angular sensitivity. Deconvolution is the inverse process that turns the pixelized data back into the original features. (More or less. The process makes assumptions so it doesn't always get it exactly right, but you do get more spatial data for typical images.)
I didn't know it either until recently, when I stumbled across the pattern day trading regulations and wondered "Why the hell are they treating cash sales like options?" Then I was Enlightened, and looked up how things work. Here's a good description of the whole process.
When you buy stock, and you get confirmation that your trade has successfully executed, it's a done deal.
No, it isn't. Execution of a trade means merely that matching buy and sell orders were recorded by the exchange. There is no verification of account balances: you are putting blind faith in an unseen seller. The actual payment is made later, during settlement, which is where account balances are checked and adjusted. In the U.S., settlement occurs three business days after execution. In foreign markets and international transactions, settlement may take weeks or even months.
When you use the result of an order execution before its settlement, you are borrowing from your broker. The SEC allows this because the vast majority of settlements are completed as expected, so it doesn't destabilize the market, and it keeps money from being tied up. But even this generosity has limits: if you buy a stock, sell it the same day, then buy it again the same day**, the SEC considers you to be engaged in "pattern day trading" and makes you capitalize your account just like you were an option trader.
**Subject to some exceptions that don't apply to the average individual investor.
The company that created the bogus sell orders should be accountable for actually making those sales, even if it means they now have to buy up stock at a higher price.
No sale occurred. They should be held accountable for breaching the settlement contract. Exactly what that means depends on the fine details of the contracts and of contract law, of which I have little knowledge.
You WILL base your future behavior on the premise that you now hold that stock.
All transactions for unseen goods entail a degree of risk and blind faith. The wise trader learns the laws governing such trades, learns how common and likely the various failure modes are, and acts accordingly. I refer you to the Bloomberg Financial Glossary definition of settlement risk: "The risk that one party will deliver and the counterparty will not be able to pay and vice versa." Competent traders are well aware of this risk.
To put it more bluntly, when you buy a bill of goods up the river, you owe yourself to verify the situation before you sell to somebody who likes breaking kneecaps.
This kind of behavior will undermine the stock market (and at a time when there's already plenty of reason for potential traders to be wary.)
Even the most honest and careful make mistakes. If every mistake entailed unlimited risk as a matter of policy, only the kings of finance and complete idiots would trade. That would not be an improvement.
Yeah, that's what happens when you buy cheap-ass RAM. Buy the good stuff (Corsair or Mushkin, if you can afford it), and rest easy.
Even the best RAM has, on average, 25 errors per gigabyte per year. (Got that number from Corsair's website BTW.) Awhile back one of the benchmarking sites (Anandtech?) tweaked Memtest86 to measure single event upsets and found appalling failure rates, and that was with reputable RAM, mobos, and power supplies.
If you are not using ECC memory, you have made a conscious decision to reject both correctness and security.
Keeping in mind that I am not a physicist, what about the helium-4 traces?
The atmosphere is about 5 ppm He-4, and helium is notoriously good at leaking through even solid matter. (Notoriously good as in certain vacuum tubes have to be routinely replaced because atmospheric helium diffuses through the glass and ruins them.)
One security/network citizenship point (assuming that your 10 or 192.168 network is behind a NAT connected to the outside world): your firewall/router should NEVER pass packets destined to or accept packets sourced from a fake address range (10/24, 192.168/16, etc.).
But I'd make an exception for ICMP and UDP echo replies, so you can ping/traceroute your upstream's internal routers.
Yeah, were they readable? The part you show being discolored is just the protective lacquer on the top. (And IIRC the lacquer is actually an ultraviolet light-cured plastic, so it's not at all surprising that sunlight would continue the curing reaction.)
I am not sure that this is entirely the fault of these school districts. After all, many of their students are living in poverty, or near poverty levels.
Thing is, one teacher working in a one-room schoolhouse used to do a pretty good job of educating farmers' kids, with only a few months a year to work with. All those failing schools you hear about have money and resources that that old-time teacher could only dream of. Money doesn't have much to do with it.
Nah. In most fires, a large fraction of the heat comes from the reaction 4 H + O2 = 2 H2O. The halogens (bromine and chlorine) in Halon preferentially glom onto free protons without releasing much heat, thus breaking the burning cycle. It only takes a low percentage of Halon to do this. Of course, the halides that are formed are toxic, so you still want to leave ASAP.
AFAIK, it only works for hydrogen-containing fuels. So you disgruntled mainframe operators need to grab an oxygen canister and a bag of charcoal briquettes.
The stats on fatalities in sprinklered versus non-sprinklered buildings are mind-boggling.
Indeed. IIRC sprinklers aren't even required in a lot of commercial buildings, but companies get such huge breaks on their insurance premiums that they insist on them anyway.
Gold is plain wrong about this one. He just didn't think through the microphysics of reflection.
Hmmmm... Looking at Gold's paper again, I find this "gem":
It seems that the failure to apply the thermodynamic limitations to radiation physics has shown up in many experiments involving radiation pressure. Thus Crookes' radiometer has invariably rotated in the opposite sense to the expected one. The black side of the paddles invariably recedes from the light, and many explanations have been offered, but not including that which would seem the most obvious: the absence of radiation pressure on the bright side.
On the contrary, the Crookes' radiometer has been thoroughly investigated and is well understood. It was conclusively demonstrated that the effect of radiation pressure is negligible in the radiometer: evacuating it to an extremely high vacuum makes the rotor stop spinning. Likewise, raising the pressure too high makes the rotor stop spinning. The full explanation is subtle and involves tangential collisions of gas with the edges of the vanes.
The paper goes on to say:
Similarly all attempts to observe a steady deflection of a pendulum exposed to a light beam have always only shown a brief effect following the sudden beginning of the illumination.
The reality of radiation pressure is thorougly established too. Particle physics experiments routinely measure the recoil produced by photons, and laser "tweezers" use radiation pressure to move atoms around. Astronomers study the effects of radiation pressure on the distribution of dust. IIRC instruments have even been built that directly measure radiation pressure, and I remember a picture from a physics textbook of a mote being levitated by the beam of a powerful laser.
If the author of that paper is really Gold, this display of sloppy thinking and piss poor research will be a major embarassment.
I'll repeat it again because too many seem to believe that crap: That sail is not a heat engine.
And the reason why is that the so-called "temperature" of sunlight is not a thermodynamic temperature. Thermodymanics assumes not merely that there is a dynamic equilibrium involving two entities, but that the entities come into mutual equilibrium by affecting each other. In the solar sail case, the incoming sunlight is completely unaffected by the behavior of the solar sail. The solar sail could be glowing x-ray hot, or it could be a perfect blackbody attached to a perfect heat sink, and the spectrum and energy density of the incoming sunlight would not be affected one whit. Thus there is no mutual equilibrium, and thermodynamics does not apply.
On a more technical level, the incoming photons do not obey Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics (not even vaguely approximately), so it is not semantically valid to make thermodynamic statements about them.
As to energy conservation, photon reflection is physically an absorption followed by a reemission. Since the mirror is accelerated by the process, an observer in the rest frame sees a doppler redshift of the reflected photons, and thus energy balance is maintained.
Finally, even if you wanted to sprinkle goat blood on the photon spectrum and call it a thermodynamic quantity, the redshifting preserves the blackbody spectrum (one of physic's remarkable results) while making it "colder", and thus the "temperature" decreases appropriately.
Show me the Planckian radiators, Gold! And then we can talk thermodynamics.
If they are perfect mirrors they wouldn't absorb any of the energy from the beam of light. Thus they wouldn't move.
That turns out not to be the case. If you model the reflection process closely, you'll see it's equivalent to absorption and reemission, so the photon imparts twice its momentum.
But if you look even closer you have to account for the ever-increasing velocity of the mirrors. In a mirror's frame of reference, the photons become ever more redshifted, and so impart ever-decreasing momentum. In the rest frame, there's a Doppler shift in the absorption and reemission that progressively steals energy from the photons as seen by the rest frame, so they become progressively redder and lower-energy.
The converse experiment is to accelerate two mirrors towards each other, which progressively Doppler blueshifts the photons. This experiment has actually been done and turned red light into blue light!
A standard diode in series with the bulb will reduce consumption by either 30% or 70%.
But the efficiency will be terrible as a cooler bulb puts out a much higher fraction of infrared.
The problem is that the cooler light bulbs run, the shorter their expected life span.
It depends. One way to get lower power is to use a thinner filament (thinner = more electrical resistance). Those filaments do tend to be more fragile. On the other hand, small bulbs in instrument panels last a very long time indeed.
All the ones I've seen die immediately when power is supplied.
Indeed. I've heard several anecdotes about people with dimmers rarely burning out lightbulbs. Personally, the light in my bedroom is on an electronic remote control that turns it on gradually, and it's still on the original factory bulb. It is a halogen, but it has still outlasted my expectations.
Many household devices today use more power when their state is changed than they would if they were just left on constantly.
Wrong. The turn-on surge for all common household devices is a few times normal power, and only lasts for a fraction of a second. The energy cost of the surge is negligible.
Slashdot Mirror
Meanwhile, back in the real world, humans are rather more complex. Often times they have other, stronger motivations, ones that can't easily be changed by punishment. In fact, the punishment can be nothing but pointless torture.
One scenario is the kid who's smart. Really smart, like a ten year old** who is "post high school" on the standardized tests. This poor kid has to sit there and do nothing, all day, every day. Nature designed normal kids in that situation to get bored out of their fucking skulls and make something for themselves to do. You might as well try to make a dog not scratch fleas. But if they do what millions of years of evolution hardwired into them, they're considered "disruptive" and punished.
Another scenario is a kid whose attention is hardwired to be easily attracted. In the natural world, he'd be a hunter and escaper par excellence, and a tremendous asset to his family. In the classroom he's labelled "disruptive" and he's punished until his spirit breaks. (Especially if he's a boy and the teacher subconsciously wants all kids to be her ideal good little girl. It seems obvious that boys and girls are different, but not to disciples of Education.)
You can come up with any number of similar scenarios. The point is that many (most?) classrooms exist to spoonfeed knowledge to average student. Some kids are left behind and made to feel hopelessly stupid. Other kids are "corrected" until they give up and let themselves be led around. Still other kids stop trying to conform and wander off down their own path. These are not useful lessons to teach.
Feh. I think I'm turning into Mark Twain.
*I'm talking about the article linked to above, not you personally.
**In third and fourth grades I needed eyeglasses so bad I couldn't see the blackboard. The fourth grade teacher literally beat me with a board because I was "disruptive". Yet I delivered good enough academic performance that the bitch didn't notice I couldn't see the fucking subject matter.
Truth be told, nobody has much of an idea WTF happens to make the brain do anything, nonetheless what causes it to do odd things. "Research" involves randomly cooking up new chemicals in the lab and seeing what they do to living brains.
The image detector get spatial information down to the pixel size. Unfortunately, minimum-size features rarely line up exactly with the detector's pixels: a high-contrast feature one pixel wide is usually seen as a lower-contrast feature two pixels wide. Mathematically it's equivalent to convolving the feature with the pixel angular sensitivity. Deconvolution is the inverse process that turns the pixelized data back into the original features. (More or less. The process makes assumptions so it doesn't always get it exactly right, but you do get more spatial data for typical images.)
I didn't know it either until recently, when I stumbled across the pattern day trading regulations and wondered "Why the hell are they treating cash sales like options?" Then I was Enlightened, and looked up how things work. Here's a good description of the whole process.
When you use the result of an order execution before its settlement, you are borrowing from your broker. The SEC allows this because the vast majority of settlements are completed as expected, so it doesn't destabilize the market, and it keeps money from being tied up. But even this generosity has limits: if you buy a stock, sell it the same day, then buy it again the same day**, the SEC considers you to be engaged in "pattern day trading" and makes you capitalize your account just like you were an option trader.
**Subject to some exceptions that don't apply to the average individual investor.
No sale occurred. They should be held accountable for breaching the settlement contract. Exactly what that means depends on the fine details of the contracts and of contract law, of which I have little knowledge. All transactions for unseen goods entail a degree of risk and blind faith. The wise trader learns the laws governing such trades, learns how common and likely the various failure modes are, and acts accordingly. I refer you to the Bloomberg Financial Glossary definition of settlement risk: "The risk that one party will deliver and the counterparty will not be able to pay and vice versa." Competent traders are well aware of this risk.To put it more bluntly, when you buy a bill of goods up the river, you owe yourself to verify the situation before you sell to somebody who likes breaking kneecaps.
Even the most honest and careful make mistakes. If every mistake entailed unlimited risk as a matter of policy, only the kings of finance and complete idiots would trade. That would not be an improvement.If you are not using ECC memory, you have made a conscious decision to reject both correctness and security.
Yeah, were they readable? The part you show being discolored is just the protective lacquer on the top. (And IIRC the lacquer is actually an ultraviolet light-cured plastic, so it's not at all surprising that sunlight would continue the curing reaction.)
2. DSPs tend to not have a lot of RAM, whilst big modelling apps crave RAM (esp. raytracing).
AFAIK, it only works for hydrogen-containing fuels. So you disgruntled mainframe operators need to grab an oxygen canister and a bag of charcoal briquettes.
Hmmmm... Looking at Gold's paper again, I find this "gem":
On the contrary, the Crookes' radiometer has been thoroughly investigated and is well understood. It was conclusively demonstrated that the effect of radiation pressure is negligible in the radiometer: evacuating it to an extremely high vacuum makes the rotor stop spinning. Likewise, raising the pressure too high makes the rotor stop spinning. The full explanation is subtle and involves tangential collisions of gas with the edges of the vanes.The paper goes on to say:
The reality of radiation pressure is thorougly established too. Particle physics experiments routinely measure the recoil produced by photons, and laser "tweezers" use radiation pressure to move atoms around. Astronomers study the effects of radiation pressure on the distribution of dust. IIRC instruments have even been built that directly measure radiation pressure, and I remember a picture from a physics textbook of a mote being levitated by the beam of a powerful laser.If the author of that paper is really Gold, this display of sloppy thinking and piss poor research will be a major embarassment.
On a more technical level, the incoming photons do not obey Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics (not even vaguely approximately), so it is not semantically valid to make thermodynamic statements about them.
As to energy conservation, photon reflection is physically an absorption followed by a reemission. Since the mirror is accelerated by the process, an observer in the rest frame sees a doppler redshift of the reflected photons, and thus energy balance is maintained.
Finally, even if you wanted to sprinkle goat blood on the photon spectrum and call it a thermodynamic quantity, the redshifting preserves the blackbody spectrum (one of physic's remarkable results) while making it "colder", and thus the "temperature" decreases appropriately.
Show me the Planckian radiators, Gold! And then we can talk thermodynamics.
But if you look even closer you have to account for the ever-increasing velocity of the mirrors. In a mirror's frame of reference, the photons become ever more redshifted, and so impart ever-decreasing momentum. In the rest frame, there's a Doppler shift in the absorption and reemission that progressively steals energy from the photons as seen by the rest frame, so they become progressively redder and lower-energy.
The converse experiment is to accelerate two mirrors towards each other, which progressively Doppler blueshifts the photons. This experiment has actually been done and turned red light into blue light!
I guess those impulse control classes worked.
No shit. Fresh coffee is always unfit for human consumption. You have to let it cool first.
So get a high-speed parallel printer port card, a high-speed serial port card, or a USB microcontroller development board.