How many podigy's do we know who have contributed to the society? I would think none...
The reason is they don't have the structured education to fall back on... Yes even if it's mediocre structure.
John von Neumann? Although I'm not sure whether his life history will satisfy the homeschoolers in this thread:
Although he attended school at the grade level appropriate to his age, his father hired private tutors to give him advanced instruction in those areas in which he had displayed an aptitude. Recognized as a mathematical prodigy, he began to study advanced calculus under Gábor Szeg at the age of 15.
Maybe one day he'll grow up and realize that even he has very real limitations.
Well, I don't mean to be too flippant, but he is 13. He can quite literally grow up. He's a child prodigy, not a victim of a Disney-movie style body swap freaky friday kind of thing.
I've been having fun recently reading the wikipedia talk pages on disputed topics. One of these was about whether parapsychology should be a subclass of psychology or fruitloopery. Sorry, that last word should have been "fringe science".
However, I kind of take the point that the study of nonsense like ghosts can still be scientific, in a way. Well, for a while at least. Certainly a subject like cryptozoology that at least gets some results is surely a science.
(oh, and you could tone down the language just a little - I mean, I don't mind swearing, but fucking hell!)
Is this pseudoscientific tripe what this website has been reduced to? I'm speaking as a molecular biologist here; please bring some sort of journalistic integrity back to this site! This is fucking ridiculous.
Speaking as a molecular biologist? Wot.
If you were a zoologist - perhaps even a cryptozoologist - this might make sense. Yes it is very doubtful that some human (-like?) species is still alive - but then again, there was Homo floresiensis which may have been alive as little as 12,000 years ago. It's not impossible that some tiny population has hung on in the very large wild areas of Siberia.
In that case wouldn't quasicrystals be useful for a number of friction reducing applications?... On a smaller scale, if paper had a very subtle quasicrystal "grain" embossed or watermarked on it, you would have jam free printer paper!
Oh, and the main problem I found with Vietnamese notes was the exchange rate, like trying to pay for a 20,000 taxi fare with a 200,000 - quite different!
You're missing the fractional dimensionality clause and the part about being self-similar at different scales... your description applies to pretty much any lattice not just fractals.
You're right about self-similarity, but I wonder whether quasicrystals don't have some statistical properties that are constant across scales... Actually, I've just googled it:
Re:haskell for the masses? sure, but only...
on
OCaml For the Masses
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
I've been programming Prolog quite a lot (a bit CLP too), but still don't get monads, so I just shrug off your snobbish nonsense.
Me either; I don't even think that the higher order concept like monads or arrows are even relevant to most programming. Also, I find actual maths easier to read than Haskell or lisp - it's not just a question of not 'getting' the language; it's not very gettable.
(I hope no-one from lambda-the-ultimate comes across this comment thread or they'll be irritated.)
Re:haskell for the masses? sure, but only...
on
OCaml For the Masses
·
· Score: 2
I'm sorry to say that you're mistaken. Please read up some more on how and for what people use Haskell, before saying such things (without proof).
Oh please no - that proof... it doesn't have to be written in Haskell, does it?
Right, because every scientific paper, written up in Microsoft Word, w/ inconsistent formatting and font usage, never edited or corrected by anyone but the author, and low-res RGB graphics is instantly and automatically ready to print on a printing press, or to convert to a nice ePub which will re-flow and be readable.
the government is operating almost literally on a month-to-month basis, just barely avoiding financial default and shutdown. Its house majority a collection of pot-bellied reactionary bureaucrats who dismiss everything from climate science to alternative energy and evolution.
But on the plus side, their Slashdot stories aren't accompanied by a Mary Poppins apples and pears fucking cup o' tea shine yer shoes guvnor patronising horseshit fucking telephone booth icon.
Heh, that made me chuckle. What should the icon be, though? A double decker bus, a pint of real ale, a cup of tea and a cigarette? I'm struggling here to think of a symbol that represents all of us Brittanites.
That may be true for non-ionizing radiation, such as visible and IR. However, because UV light is ionizing, the damage it does is CUMULATIVE. I.e., there is no threshold.
Sayeth wikipedia:
Most ultraviolet is classified as non-ionizing radiation. The higher energies of the ultraviolet spectrum from about 150 nm ('vacuum' ultraviolet) are ionizing, but this type of ultraviolet is not very penetrating and is blocked by air.
So, probably okay unless Ultraman wants to look at a strong source in a vaccum.
just ignore the whatever, they have posted this exact same comment on other threads, which has nothing to do with chemical mathematics, its just some spamdouche
Haven't you heard? HTML5 and JavaScript are the solutions to all problems these days. Do you need to write an operating system? Just use JavaScript! Did your dog just shit on the carpet? Use HTML5 to clean it up! Did you just drive over a nail, rupturing your car's tire? You can patch that hole with WebSockets! Did you accidentally pour acid on your genitals? Use jQuery to make yourself feel better.
Except don't use jQuery if your page is XHTML, as there is a bug in the latest version (bug id : #9479).
I didn't make any statements that required sources. Also, I wasn't rude to you, but you chose to be rude to me. Perhaps you are trolling, perhaps you are drunk, perhaps you are simply an idiot. Whatever, I'm not interested in anything else you have to say. Continue to piss into the wind if you like, you'll just get wet.
Where in the law-book of nature does it specify things are always required to happen at the same rate? Things often build up over time and then have major, relatively immediate shifts... volcanoes, plate tectonics, plagues and diseases, to name a few.
Nowhere at all. You're absolutely right that there are rapid changes (or 'phase changes' in the jargon of some fields). However, if those happened to ice sheets, we might reasonably expect to have seen them before, right?
Sorry to say this, but this statement is nonsense. Yes, ice melts - that much is obvious - but the observation is that it is melting faster than records show. We can't conclusively prove it is humans except by removing everyone from the planet and watching what happens. Since (thankfully) we're not going to do that, the next best proof is to check what happened before we arrived. If there is no other cause - like massive new volcanoes in the pacific or penguins inventing explosives - I think it makes sense to at least look in humanities direction, if not point the finger at us.
No, but we have documented proof that both Europe and North America were experiencing a "mini ice age" as late at the mid-1800's, and that before the early 1700's (when the mini ice-age started) it was warmer than it is now.
However as none of these records were written by "climate scientists" the AGW lot tend to deny them.
Well, but they might reasonably object that little ice ages are not the same as melting ice shelves? A short term drop in temperature is different to a rapid rise in temperature - assuming that the shelves are breaking up due to increased temperatures
what kind of scientist uses their biast opinion instead of facts.
I agree that it is unwise to pass opinion as fact, especially in climate change science.
F'in prove it's not natural, then open your mouth Mr. Steven, till then your just another wannabe Jesus.
One problem is the question : "what is natural?". The assumption (I think) is that the change is happening too fast to be natural. Or, more exactly, the change is faster than previously observed. Obviously, we haven't watched ice shelves for millions of years, but I suppose that there are ice core records
Personally, I don't want the ice to melt - whether it is faster than normal or not - but you could claim that there is a non-human ('natural') cause. The difficulty as always is to find this other cause...
Slashdot Mirror
How many podigy's do we know who have contributed to the society? I would think none ...
The reason is they don't have the structured education to fall back on... Yes even if it's mediocre structure.
John von Neumann? Although I'm not sure whether his life history will satisfy the homeschoolers in this thread:
Although he attended school at the grade level appropriate to his age, his father hired private tutors to give him advanced instruction in those areas in which he had displayed an aptitude. Recognized as a mathematical prodigy, he began to study advanced calculus under Gábor Szeg at the age of 15.
So, normal 'restrictive' school, plus tutors.
Maybe one day he'll grow up and realize that even he has very real limitations.
Well, I don't mean to be too flippant, but he is 13. He can quite literally grow up. He's a child prodigy, not a victim of a Disney-movie style body swap freaky friday kind of thing.
I've been having fun recently reading the wikipedia talk pages on disputed topics. One of these was about whether parapsychology should be a subclass of psychology or fruitloopery. Sorry, that last word should have been "fringe science".
However, I kind of take the point that the study of nonsense like ghosts can still be scientific, in a way. Well, for a while at least. Certainly a subject like cryptozoology that at least gets some results is surely a science.
(oh, and you could tone down the language just a little - I mean, I don't mind swearing, but fucking hell!)
Is this pseudoscientific tripe what this website has been reduced to? I'm speaking as a molecular biologist here; please bring some sort of journalistic integrity back to this site! This is fucking ridiculous.
Speaking as a molecular biologist? Wot.
If you were a zoologist - perhaps even a cryptozoologist - this might make sense. Yes it is very doubtful that some human (-like?) species is still alive - but then again, there was Homo floresiensis which may have been alive as little as 12,000 years ago. It's not impossible that some tiny population has hung on in the very large wild areas of Siberia.
Real scientists drink from a Klein bottle.
Poured into cross-cap cups?
In that case wouldn't quasicrystals be useful for a number of friction reducing applications?... On a smaller scale, if paper had a very subtle quasicrystal "grain" embossed or watermarked on it, you would have jam free printer paper!
Or toilet tissue:
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/penrose.htm
Oh, and the main problem I found with Vietnamese notes was the exchange rate, like trying to pay for a 20,000 taxi fare with a 200,000 - quite different!
You're missing the fractional dimensionality clause and the part about being self-similar at different scales... your description applies to pretty much any lattice not just fractals.
You're right about self-similarity, but I wonder whether quasicrystals don't have some statistical properties that are constant across scales... Actually, I've just googled it:
Self-similarity of Quasi-periodic lattice (Sun Jirong, 1996) : http://cpl.iphy.ac.cn/qikan/manage/wenzhang/0090419.pdf
Quite a mathematical paper. Oh, and this also looks interesting (nice pictures, also):
Wallpaper patterns with self-similar and graph-directed fractal lattice units (Deniz et al, 2011) : http://www.mi.sanu.ac.rs/vismath/ozdemirsept2011/Wallpaper.pdf
I've been programming Prolog quite a lot (a bit CLP too), but still don't get monads, so I just shrug off your snobbish nonsense.
Me either; I don't even think that the higher order concept like monads or arrows are even relevant to most programming. Also, I find actual maths easier to read than Haskell or lisp - it's not just a question of not 'getting' the language; it's not very gettable.
(I hope no-one from lambda-the-ultimate comes across this comment thread or they'll be irritated.)
I'm sorry to say that you're mistaken. Please read up some more on how and for what people use Haskell, before saying such things (without proof).
Oh please no - that proof ... it doesn't have to be written in Haskell, does it?
Right, because every scientific paper, written up in Microsoft Word, w/ inconsistent formatting and font usage, never edited or corrected by anyone but the author, and low-res RGB graphics is instantly and automatically ready to print on a printing press, or to convert to a nice ePub which will re-flow and be readable.
Also, no publisher has ever even considered something like ``The Article of the Future'' --- http://www.articleofthefuture.com/
While there are exceptions (arxiv.org comes to mind), for the most part, raw author manuscripts are _not_ pleasant to read or work w/.
Fair point, but I'm guessing that authors who provide well formatted papers to a journal don't get discounts...
I liked the part where you vented your nerd rage in the form of a question. ;)
I liked the part where the directors name was parodied in such an effective way. "Jerk jerk A" - priceless!
the government is operating almost literally on a month-to-month basis, just barely avoiding financial default and shutdown. Its house majority a collection of pot-bellied reactionary bureaucrats who dismiss everything from climate science to alternative energy and evolution.
But on the plus side, their Slashdot stories aren't accompanied by a Mary Poppins apples and pears fucking cup o' tea shine yer shoes guvnor patronising horseshit fucking telephone booth icon.
Heh, that made me chuckle. What should the icon be, though? A double decker bus, a pint of real ale, a cup of tea and a cigarette? I'm struggling here to think of a symbol that represents all of us Brittanites.
That may be true for non-ionizing radiation, such as visible and IR. However, because UV light is ionizing, the damage it does is CUMULATIVE. I.e., there is no threshold.
Sayeth wikipedia:
Most ultraviolet is classified as non-ionizing radiation. The higher energies of the ultraviolet spectrum from about 150 nm ('vacuum' ultraviolet) are ionizing, but this type of ultraviolet is not very penetrating and is blocked by air.
So, probably okay unless Ultraman wants to look at a strong source in a vaccum.
just ignore the whatever, they have posted this exact same comment on other threads, which has nothing to do with chemical mathematics, its just some spamdouche
Yeah, found them : http://slashdot.org/~ThatCopyrightMadow
Weird. It's like spam, but also like a high troll. Oh well.
Interesting. Please, tell me, what area of chemical mathematics tells you that quantum computing is ... er ... "not stargazer". Whatever that means.
Haven't you heard? HTML5 and JavaScript are the solutions to all problems these days. Do you need to write an operating system? Just use JavaScript! Did your dog just shit on the carpet? Use HTML5 to clean it up! Did you just drive over a nail, rupturing your car's tire? You can patch that hole with WebSockets! Did you accidentally pour acid on your genitals? Use jQuery to make yourself feel better.
Except don't use jQuery if your page is XHTML, as there is a bug in the latest version (bug id : #9479).
Choke on...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#Variations_in_Earth.27s_orbit_.28Milankovitch_cycles.29
sourceless bastard!
I didn't make any statements that required sources. Also, I wasn't rude to you, but you chose to be rude to me. Perhaps you are trolling, perhaps you are drunk, perhaps you are simply an idiot. Whatever, I'm not interested in anything else you have to say. Continue to piss into the wind if you like, you'll just get wet.
Where in the law-book of nature does it specify things are always required to happen at the same rate? Things often build up over time and then have major, relatively immediate shifts... volcanoes, plate tectonics, plagues and diseases, to name a few.
Nowhere at all. You're absolutely right that there are rapid changes (or 'phase changes' in the jargon of some fields). However, if those happened to ice sheets, we might reasonably expect to have seen them before, right?
Ice melts naturally as per nature
Sorry to say this, but this statement is nonsense. Yes, ice melts - that much is obvious - but the observation is that it is melting faster than records show. We can't conclusively prove it is humans except by removing everyone from the planet and watching what happens. Since (thankfully) we're not going to do that, the next best proof is to check what happened before we arrived. If there is no other cause - like massive new volcanoes in the pacific or penguins inventing explosives - I think it makes sense to at least look in humanities direction, if not point the finger at us.
I blame the Tea Party.
Those didn't disappear in six years.
I hope the Tea Party disappears faster than six years.
I don't believe in the existence of this 'Tea Party'. It's all an invention of 'Big Tea Party'.
No, but we have documented proof that both Europe and North America were experiencing a "mini ice age" as late at the mid-1800's, and that before the early 1700's (when the mini ice-age started) it was warmer than it is now. However as none of these records were written by "climate scientists" the AGW lot tend to deny them.
Well, but they might reasonably object that little ice ages are not the same as melting ice shelves? A short term drop in temperature is different to a rapid rise in temperature - assuming that the shelves are breaking up due to increased temperatures
Agreed!
what kind of scientist uses their biast opinion instead of facts.
I agree that it is unwise to pass opinion as fact, especially in climate change science.
F'in prove it's not natural, then open your mouth Mr. Steven, till then your just another wannabe Jesus.
One problem is the question : "what is natural?". The assumption (I think) is that the change is happening too fast to be natural. Or, more exactly, the change is faster than previously observed. Obviously, we haven't watched ice shelves for millions of years, but I suppose that there are ice core records
Personally, I don't want the ice to melt - whether it is faster than normal or not - but you could claim that there is a non-human ('natural') cause. The difficulty as always is to find this other cause...
Well, "OH THE COINCIDENCE!", really.
Except, ads are targeted, so "OH THE CORRELATION!" is more like it.
...razing the dead...
Now there's an interesting mental image of the savior.
It's well known that the Lord was a 80th level Paladin, and did triple damage against the undead.
Ooh. For an impressive commercial option, consider 3D zeolites with WebGL :
http://web.chemdoodle.com/demos/iza-zeolite-explorer
(May require ffx or chrome, doesn't load in safari)