Jon Pertwee was my first doctor, but for sure Tom Baker was better. He was the best of the classic series doctors. But even he was bettered by Christopher Eccleston and David Tennant.
Baker bested by Tenant? Blech! Tenant's performance always struck me as just a knock-off of Baker's Doctor. And an excessively silly and cheesy one at that.
I don't think he was better than Baker, but I really liked Eccleston's Doctor. A very original take, and he could be very convincingly serious at times. Just wish he would have stuck with it longer.
Footsteps in the hallways at night, loud crashes being heard in an adjoining room (only to find nothing disturbed), and both my wife and I have seen apparitions (one of which chased my wife). All these events continued to happen for well over a year...
Personally I believe the very concept of the supernatural is nonsense. But how could you believe all of this crazy stuff was going on for a well over a year (with an apparition chasing your wife, no less) and not move out of the fucking house?
Otherwise, I don't have to name shit. The planet is billions of years old. We're but a drop in the ocean. It's scientific fact that the most dominant species has major impacts on biodiversity. That includes insects. Get over it.
Oh I realize just how short of a time we have been around. About 4 billion years of life on Earth, 2 million years of hominids and 200,000 years of modern Homo Sapiens. I'm certain I could find examples of a species dominating and taking another species or two into extinction. But I cannot find one example of a single species taking out as many other species in as short a time-span as us. I've looked, and except for maybe the Oxygen Holocaust event I mentioned earlier, I haven't found anything. (I think the legacy of dinosaurs is more a case of preventing other species from flourishing than blighting others out). So unless you or anyone else can point one out to me, I can only assume we're the only one. And that's depressing.
On the bright side, we're the only species that we know of that's capable of protecting and even reversing the destruction of biodiversity. Let's just hope things start leaning more that way and less the other, agreed?
I definitely agree that we should learn how to decrease (and preferably, reverse) the rate at which we contribute to the decline of biodiversity. But a big part of this is making as many people as possible aware of the scope of the problem.
Yes, in the lifetime of our planet, there has existed many species who had a giant impact on "biodiversity".
Great. Name it.
Every once in awhile a species is introduced that is so overpowering that it goes berzerk and wipes out everything it can use until there's nothing left for it.
At a global scale like our species? Name it.
It's happened thousands of times, and we won't be the last ones to dominate this planet, either.
Great. Thousands of species have caused a global biodiversity extinction event. How easy it must be, then, for you to name one. I'll wait.
Lastly, "probable on the dodo"? Based on what? Provide your evidence that humans are the only species responsible for any animal extinction or shut the fuck up.
It's probable that humans were the primary cause of the extinction of the dodo based on this, among others. True, some of it involved humans introducing many new species to Mauritius, but it still makes humans the primary cause. Trying to find a case where humans are the sole cause of an extinction is ingenuine as many factors play a part.
How about I don't shut the fuck up and you take your own advise on settling down a little. Sound reasonable?
Weisman has an agenda? Oh for Christ's sake! Why do I get the feeling this is a case of, "There exists knowledge that might counter my worldview, therefore the person who provides evidence contrary to it is probably suspect and all of the evidence can be ignored." Try growing some balls and challenging yourself sometime.
Apparently you feel that there has existed a species who had a bigger impact on biodiversity than mankind. Name it. The best I can think of are the bacteria that caused the oxygen holocaust, and I don't think that would count since all life then was unicellular.
Oh, I see. You got that I'm fine with men hitting women from the statement you imagined I made. The one that wasn't there. You really need to work on that whole reality versus make-believe thing.:P
so if you are so concerned with political correctness, you want this women slapping content removed, right? you're the one concerned with being politically correct, right?
irony
Once you realize the difference between reality and make-believe, I believe you'll find that the irony disappears.
Hitting *anyone* is wrong, be them male or female. Giving women special status in this regard makes no sense in a day and age where we are striving towards equality of the sexes.
Of course many will argue that it is especially wrong because men tend to be bigger and stronger than women. But that is more of an argument for "picking on someone your own size", and doesn't always apply to just men hitting women.
The article I linked to is a global event, not local. Also, when the animal in question (humans) is dispersed around the world, the whole globe is "local".
The first hit to biological diversity happened when humans moved into other continents from Africa and encountered the large mammals existing there. These animals, unlike their African counterparts, had not evolved a healthy fear of these strange, small creatures and were readily hunted to extinction.
For an eye-opening account of just how much of an impact we have on the environment, try reading The World Without Us by Alan Weisman sometime. You might not be so blasé about the topic afterwards.
So, if I understand it correctly, "expected polynomial time" is about average running time? That doesn't seem like it would make a difference as long as you pick the "hard" graph isomorphism problems for encryption.
After all, there are several cases of large integers that are simple to factor. Public key encryption works simply by avoiding them when creating the key.
The current worst-case running-time for graph isomorphism is listed as 2^O(sqrt (n * log n)) in Wikipedia. Not sure how that compares to the integer factorization figure you gave (looks close), but it was no picnic dealing with that for my Master's.
In fact graph isomorphism is a relatively easy problem, while it is not known to be in P, it is not known to be NPcomplete either and is considered to be in a class of its own between the two.
Which, coincidentally is the exact same situation for integer factorization. The current basis for public key encryption.
Re:What's with all of the interest in pi?
on
What Pi Sounds Like
·
· Score: 1
e dollars is the amount of money you have after $1 undergoes continuous compound interest for one year with an annual interest rate of 100%.
From the above you find that e = Lim (1 + 1/n)^n where n approaches infinity.
e pops up in the class of formulas used to represent the shape a chain takes from the force of gravity when supported on its ends. (The Catenary).
The derivative of Ce^x (where C is a constant) is itself. The only class of functions with that property.
The number r*e^(ix) is the polar form of a complex number on the complex plane where r is the distance from the origin and x is the angle involved. This one just boggles my mind.
So, yeah, I guess it is hard to market. But it is far far cooler than people give it credit.
Kyle: Butters, can't you see this is wrong? You've got little boys all over school spending all their lunch money on kisses. Boys shouldn't be paying for kisses. It's wrong.
Butters: Kyle, every boy pays for kisses. Do you know what I am saying? If you've got a girl, and she kisses you, sooner or later you're paying for it. You've gotta take her out to lunch, take her to a movie, and then spend time listenin' to all her stupid problems. Look, look at Stan right there. Why he's gotta sit there and listenin' to her stupid motherfuckin' problems 'cause she kisses him. If you ask me, that's a lot more than the five dollars my company charges.
ya, but 9.999... (from step 1) minus.9999... (from step 2) doesn't = 9 (not all infinities are the same)
The number of digits in 9.999... and.9999... are both countably infinite. These infinities are the same. A countably infinite set + 1 (or any finite amount for that matter) is still countably infinite.
when you multiply step 1 by 10, you lose 1 significant digit off the decimal. so the infinite expansion from step 1 is infinitesimally larger than the decimal expansion in step 2.
"Infintesimal" is another way of saying "non-existent". An infinitely small quantity is zero. Newton and Leibniz thought otherwise when they created calculus, but we now know that they were wrong.
So your step 3 is wrong. it should more appropriately read (9.0000.....9) / 9 = (1.0000.....1)
The "numbers" 9.0000...9 and 1.00000...1 are fictitious. Putting a digit at the "end" of what you define as a string of digits without end is illogical and thus, meaningless.
Have you ever tried playing Robotron? Just two joysticks in place of the boatload of buttons and the levels are randomly generated. The sheer number of enemies you have to handle at once (while collecting people for points to keep you alive) makes for one of the most intense old-school arcades out there. My current MAME obsession.
Since the opposing side is so badly misinformed, those of us who want the internet to remain open to innovation and freedom of expression have to help educate them before the debate can really be held.
The talking heads of the American right these days have no interest in being informed. At best they are only capable of using facts like a drunk uses a light post - for support rather than illumination.
The vote of one person is insignificant in comparison to the rich who can finance the campaigns or propositions they want to succeed. Not sure why access to TVs, radios and computers would automatically imply more freedom. From what I can tell these media are quite effective in convincing the poor to act against their best interests by the rich. When you can't afford health care your health comes at the price of debt, which means losing freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
Baker bested by Tenant? Blech! Tenant's performance always struck me as just a knock-off of Baker's Doctor. And an excessively silly and cheesy one at that.
I don't think he was better than Baker, but I really liked Eccleston's Doctor. A very original take, and he could be very convincingly serious at times. Just wish he would have stuck with it longer.
Personally I believe the very concept of the supernatural is nonsense. But how could you believe all of this crazy stuff was going on for a well over a year (with an apparition chasing your wife, no less) and not move out of the fucking house?
Dammit! Somebody finally gets the right answer and I'm all out of mod points.
Oh I realize just how short of a time we have been around. About 4 billion years of life on Earth, 2 million years of hominids and 200,000 years of modern Homo Sapiens. I'm certain I could find examples of a species dominating and taking another species or two into extinction. But I cannot find one example of a single species taking out as many other species in as short a time-span as us. I've looked, and except for maybe the Oxygen Holocaust event I mentioned earlier, I haven't found anything. (I think the legacy of dinosaurs is more a case of preventing other species from flourishing than blighting others out). So unless you or anyone else can point one out to me, I can only assume we're the only one. And that's depressing.
I definitely agree that we should learn how to decrease (and preferably, reverse) the rate at which we contribute to the decline of biodiversity. But a big part of this is making as many people as possible aware of the scope of the problem.
ingenuine->disingenuous
Great. Name it.
At a global scale like our species? Name it.
Great. Thousands of species have caused a global biodiversity extinction event. How easy it must be, then, for you to name one. I'll wait.
It's probable that humans were the primary cause of the extinction of the dodo based on this, among others. True, some of it involved humans introducing many new species to Mauritius, but it still makes humans the primary cause. Trying to find a case where humans are the sole cause of an extinction is ingenuine as many factors play a part.
How about I don't shut the fuck up and you take your own advise on settling down a little. Sound reasonable?
No on the dinosaurs, probable on the dodo.
Weisman has an agenda? Oh for Christ's sake! Why do I get the feeling this is a case of, "There exists knowledge that might counter my worldview, therefore the person who provides evidence contrary to it is probably suspect and all of the evidence can be ignored." Try growing some balls and challenging yourself sometime.
Apparently you feel that there has existed a species who had a bigger impact on biodiversity than mankind. Name it. The best I can think of are the bacteria that caused the oxygen holocaust, and I don't think that would count since all life then was unicellular.
Oh, I see. You got that I'm fine with men hitting women from the statement you imagined I made. The one that wasn't there. You really need to work on that whole reality versus make-believe thing. :P
Once you realize the difference between reality and make-believe, I believe you'll find that the irony disappears.
Hitting *anyone* is wrong, be them male or female. Giving women special status in this regard makes no sense in a day and age where we are striving towards equality of the sexes.
Of course many will argue that it is especially wrong because men tend to be bigger and stronger than women. But that is more of an argument for "picking on someone your own size", and doesn't always apply to just men hitting women.
The article I linked to is a global event, not local. Also, when the animal in question (humans) is dispersed around the world, the whole globe is "local".
The first hit to biological diversity happened when humans moved into other continents from Africa and encountered the large mammals existing there. These animals, unlike their African counterparts, had not evolved a healthy fear of these strange, small creatures and were readily hunted to extinction.
For an eye-opening account of just how much of an impact we have on the environment, try reading The World Without Us by Alan Weisman sometime. You might not be so blasé about the topic afterwards.
Nonsense. How many animals can you think of that have caused a global extinction event?
It's kind of depressing if you think about it. Humanity is a bigger scourge to biological diversity than massive doses of radiation.
So, if I understand it correctly, "expected polynomial time" is about average running time? That doesn't seem like it would make a difference as long as you pick the "hard" graph isomorphism problems for encryption.
After all, there are several cases of large integers that are simple to factor. Public key encryption works simply by avoiding them when creating the key.
The current worst-case running-time for graph isomorphism is listed as 2^O(sqrt (n * log n)) in Wikipedia. Not sure how that compares to the integer factorization figure you gave (looks close), but it was no picnic dealing with that for my Master's.
Which, coincidentally is the exact same situation for integer factorization. The current basis for public key encryption.
From the above you find that e = Lim (1 + 1/n)^n where n approaches infinity.
e pops up in the class of formulas used to represent the shape a chain takes from the force of gravity when supported on its ends. (The Catenary).
The derivative of Ce^x (where C is a constant) is itself. The only class of functions with that property.
The number r*e^(ix) is the polar form of a complex number on the complex plane where r is the distance from the origin and x is the angle involved. This one just boggles my mind.
So, yeah, I guess it is hard to market. But it is far far cooler than people give it credit.
Well there's 8 floppies right there you could easily do without. :)
Kyle: Butters, can't you see this is wrong? You've got little boys all over school spending all their lunch money on kisses. Boys shouldn't be paying for kisses. It's wrong.
Butters: Kyle, every boy pays for kisses. Do you know what I am saying? If you've got a girl, and she kisses you, sooner or later you're paying for it. You've gotta take her out to lunch, take her to a movie, and then spend time listenin' to all her stupid problems. Look, look at Stan right there. Why he's gotta sit there and listenin' to her stupid motherfuckin' problems 'cause she kisses him. If you ask me, that's a lot more than the five dollars my company charges.
The number of digits in 9.999... and .9999... are both countably infinite. These infinities are the same. A countably infinite set + 1 (or any finite amount for that matter) is still countably infinite.
"Infintesimal" is another way of saying "non-existent". An infinitely small quantity is zero. Newton and Leibniz thought otherwise when they created calculus, but we now know that they were wrong.
The "numbers" 9.0000...9 and 1.00000...1 are fictitious. Putting a digit at the "end" of what you define as a string of digits without end is illogical and thus, meaningless.
Have you ever tried playing Robotron? Just two joysticks in place of the boatload of buttons and the levels are randomly generated. The sheer number of enemies you have to handle at once (while collecting people for points to keep you alive) makes for one of the most intense old-school arcades out there. My current MAME obsession.
I don't know whether or not he's single, but I highly doubt he lives with his parents. The guy's a plastic surgeon after all.
The talking heads of the American right these days have no interest in being informed. At best they are only capable of using facts like a drunk uses a light post - for support rather than illumination.
F = 9/5 * C + 32
Assume F = C
C = 9/5 * C + 32
-4/5 * C = 32
C = -40 = F
Sorry, I thought you were posting from the US (as Slashdot is a pretty US-centric site) and arguing from that perspective. My bad.
Say, have you ever tried making an argument without being an asshole about it? It really adds nothing to the discussion.
The vote of one person is insignificant in comparison to the rich who can finance the campaigns or propositions they want to succeed. Not sure why access to TVs, radios and computers would automatically imply more freedom. From what I can tell these media are quite effective in convincing the poor to act against their best interests by the rich. When you can't afford health care your health comes at the price of debt, which means losing freedom.
You dismissed the GP too quickly.