Don't post angry, that's a bad idea. You may also want to consider other viewpoints than "exterminate them down to the last motherfucking one of them". Perhaps a quote from 'A man for all seasons' may help:
Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law! Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that! Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
===
Becomie a vigilante force to end another vigilante force and you have lost the battle, plain and simple. You are no better than them.
When those in authority are allowed to break the law, there isn't any law — just a fight for survival.
You know what? All very nice, but how about this? We are not all that interesting, nor special, and in the last 35,000 years when we could comprehend what we're looking at, no-one's bothered to swing by and ask for a cup of sugar.
It may also be possible that we are part of a nature preserve, or that there are more than enough planets with similar conditions to inhabit, to not have to displace or destroy an entire culture.
Another possibility is that we're left alone, because other civilizations have been contacted before, and once given technology, have self immolated themselves akin to giving firearms to the natives.
That, or we're won the interstellar lottery, and we are indeed the first who will learn a lot of lessons as we swarm across the galaxy once we figure out how to get off this damn rock.
I'm leaning toward the lack of uniqueness about our placement being a significant factor in explaining our isolation. Historically, the more we understood about our outermost surroundings, the less important our position progressively became. Assuming we're nothing special in the grand scheme of things, as has happened before, could that positioning also extrapolate into our biological and technological development?
Perhaps the development of our kind (types of species we're capable of understanding) is nothing special and happens throughout the universe around the same time — plus or minus a few millenniums. If that were the case, in terms of light years, all of our event horizons are still isolated from one another. If we're in the middle of the statistical bell curve, away from being the "luckier" exceptions with well timed positioning near one another, it might explain why none of us know about each others existence.
If true, sometime (maybe someone can come up with a probable calculation when) in the near or distant future, things will start to get interesting.
Seminars are better because the audience is supposed to ask questions and are regarded as peers, whereas lectures are by those at a higher level to those at a lower level.
Plus, cookies!
Questions turn presentations into a living hell. Regardless of the quality of the speaker, improperly handling of the constant interruptions makes the event useless. Proper handling, which rarely happens, is a skill that will endear any audience. It's only because of the free cookies, that allows me to let it slide — I'll bite my tongue and think to myself: It's all good.
Isn't the standard deviation of IQ 7 points? Is 6 points actually statistically significant?
Additionally, a lot of people have mistakenly embraced these "IQ" tests to calculate a physical property in thinking the way a scale measures one's weight.. They're only a study indicating a comparative awareness of others within the same environment -- something the French social scientist that created it originally stressed when Americans were redefining its use.
The article written by Bruce Goldman of the Stanford University School of Medicine is a closer source to the original research without being paywalled. It's better than the Wall Street's version; there's less fluff with a little more depth in the explanation and also includes additional links to related sources.
Ineterestingly noted was that this is considered an unsophisticated critical experiment; unsophisticated in that anyone could have done this decades ago without any real knowledge on the workings of the brain itself; critical because of the type results that could be acquired based on the experiment's simplicity in design — it hadn't occurred to anyone to try.
Well, it was Raw until YouTube re-compressed the hell out of it. Seriously, I don't think you have any shot if you start off with this YouTube footage. If they really want help we need the actual raw bitstream. I/Q output from the receiver would be even better. Even better than that would be diversity receivers. Aren't those guys the rocket scientists?
Available for download: This is the location for the original raw ".ts" file. A second link is also given to a repaired raw ".ts" file showing the results of their efforts. If preferred, you can also get the original ".ts" files at the spacex website near the bottom of that webpage.
A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
Pretty much par for the course for these companies....
First rule of Corporate Club: If you teach a man to fish, you've lost a customer.
Anyway, during which ice age did the Earth's tilt change, or eccentricity increase?
With axial obliquity, axial precession, apsidal precession and two orbital Inclinations, maybe someone capable of handling the multitude cyclical combinations affecting weather can come up with an exact answer. It appears one or both of the orbital inclinations are the ones seriously considered responsible for the ice ages.
Summarizing:
Axial Obliquity: ~ Every 41,000 years ~ Presently at 23.5 degrees and decreasing toward its minimum of 22 degrees (22 to 24.5).
Axial Precession: ~ Every 26,000 years ~ The average cycle fluctuates depending on the axial tilt — shorter at 22 degrees; longer at 24.5 degrees.
Apsidal Precession: ~ Every 21,000 to 25,000 years ~ The eccentricity of the Earth's elliptical orbit with the expansion and contraction of the eccentricity's perihelion to the Sun (3,000,000 miles).
Orbital Inclinations: ~ Every 70,000 years ~ The inclination of the Earth's fixed orbital plane rising and lowering. ~ Every 100,000 years ~ The Earth's orbital plane taken as a whole, also rises and lowers to the Solar System's monumental plane.
Then there are the Sun cycles, whatever that might be. (Or the speculation of a very large heat absorbing dust cloud in a higher orbital inclination.)
Also worth considering are continual non-cyclical events occurring over several millennia: The continental drift changing the location of land masses or the Moon's distancing slowing the daily rotation and weakening the tidal effects — It seems in the end that past circumstances may not always be indicative of future events.
Some possible ways to determine if we're living in a simulation:
Look for signs of optimizations/short cuts in the simulation:
Is there a maximum speed?
Is there a minimum size?
Is there a limit as to determining an object's position and momentum?
etc....
Is there an epoch date: a beginning, instead of an eternal past requiring an infinite amount of data?
Can anyone come up with a sensible reason to implement such a thing?
Sensibility seems to get lost when the submitter's question is rephrased in the following way: Is there a device that can selectively deactivate cameras of one's choosing? If not, can someone here invent such a method and tell me the solution?
However, imagining some of the possibilities, one would seem to be a paradise for the authorities — something they assuredly would feel to be very sensible.
Ok, help my layman ass out here. IIRC, according to Einstein, acceleration and gravity aren't just similar phenomena, but are the exact same phenomena, and, since you are always travelling at c through the combined spacetime continuum, which gravity warps, the gravitational pull is you actually accelerating through this warped spacetime.
That seems way too freaking cool to fail at some umpteenth decimal.
I've always found the feeling associated with thinking about the Principle of Equivalence to be exquisite — wistfully thinking something beautiful would be lost if (or when) it was disproven.
Long answer: a better indicator is how many Google queries for the respective languages are issued. And those suggest that Ruby is standing stronger than ever. Ruby is more than just Rails. And just because there is yet another web apps framework, it doesn't mean that the other ones automatically lose traction.
The Google trends supplied in your link used generic search terms, seriously skewing the results inaccurately about programming languages. Stuff about reptiles, famous comedy acts and things such as an infamous Italian scandal (and whatever else) were being included. By replacing the display with terms specific to programming, this version showing trends for searches about programming languages in
Ruby, JavaScript, PHP, Java and Nodejs should show something a little more meaningful.
Since the summary is more interested in just Ruby and Node and those trends with the other 3 are difficult evaluate, showing those two together, separated from the others, helps in the evaluation. (I left out Python, not due to any agenda of my own; there were problems with the search terms I wasn't able to resolve.) Fwiw, when it comes to the top regional preferences for these two languages: Japan is for Ruby while South Korea & Iran are for Nodejs. (Cuba prefers PHP).
I cringe every time I see elementary school children reciting the pledge of allegiance. Start them young...
Fwiw, the moderation is creepy considering that the first 30 years of the Pledge of Allegiance required everyone to put their right arm straight out, palm down, before it was changed to placing their right hand over their heart.
After my comment was posted (the one I'm replying to now), the OP's moderation changed from +4 Funny to +5 Insightful.
The reference to cringing seemed to be an understatement and appropriate, regardless of the salute's original intentions, due to its negative aspects being brought to light by the fascist states embracing it so well too well as to co-opt its ownership and meaning.
A lot of parents of different religious faiths and political affiliations, in the U.S. at least, don't like the idea of someone getting emotionally involved with their children and telling them to verbally profess allegiance or worship to an idea or image — partly due, correctly or incorrectly, to that bad worldwide experience.
I cringe every time I see elementary school children reciting the pledge of allegiance.
Start them young...
Fwiw, the moderation is creepy considering that the first 30 years of the Pledge of Allegiance required everyone to put their right arm straight out, palm down, before it was changed to placing their right hand over their heart.
The Marine Corps. There are 3 levels: marksman, sharpshooter and expert. He was rated as a sharpshooter in 1956. In a 1959 test, his ability declined to marksman.
By the way, his brother (still alive) feels Lee was a whack job that was doing it on his own. Didn't know he had a brother near his own age — the surprises never end.
"The Earth has a skin and that skin has diseases, one of its diseases is called man." - attributed to Nietzsche
I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals.
Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure.
The correct spelling for the retarded word is: millennial (or millennium). Status @ 148 comments: 13 millenials; 6 millennials. (If this is some kind of thing millennial, nevermind.)
You're self-mislead, you were thinking it said Grand Unifying Theory of EVERYTHING?
You're right, sort of. I mentioned this earlier and why I felt I "mislead myself" (and a couple of other readers who may not agree for the same reasons) in a follow up comment under my original post. In hindsight, instead of doing a poorly thought out incomplete quip, it would have been better from the start to take the time to write both comments as one.
I RTFA. You are correct, it isn't misleading. But it is a fascinating article (non-nerds, don't bother, you won't understand it).
I read most of the article myself and avoided the original paper. It's was a little over my head making my best guess at a simplistic takeaway for the layman, like myself, appears to be: Electrons, under certain conditions, won't repel from one another as they normally do and instead pair off with each other to create superconducting properties. The authors feel they've developed an explanation that will allow one to predictably manipulate this property with better materials for future technologies. The challenge now is to confirm their explanation is correct by finding a way to apply their ideas. This is hopefully close enough; however,any improvements or clarifications on its accuracy is desired (and expected).
As for the title: Yes, I'm aware it obviously wasn't implying this would resolve the Grand Unified Theory of everything. However, during the first half a second on my first read, I did initially think it had something to do with that idea the phrase for G.U.T. is traditionally reserved for when it's discussed in articles related to science and technology. Then, much to my disappointment I realized my mistake; the writers were probably doing it to capture the reader by baiting the article with a little bit of sensationalism. It's called marketing and story tellers do it to "engage" the reader, which they have every right to do. I'll need to try a little harder at keeping my wishes in check to avoid that type of manipulation.
How about: Is the summary title from the article misleading? Will success at finding a technological solution for High-TC also unify quantum mechanics and general relativity.
Slashdot Mirror
"We need guns. Lots of guns."
Don't post angry, that's a bad idea. You may also want to consider other viewpoints than "exterminate them down to the last motherfucking one of them". Perhaps a quote from 'A man for all seasons' may help:
Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
===
Becomie a vigilante force to end another vigilante force and you have lost the battle, plain and simple. You are no better than them.
When those in authority are allowed to break the law, there isn't any law — just a fight for survival.
For UK and European readers, "the size of Delaware" is just a tad more than a fourth of "the size of Wales".
Close. According to MapFight, it's at 31%.
You know what? All very nice, but how about this? We are not all that interesting, nor special, and in the last 35,000 years when we could comprehend what we're looking at, no-one's bothered to swing by and ask for a cup of sugar. It may also be possible that we are part of a nature preserve, or that there are more than enough planets with similar conditions to inhabit, to not have to displace or destroy an entire culture. Another possibility is that we're left alone, because other civilizations have been contacted before, and once given technology, have self immolated themselves akin to giving firearms to the natives. That, or we're won the interstellar lottery, and we are indeed the first who will learn a lot of lessons as we swarm across the galaxy once we figure out how to get off this damn rock.
I'm leaning toward the lack of uniqueness about our placement being a significant factor in explaining our isolation. Historically, the more we understood about our outermost surroundings, the less important our position progressively became. Assuming we're nothing special in the grand scheme of things, as has happened before, could that positioning also extrapolate into our biological and technological development?
Perhaps the development of our kind (types of species we're capable of understanding) is nothing special and happens throughout the universe around the same time — plus or minus a few millenniums. If that were the case, in terms of light years, all of our event horizons are still isolated from one another. If we're in the middle of the statistical bell curve, away from being the "luckier" exceptions with well timed positioning near one another, it might explain why none of us know about each others existence.
If true, sometime (maybe someone can come up with a probable calculation when) in the near or distant future, things will start to get interesting.
Seminars are better because the audience is supposed to ask questions and are regarded as peers, whereas lectures are by those at a higher level to those at a lower level.
Plus, cookies!
Questions turn presentations into a living hell. Regardless of the quality of the speaker, improperly handling of the constant interruptions makes the event useless. Proper handling, which rarely happens, is a skill that will endear any audience. It's only because of the free cookies, that allows me to let it slide — I'll bite my tongue and think to myself: It's all good.
Isn't the standard deviation of IQ 7 points? Is 6 points actually statistically significant?
Additionally, a lot of people have mistakenly embraced these "IQ" tests to calculate a physical property in thinking the way a scale measures one's weight.. They're only a study indicating a comparative awareness of others within the same environment -- something the French social scientist that created it originally stressed when Americans were redefining its use.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303417104579541950544978572
The article written by Bruce Goldman of the Stanford University School of Medicine is a closer source to the original research without being paywalled. It's better than the Wall Street's version; there's less fluff with a little more depth in the explanation and also includes additional links to related sources.
Ineterestingly noted was that this is considered an unsophisticated critical experiment; unsophisticated in that anyone could have done this decades ago without any real knowledge on the workings of the brain itself; critical because of the type results that could be acquired based on the experiment's simplicity in design — it hadn't occurred to anyone to try.
It seems surprisingly close in detail to The Hunger, 1983, Starring: Catherine Deneuve, David Bowie, and Susan Sarandon.
Well, it was Raw until YouTube re-compressed the hell out of it. Seriously, I don't think you have any shot if you start off with this YouTube footage. If they really want help we need the actual raw bitstream. I/Q output from the receiver would be even better. Even better than that would be diversity receivers. Aren't those guys the rocket scientists?
Available for download: This is the location for the original raw ".ts" file. A second link is also given to a repaired raw ".ts" file showing the results of their efforts. If preferred, you can also get the original ".ts" files at the spacex website near the bottom of that webpage.
A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
Pretty much par for the course for these companies....
First rule of Corporate Club: If you teach a man to fish, you've lost a customer.
Darn off-by-one errors.
Anyway, during which ice age did the Earth's tilt change, or eccentricity increase?
With axial obliquity, axial precession, apsidal precession and two orbital Inclinations, maybe someone capable of handling the multitude cyclical combinations affecting weather can come up with an exact answer. It appears one or both of the orbital inclinations are the ones seriously considered responsible for the ice ages.
Summarizing:
Axial Obliquity:
~ Every 41,000 years ~ Presently at 23.5 degrees and decreasing toward its minimum of 22 degrees (22 to 24.5).
Axial Precession:
~ Every 26,000 years ~ The average cycle fluctuates depending on the axial tilt — shorter at 22 degrees; longer at 24.5 degrees.
Apsidal Precession:
~ Every 21,000 to 25,000 years ~ The eccentricity of the Earth's elliptical orbit with the expansion and contraction of the eccentricity's perihelion to the Sun (3,000,000 miles).
Orbital Inclinations:
~ Every 70,000 years ~ The inclination of the Earth's fixed orbital plane rising and lowering.
~ Every 100,000 years ~ The Earth's orbital plane taken as a whole, also rises and lowers to the Solar System's monumental plane.
Then there are the Sun cycles, whatever that might be. (Or the speculation of a very large heat absorbing dust cloud in a higher orbital inclination.)
Also worth considering are continual non-cyclical events occurring over several millennia: The continental drift changing the location of land masses or the Moon's distancing slowing the daily rotation and weakening the tidal effects — It seems in the end that past circumstances may not always be indicative of future events.
Some possible ways to determine if we're living in a simulation:
Look for signs of optimizations/short cuts in the simulation: ...
Is there a maximum speed?
Is there a minimum size?
Is there a limit as to determining an object's position and momentum? etc.
Is there an epoch date: a beginning, instead of an eternal past requiring an infinite amount of data?
Can anyone come up with a sensible reason to implement such a thing?
Sensibility seems to get lost when the submitter's question is rephrased in the following way: Is there a device that can selectively deactivate cameras of one's choosing? If not, can someone here invent such a method and tell me the solution?
However, imagining some of the possibilities, one would seem to be a paradise for the authorities — something they assuredly would feel to be very sensible.
Ok, help my layman ass out here. IIRC, according to Einstein, acceleration and gravity aren't just similar phenomena, but are the exact same phenomena, and, since you are always travelling at c through the combined spacetime continuum, which gravity warps, the gravitational pull is you actually accelerating through this warped spacetime.
That seems way too freaking cool to fail at some umpteenth decimal.
I've always found the feeling associated with thinking about the Principle of Equivalence to be exquisite — wistfully thinking something beautiful would be lost if (or when) it was disproven.
Now add Perl to your graph...
Ruby vs Node or Ruby vs Node vs Perl
Long answer: a better indicator is how many Google queries for the respective languages are issued. And those suggest that Ruby is standing stronger than ever. Ruby is more than just Rails. And just because there is yet another web apps framework, it doesn't mean that the other ones automatically lose traction.
The Google trends supplied in your link used generic search terms, seriously skewing the results inaccurately about programming languages. Stuff about reptiles, famous comedy acts and things such as an infamous Italian scandal (and whatever else) were being included. By replacing the display with terms specific to programming, this version showing trends for searches about programming languages in Ruby, JavaScript, PHP, Java and Nodejs should show something a little more meaningful.
Since the summary is more interested in just Ruby and Node and those trends with the other 3 are difficult evaluate, showing those two together, separated from the others, helps in the evaluation. (I left out Python, not due to any agenda of my own; there were problems with the search terms I wasn't able to resolve.) Fwiw, when it comes to the top regional preferences for these two languages: Japan is for Ruby while South Korea & Iran are for Nodejs. (Cuba prefers PHP).
I cringe every time I see elementary school children reciting the pledge of allegiance. Start them young...
Fwiw, the moderation is creepy considering that the first 30 years of the Pledge of Allegiance required everyone to put their right arm straight out, palm down, before it was changed to placing their right hand over their heart.
After my comment was posted (the one I'm replying to now), the OP's moderation changed from +4 Funny to +5 Insightful.
The reference to cringing seemed to be an understatement and appropriate, regardless of the salute's original intentions, due to its negative aspects being brought to light by the fascist states embracing it so well too well as to co-opt its ownership and meaning.
A lot of parents of different religious faiths and political affiliations, in the U.S. at least, don't like the idea of someone getting emotionally involved with their children and telling them to verbally profess allegiance or worship to an idea or image — partly due, correctly or incorrectly, to that bad worldwide experience.
I cringe every time I see elementary school children reciting the pledge of allegiance. Start them young...
Fwiw, the moderation is creepy considering that the first 30 years of the Pledge of Allegiance required everyone to put their right arm straight out, palm down, before it was changed to placing their right hand over their heart.
The Marine Corps. There are 3 levels: marksman, sharpshooter and expert. He was rated as a sharpshooter in 1956. In a 1959 test, his ability declined to marksman.
By the way, his brother (still alive) feels Lee was a whack job that was doing it on his own. Didn't know he had a brother near his own age — the surprises never end.
I misread your post as "God Fuck America". The way we are going, we are doing a damn good job of doing it all by ourselves.
Easy mistake. Abraxas: [ (evil + d = devil) + (good - o = god) % do ]
Just a doffing of the hat to Demian.
"The Earth has a skin and that skin has diseases, one of its diseases is called man." - attributed to Nietzsche
~ Agent Smith
such a retarded word
can't...stop...must...resist...OHNOES :O
The correct spelling for the retarded word is: millennial (or millennium). Status @ 148 comments: 13 millenials; 6 millennials. (If this is some kind of thing millennial, nevermind.)
You're self-mislead, you were thinking it said Grand Unifying Theory of EVERYTHING?
You're right, sort of. I mentioned this earlier and why I felt I "mislead myself" (and a couple of other readers who may not agree for the same reasons) in a follow up comment under my original post. In hindsight, instead of doing a poorly thought out incomplete quip, it would have been better from the start to take the time to write both comments as one.
I RTFA. You are correct, it isn't misleading. But it is a fascinating article (non-nerds, don't bother, you won't understand it).
I read most of the article myself and avoided the original paper. It's was a little over my head making my best guess at a simplistic takeaway for the layman, like myself, appears to be: Electrons, under certain conditions, won't repel from one another as they normally do and instead pair off with each other to create superconducting properties. The authors feel they've developed an explanation that will allow one to predictably manipulate this property with better materials for future technologies. The challenge now is to confirm their explanation is correct by finding a way to apply their ideas. This is hopefully close enough; however,any improvements or clarifications on its accuracy is desired (and expected).
As for the title: Yes, I'm aware it obviously wasn't implying this would resolve the Grand Unified Theory of everything. However, during the first half a second on my first read, I did initially think it had something to do with that idea the phrase for G.U.T. is traditionally reserved for when it's discussed in articles related to science and technology. Then, much to my disappointment I realized my mistake; the writers were probably doing it to capture the reader by baiting the article with a little bit of sensationalism. It's called marketing and story tellers do it to "engage" the reader, which they have every right to do. I'll need to try a little harder at keeping my wishes in check to avoid that type of manipulation.
How about: Is the summary title from the article misleading? Will success at finding a technological solution for High-TC also unify quantum mechanics and general relativity.