Assuming each machine have the same hard drive size, dd is probably the easiest way to go. You could even do it very quickly if you started with a zeroed out drive, install everything and then compress it to a drive image. Then just nc <server-ip> <port-number> | tar -zx | dd of=/dev/sda from a live CD/USB disk
The problem here is that tachyons, if they exist, move faster with lower energy, and approach the speed of light at high energies.
IIRC the neutrinos from the experiment were at much higher energies than those observed from a supernova explosion in the 80's i think, where the photons and neutrinos arrived about simultaneous.
The vacuum in the universe isn't actually a perfect vacuum, and thus it has a small refractive index, meaning the the speed of light in the universe is a bit slower than in perfect vacuum, so those neutrinos can travlel faster than light and could be used to tell us in advance when a supernova explosion occured, so we can point our telescopes in that direction.
If you're talking about GPS, actually they do take general relativity into account. Special relativity is only a small correction (roughly 0.1-1 km/day). Neglecting general relativity in GPS introduces errors in the order of more than 11 km/day.
I've heard that actually, you can detect gamma ray bursts from other galaxies before the electromagnetic radiation reaches earth. Because the refractive index of space is not exactly unity (because of gas), the neutrino shower typically reaches us before the EM burst.
This mechanism supposedly gives us enough time to point our sattelites/telescopes at the event to see it.
Yes they do. Indirectly, yes, but they are based on radioactive decay. Now, should the rate of decay change, it wouldn't effect the emitted microwaves energy (frequency) but just its intensity, so no, a change of decay rate wouldn't do much, but an atomic clock is still based on radioactive decay!
Because it just decayed into an excited state! Change of energy levels is also an atomic decay. The link even explicitly states that the resulting radiation is in the microwave region!
Right, it's not based directly on nuclear physics, but it's based on the results of nuclear physics taking place.
They don't need to actually rotate the cube to solve it in 20 or less moves, they just use rotation and symmetry as an argument as to why they don't bother also solving the "mirror" state.
To solve it without rotating 180 degrees they just copy the solution, but reverse directions.
Strictly speaking, you never need to rotate a cube to solve it, but it's practical to do so because you can only view the cube from one angel at a time.
A Wheatstone bridge would suck in that type of application, as a standard diode comes with a.7 V voltage drop. A standard AA battery delivers only 1.5 volt. You're then left with 0.1 volt per battery.
In Denmark, at least, it's illegal for hams to encrypt international connections. It's perfectly legal to encrypt them, however, if it's only a national connection.
> And then it struck me - most of the research I had read had applied parametric statistical tests to their data - that it, the researchers made an assumption that the underlying distribution of results would fall on a normal curve.
Which in cases with lots of samples is a perfectly valid assumption. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem
I've heard that the other four wires is used for telephone signals (of course, not on your own private network).
I know they're also used in power over ethernet, cause where I work, all our IP telephones power up when we plug
them into the ethernet outlet.
Well it doesn't matter (and it never did) if you're selecting passwords so the FBI can't read your secret diary.
If, on the other hand, you're concerned about someone in Russia gaining access to your credit card it still matters.
That's beside the point. If the FBI can get your passwords with just post-it notes, so can anyone with a post-it block! (or anyone who speaks english -- the article implicitly referred to mentions a verbal request being enough)
.... So, what options does Mozilla have? Well, they could stay with Google or they could defect to Yahoo or Bing. But MS is even more of a browser competitor than Google. And Yahoo isn't in a financial position to be sponsoring anyone right now. Sure, you could maybe come up with some other more complicated solutions, but $66 million worth? Not many companies, or even groups of companies, have that kind of money to throw around for a little advertisement.
Solution: Mozilla corp. should to make their own billion dollar search engine to sponsor themselves.
I hope he doesn't let this episode interfere with his cool hobby. If he keeps on toying with electronics,
he could end up with a really cool and useful job. An 11 year old making a motion detector -- how cool is that?
Slashdot Mirror
That's a very mathematical way of looking at it. If you can't give it physical meaning or measure it, it isn't there and it's not physical.
Assuming each machine have the same hard drive size, dd is probably the easiest way to go.
You could even do it very quickly if you started with a zeroed out drive, install everything and then compress
it to a drive image. Then just nc <server-ip> <port-number> | tar -zx | dd of=/dev/sda
from a live CD/USB disk
Yes, faster than c speeds are ok but require your mass to be purely imaginary.
What does that mean?
The problem here is that tachyons, if they exist, move faster with lower energy, and approach the speed of light at high energies.
IIRC the neutrinos from the experiment were at much higher energies than those observed from a supernova explosion
in the 80's i think, where the photons and neutrinos arrived about simultaneous.
The vacuum in the universe isn't actually a perfect vacuum, and thus it has a small refractive index,
meaning the the speed of light in the universe is a bit slower than in perfect vacuum, so those
neutrinos can travlel faster than light and could be used to tell us in advance when a supernova explosion occured,
so we can point our telescopes in that direction.
If you're talking about GPS, actually they do take general relativity into account.
Special relativity is only a small correction (roughly 0.1-1 km/day). Neglecting general relativity
in GPS introduces errors in the order of more than 11 km/day.
I've heard that actually, you can detect gamma ray bursts from other galaxies before the electromagnetic radiation reaches earth.
Because the refractive index of space is not exactly unity (because of gas), the neutrino shower typically
reaches us before the EM burst.
This mechanism supposedly gives us enough time to point our sattelites/telescopes at the event to see it.
It's not creepy. Just remember that whenever a computer appears to do a fancy or intelligent thing, it is only because a human instructed it to do so.
Someone tag this !/bin/ping
I seem to recall that CERN produces about 1% of all data that goes through the internet every day. Hmm...
Oh, sorry 'bout that, the excitation comes from lasers, not decay. Nice to lean something new :-)
Argh, I take that back. It turns out they're based on shining lasers at the cæsium, making the transition. Sorry 'bout that.
Yes they do. Indirectly, yes, but they are based on radioactive decay.
Now, should the rate of decay change, it wouldn't effect the emitted microwaves energy (frequency)
but just its intensity, so no, a change of decay rate wouldn't do much, but an atomic clock is still based on radioactive decay!
And why do you think atoms change energy levels?
Because it just decayed into an excited state! Change of energy levels is also an atomic decay.
The link even explicitly states that the resulting radiation is in the microwave region!
Right, it's not based directly on nuclear physics, but it's based on the results of nuclear physics taking place.
They don't need to actually rotate the cube to solve it in 20 or less moves, they just use rotation
and symmetry as an argument as to why they don't bother also solving the "mirror" state.
To solve it without rotating 180 degrees they just copy the solution, but reverse directions.
Strictly speaking, you never need to rotate a cube to solve it, but it's practical to do so because
you can only view the cube from one angel at a time.
Also, it's not even called a Wheatstone bridge, which is a measuring device. I think the term we're looking for is diode bridge.
A Wheatstone bridge would suck in that type of application, as a standard diode comes with a .7 V voltage drop.
A standard AA battery delivers only 1.5 volt. You're then left with 0.1 volt per battery.
In Denmark, at least, it's illegal for hams to encrypt international connections.
It's perfectly legal to encrypt them, however, if it's only a national connection.
> Other false assumptions people make with statistics:
> - Everything is normally distributed
This is almost always a true assumption, at least with a big enough data set:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem
> And then it struck me - most of the research I had read had applied parametric statistical tests to their data - that it, the researchers made an assumption that the underlying distribution of results would fall on a normal curve. Which in cases with lots of samples is a perfectly valid assumption. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem
I've heard that the other four wires is used for telephone signals (of course, not on your own private network). I know they're also used in power over ethernet, cause where I work, all our IP telephones power up when we plug them into the ethernet outlet.
Well it doesn't matter (and it never did) if you're selecting passwords so the FBI can't read your secret diary.
If, on the other hand, you're concerned about someone in Russia gaining access to your credit card it still matters.
That's beside the point. If the FBI can get your passwords with just post-it notes, so can anyone with a post-it block!
(or anyone who speaks english -- the article implicitly referred to mentions a verbal request being enough)
-1? Looks like you just found a bug that's been in Microsoft's Meta Countdown tool. This one goes all the way back to Windows 2.0.
Sorry, can't help it: xkcd again has something to say here.
.... So, what options does Mozilla have? Well, they could stay with Google or they could defect to Yahoo or Bing. But MS is even more of a browser competitor than Google. And Yahoo isn't in a financial position to be sponsoring anyone right now. Sure, you could maybe come up with some other more complicated solutions, but $66 million worth? Not many companies, or even groups of companies, have that kind of money to throw around for a little advertisement.
Solution: Mozilla corp. should to make their own billion dollar search engine to sponsor themselves.
> Isn't that only for sub atomic particles? This is moving the atoms themselves.
No this principle applies to everything, even you!
I hope he doesn't let this episode interfere with his cool hobby. If he keeps on toying with electronics, he could end up with a really cool and useful job. An 11 year old making a motion detector -- how cool is that?