Great idea, let's protect the customers from themselves whether they like it or not. Running 0 apps at the same time takes even less power and is vastly more stable.
Is there any significant legal use for a torrent of an infringing file?
Yes, backups. I've used it before to get a copy of a film I own because the disc was scratched. I'm allowed to make a copy, does it matter where that copy comes from?
I was trying to point out that going faster than sound is only a fundamental issue for sound based tracking. Fast & small objects are *hard* to track with other methods, not impossible.
You claimed it was _completely_ useless (emphasis yours) for situations like the one they quoted. The idea that they hadn't considered that the bullets may be moving faster than sound was the one I was responding to.
It's also _completely_ useless against long-range sniper rounds, since those exceed the speed of sound quite easily.
It's only useless if they use sound, even the patent suggests using an EM wave.
FTFA: "The projectile may be detected in the detecting step by emitting an electromagnetic wave from a projectile detector and receiving the electromagnetic wave after the electromagnetic wave has been reflected back toward the projectile detector by the projectile."
Replace cups of coffee with double espresso. That would give you ~3L of espresso (double shot is about 50ml). If one cup == a single espresso then it's ~1.5L.
It's a hell of a lot. Wikipedia says 100mg caffeine per espresso, so that's 6g of caffeine.
From wiki page on caffeine LD50 is somewhere in the region of 150-250mg per kilo, but with "serious symptoms of overdose requiring hospitalization occurring from as little as 2 grams of caffeine".
It doesn't have to be at the bottom to make money, it just has to rise above it's current value at some point in the future. Sure, you may make *more* by waiting, but you make make less.
Is it just me, or is the idea of modeling any sentient or semi-sentient brain in a computer a little ethically questionable?
Are your neural nets sentient/semi sentient? No, I didn't think so.
The interesting question is this: If you create something that is a perfect simulation of a sentient entity, is it sentient? If so, should it be given the rights associated with the entity it mimics?
I have no idea why you have replied to me, since we're not talking about even remotely the same point.
His argument was against a card with 4GB ram, due to the fact that a 32 bit OS is incapable of referencing so much ram. This argument doesn't even have anything to do with nVidia apart from the fact that they are releasing a 4 gig card.
If you're doing scientific computing requiring about 4 gigs of ram, and need the processing power of current-gen graphics cards then you should be able to figure out how to migrate from XP32 to 64 bit.
That you are using an old operating system incapable of dealing with this new hardware is not the fault of nVidia.
This is back to my original point. If I'm working with people who are regularly checking in bad code, then I solve that by talking with the person. Why would I let him go on doing dumb things any longer than necessary?
Committing often is good practice. Local commits allow me to have full revision control for my work, then push it to the central server when it passes all the unit tests (and of course, have the server set up to only accept my commits when they do). This is particularly useful when each stage of my work may take several weeks and go through many revisions before it should be included in the main branch (or even the dev branch).
It also allows me to easily fix bugs in the main branch while working on complete replacements for the file to be changed, simply by creating a local branch and switching back and forth.
The real thing that made me want git over svn (personally) was working on a large project over several machines. I had a choice of either copying files manually across, or committing to svn and checking out on the other machine. The second approach could cause problems with me breaking a vital component which others may have checked out. Neither is particularly nice.
If you want, you can treat git the same as svn and not change your workflow. Then you can let others who want to commit locally work differently.
They aren't going to snoop on the connection with gmail, but what they can do is record where the emails go (if it's law, then google will have to comply).
Are we going to be required by law to give the government all our passwords?
You already are, if they try and prosecute you. Anyway, all they need is for google/$email_provider to comply.
If you want to encrypt emails yourself, they can still record where they are going. That's all the bill requires, not the actual contents.
Clever, but pretty easy to solve. Look at permutations of each word, compare to a dictionary, use the Levenshtein distance as a measure in case you mis-spelt something.
More interesting would be to give them a problem to solve, a simple day to day task like we would face commonly. Either that or a simple question that requires some reasoning to answer.
Why is putting cheese on toast in the toaster a bad idea?
My toaster has broken, what could I use to make cheese on toast now?
However, they can add data at any time, without informing people.
They will store everywhere you've ever lived, so then know who you've lived with, and who they've lived with. They'll also know who you worked with. As someone with an interest in datamining, this does somewhat concern me.
Here's the full act (ID card act of 2006)
It can be used to store any data:
for the purposes of the prevention or detection of crime
Nice cop-out, eh? This act gives any government the power to store data for the purposes of detecting people doing things they don't want them to do.
Oh, and under this act, *everyone* over the age of 16:
is entitled to be entered in it
Lucky them.
The act can require you to be present at a certain time to provide all of this information, too. If you don't agree on a time or a place then they will just specify one. Don't do it? You
shall be liable to a civil penalty not exceeding £1,000.
Of course, access to the database is highly restricted, it's restricted to people they want to let access it. Phew, was worried companies might get a hold of it for less than, but it's a good thing the government has never been found to give things in return for money.
Also, this is all ignoring the small level problems, like a jilted lover working in the government finding out where their ex now lives, etc.
Yes, it ends up falling off with the inverse square law *from the focal point*.
Obviously this is due to the concentration of the energy into a smaller area
Yes, and it's the increase in area as you move away from the source that defines the decrease in energy. Again, this is where the inverse square law is derived.
As far as the theoretical physics, I trust what the Phd I work with tells me.
Theoretical physics? I just gave you an experiment!
Another experiment. Put a lens in so that the beam converges. As you move towards the focal point (away from the source) the intensity increases. It decreases as you move away from the focal point, and only then because it's a section of a spherical 'shell'.
I trust what the Phd I work with tells me.
Then get him to explain why the experiment I outlined before (which, given your resources you should be able to test in a couple of minutes) doesn't give the results predicted.
Of course, if it's just as you move away from the focal point, then lasers can be fine as you either manage to put the focal point near the target, or as many miles in front of / behind you as possible.
The inverse square law only applies when light is radiated away from a central point. It's derived from the way the surface area increases as you scale up a sphere.
Try measuring the divergence of a beam from a laser pointer. The beam will be something like >1mm near the end of the pointer. Now, being very kind to the calculations, lets say the pointer is 50mm long and the beam begins at the very back of it.
Now, we have 1mm at 50mm. Point it at a wall 5m (5000mm) away.
The inverse square law would then leave it at:100^2 = 10000 times the area
A 1mm diameter beam covers roughly 2.47 mm^2
At 5m it should cover 2470mm^2.
This is (((pi*0.5)**2)*1000)**0.5 ~= 50mm
Is the beam 5cm wide?
In ALL other cases the inverse square law applies
I'm sorry, but what on earth are they talking about? Are they saying the focussing doesn't matter? Why would we use focussing then?
Slashdot Mirror
Great idea, let's protect the customers from themselves whether they like it or not. Running 0 apps at the same time takes even less power and is vastly more stable.
Is there any significant legal use for a torrent of an infringing file?
Yes, backups. I've used it before to get a copy of a film I own because the disc was scratched. I'm allowed to make a copy, does it matter where that copy comes from?
I was trying to point out that going faster than sound is only a fundamental issue for sound based tracking. Fast & small objects are *hard* to track with other methods, not impossible.
You claimed it was _completely_ useless (emphasis yours) for situations like the one they quoted. The idea that they hadn't considered that the bullets may be moving faster than sound was the one I was responding to.
It's also _completely_ useless against long-range sniper rounds, since those exceed the speed of sound quite easily.
It's only useless if they use sound, even the patent suggests using an EM wave.
FTFA: "The projectile may be detected in the detecting step by emitting an electromagnetic wave from a projectile detector and receiving the electromagnetic wave after the electromagnetic wave has been reflected back toward the projectile detector by the projectile."
While, in your frame of reference, you are not moving, in the grand scheme of things you are.
There is no "grand scheme of things", this is rather the point of relativity.
It's a hell of a lot. Wikipedia says 100mg caffeine per espresso, so that's 6g of caffeine.
From wiki page on caffeine LD50 is somewhere in the region of 150-250mg per kilo, but with "serious symptoms of overdose requiring hospitalization occurring from as little as 2 grams of caffeine".
FTFA: "MRI is well known as a powerful tool for medical imaging, but its capability for microscopy has always been very limited,"
Unfortunately, this 3D MRI can not be applied to imaging the human brain yet
Or at all, since this is based on measuring the vibrations of a cantilever. This is a microscope, not a brain scanner.
fMRI which measure changes in metabolism (glucose metabolism to be exact)
Not quite, it measures the BOLD signal, but the actual causes for this are extremely complex and not fully understood.
"It's rare in human history that a billionth of anything has been shipped by one company,"
I doubt that, a billionth is *tiny*.
It doesn't have to be at the bottom to make money, it just has to rise above it's current value at some point in the future. Sure, you may make *more* by waiting, but you make make less.
Is it just me, or is the idea of modeling any sentient or semi-sentient brain in a computer a little ethically questionable?
Are your neural nets sentient/semi sentient? No, I didn't think so.
The interesting question is this: If you create something that is a perfect simulation of a sentient entity, is it sentient? If so, should it be given the rights associated with the entity it mimics?
His argument was against a card with 4GB ram, due to the fact that a 32 bit OS is incapable of referencing so much ram. This argument doesn't even have anything to do with nVidia apart from the fact that they are releasing a 4 gig card.
That you are using an old operating system incapable of dealing with this new hardware is not the fault of nVidia.
This is back to my original point. If I'm working with people who are regularly checking in bad code, then I solve that by talking with the person. Why would I let him go on doing dumb things any longer than necessary?
Committing often is good practice. Local commits allow me to have full revision control for my work, then push it to the central server when it passes all the unit tests (and of course, have the server set up to only accept my commits when they do). This is particularly useful when each stage of my work may take several weeks and go through many revisions before it should be included in the main branch (or even the dev branch).
It also allows me to easily fix bugs in the main branch while working on complete replacements for the file to be changed, simply by creating a local branch and switching back and forth.
The real thing that made me want git over svn (personally) was working on a large project over several machines. I had a choice of either copying files manually across, or committing to svn and checking out on the other machine. The second approach could cause problems with me breaking a vital component which others may have checked out. Neither is particularly nice.
If you want, you can treat git the same as svn and not change your workflow. Then you can let others who want to commit locally work differently.
I'm quite sure that I don't know what you mean. We do not just blindl-ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD
Are we going to be required by law to give the government all our passwords?
You already are, if they try and prosecute you. Anyway, all they need is for google/$email_provider to comply.
If you want to encrypt emails yourself, they can still record where they are going. That's all the bill requires, not the actual contents.
More interesting would be to give them a problem to solve, a simple day to day task like we would face commonly. Either that or a simple question that requires some reasoning to answer.
Why is putting cheese on toast in the toaster a bad idea?
My toaster has broken, what could I use to make cheese on toast now?
Of course a computer is going to be good at computing. That doesn't mean it's thinking.
What is the difference? How do you classify "thinking" and "computing"?
All it tells you is whether or not a programmer or group of programmers created a sufficiently advanced chat-bot.
Well, yes. See the chinese room argument.
A variant on this reply, how do you determine that another person is self aware? How about an animal?
That doesn't mean that same machine could create a symphony
The ability to create a symphony is surely something that only a few humans possess.
or look at a sunset and know what makes the view beautiful.
Do you know what makes it beautiful, or just that it does look beautiful? Not all people see a sunset as being beautiful, either.
The fear in the UK is that the ID are backed by a national database with fingerprint information and that sort of thing.
Actually, that's required by the ID cards act of 2006.
However, they can add data at any time, without informing people.
They will store everywhere you've ever lived, so then know who you've lived with, and who they've lived with. They'll also know who you worked with. As someone with an interest in datamining, this does somewhat concern me. Here's the full act (ID card act of 2006)
It can be used to store any data:
for the purposes of the prevention or detection of crime
Nice cop-out, eh? This act gives any government the power to store data for the purposes of detecting people doing things they don't want them to do.
Oh, and under this act, *everyone* over the age of 16:
is entitled to be entered in it
Lucky them.
The act can require you to be present at a certain time to provide all of this information, too. If you don't agree on a time or a place then they will just specify one. Don't do it? You
shall be liable to a civil penalty not exceeding £1,000.
Of course, access to the database is highly restricted, it's restricted to people they want to let access it. Phew, was worried companies might get a hold of it for less than, but it's a good thing the government has never been found to give things in return for money.
Also, this is all ignoring the small level problems, like a jilted lover working in the government finding out where their ex now lives, etc.
They seem pretty different to me. The google maps version has a lot of traffic on the road leading off to the right, but the article picture doesn't.
The parked cars are in the same spot, but the traffic isn't.
which gives a beam diameter of 10 cm.
Ah yes, I forgot I left it as a radius.
Obviously this is due to the concentration of the energy into a smaller area
Yes, and it's the increase in area as you move away from the source that defines the decrease in energy. Again, this is where the inverse square law is derived.
As far as the theoretical physics, I trust what the Phd I work with tells me.
Theoretical physics? I just gave you an experiment! Another experiment. Put a lens in so that the beam converges. As you move towards the focal point (away from the source) the intensity increases. It decreases as you move away from the focal point, and only then because it's a section of a spherical 'shell'.
I trust what the Phd I work with tells me.
Then get him to explain why the experiment I outlined before (which, given your resources you should be able to test in a couple of minutes) doesn't give the results predicted. Of course, if it's just as you move away from the focal point, then lasers can be fine as you either manage to put the focal point near the target, or as many miles in front of / behind you as possible.
Try measuring the divergence of a beam from a laser pointer. The beam will be something like >1mm near the end of the pointer. Now, being very kind to the calculations, lets say the pointer is 50mm long and the beam begins at the very back of it.
Now, we have 1mm at 50mm. Point it at a wall 5m (5000mm) away.
The inverse square law would then leave it at:100^2 = 10000 times the area
A 1mm diameter beam covers roughly 2.47 mm^2
At 5m it should cover 2470mm^2.
This is (((pi*0.5)**2)*1000)**0.5 ~= 50mm
Is the beam 5cm wide?
In ALL other cases the inverse square law applies
I'm sorry, but what on earth are they talking about? Are they saying the focussing doesn't matter? Why would we use focussing then?