Shouldn't you ask to be reimbursed? After all, all of your visible work for the course was destroyed by the teacher, it's the same as if she refused to teach you.
That is the problem; I don't come into the U.S. to pick a fight, not at all. Yet border agents now treat us (I'm canadian) as if I was Iranian (not that I wish to imply that these people do not deserve respect). Under the Bush administration, they started treating us exactly as if we had no rights. I find this to be especially insulting, coming from a country that has been our closest ally in many respects for decades. Even more so considering that I treat american tourists, even the stereotypically obnoxious ones, with the utmost respect.
Also, please note that most of the text of the constitution and amendments mention the word people, or individuals, and not citizens.
I'm not being a prick; I'm being reasonable. You don't need every citizen of the U.S. to think that way for it to become dangerous to travelers. You only need a given threshold, or an administration that thinks that way. As such, under the Bush administration (who deliberately treated incoming travelers with much, much less respect than citizens), I visited once, but could not bear the thought of being treated again with the same border xenophobia. I do love the United States, its people, culture and land. So I am eagerly waiting for the Obama administration to (hopefully) set enough things right before I come again. But it pains me everytime I see someone has adopted the stance of the parent with regards to tourism.
Btw, I'm not a shithead, nor do I "visit and shit upon" other countries. I consider myself to be a traveler and not a tourist, and as such, I treat citizens of other countries most respectfully, whether I am in their land or they are in mine.
(Although I do agree that these people need to be getting some sort of trial before they are held indefinitely. However, if they are not American citizens, they are not subject to the bill of rights.)
Two words: Fuck you.
People like you are the reason why I won't travel to the united states, and why I've personally advised many friends against travelling there too. I reckon I've stopped more than a dozen tourists from heading there, and I'm proud of it. There are thousands or more of other people like me around the globe, and we are doing our best on this matter. Your fucking arrogant elitist attitude of "they are not citizens, they do not deserve rights" begets nothing else.
The ratio of mass to radius of a black hole is well known (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius). It is precisely 1.48Ã--10-27 m/kg. We also know that the maximum energy the LHC can give to a proton is 7 TeV, for 14 TeV collisions. Convert 14 TeV into mass through e=mc^2, and you can easily get the schwarzshild radius. The LHC isn't physically capable of higher energy levels needed for larger black holes.
I'm only doing some slight napkin math here, but you might find this interesting. The maximum energy proton-proton collision possible with the lhc is 14 TeV. Assuming that no energy at all gets lost and it is completely converted into a microscopic black hole, that black hole will have a mass of roughly 2.5e-24 kg, which implies a schwarzshild radius of 3.7e-50. Do you understand the statistical probability of such a small particle actually hitting a nucleus? Even on a timescale of hours, the probability is laughable. Let's try to put it into words how probable it is for it to actually gain mass by hitting another particle. First, it'd have to "hit" an atom. However, an atom is mostly composed of vacuum. An hydrogen atom, for instance, has a radius of 1.2e-10 meters, while the nucleus itself is 1.5e-15 meters. So the black hole passing through the atom has the same chance of hitting the nucleus as a point-like object randomly thrown in a circle of 20 000km radius has of hitting a basketball. But, from the vantage point of a microscopic black hole, even a proton is mostly empty space. The upper limit of the size of a quark is currently known to be 1e-18 meters, although it is believed to be many orders of magnitude smaller. Assuming the maximum possible size, that'd be like hitting one out of 3 basketballs in a circle of 200km radius. That is, take one vanishingly small probability, and multiply it by another, slightly less vanishingly small probability. The chance of this happening is abysmal. But what happens if it does hit? We don't know for sure how the interaction would happen. Let's go again for the worst and say that for some absurd reason, the black hole eats a quark, and the tied gluons pull the other quarks in (it definitely wouldn't happen this way, but whatever, I'm being the devil's advocate here). What did the black hole gain? The mass of a whole proton is 938 MeV. That means the black hole didn't even get to 14.001 TeV mass, up from 14.000.
Don't forget that all the time this microscopic black hole is fighting against herculean odds to hit other particles for minimal gain, it is also evaporating at an alarming rate. Now, how threatened do you feel?
The odds of two cosmic rays hitting each other is vanishingly small. However, even if the particles accelerated in the LHC do hit each other, the overall energy of the collision is still many orders of magnitudes under that of an ordinary cosmic ray hitting a stationary particle.
Same thing happened to me, except that when I wanted to get out of the program I had some internet problems and never got to do it. Forgot about it for a bit more than a month, then I saw the charge on my credit card.
Turns out that if you cancel, even after the trial has run out and your card has been charged, they will refund you up to a year if you haven't used the service.
I don't see how this is an obligatory quote. It's barely able to summon a hint of a smile, is not that much relevant to the topic at hand, and is a barely noticeable sentence from a movie that has a lot of much better quotes to pick from.
The best part is the guy who wrote the article knew that all the people reading it would cause so much pollution as to herald the end of our species, yet he made it available on the net anyways.
They have been milking this island with foliage covering everything precisely because it is easy to render.
*Brain fart*
To use that insanely a-propos quote from Billy Madison: What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this chatroom is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
It is not a sloppy convention. Within the field of astrophysics, metal is understood to mean any material that is (almost) exclusively produced by nucleosynthesis. That is to say, everything but H and He.
I say almost because we can now synthesise our own.
can you name anyone who uses Linux for professional photography editing?
I do. I'm a budding photojournalist and I consider that no event picture should ever need to be photoshopped. As such whatever photo editing I need never really goes past slight exposure correction, fixing white balance, etc.
For montages and stuff, well, that's why you have a graphist.
Of course I am not speaking for professional photographers of the artsy type, but even then I consider that you can do pretty much anything you need with gimp. Photoshopped works often lie more towards computer-generated works than pictures.
Same thing for me. Bought an xp license with my laptop, but of course the shop never gave me a cd key or even a cd, all they tell you is to make a backup cd. Did I really want to backup all the crapware that comes with a laptop? No.
So when the XP install finished rotting after a couple years, I installed ubuntu on the laptop, and now I consider that I possess the legitimate right to "pirate" (for the lack of a better word - it isn't pirating, since it belongs to me) one copy of XP at a time. So my windows desktop is currently running a pirated version, but I don't feel guilty in the slightest.
FYI, Canada doesn't have its own version of the DMCA (yet). Let me try to do a timeline of what happened to it.
In september 2008, Bill C-61 died on the table when Prime Minister Stephen Harper decided to dissolve parliament (he hoped that his then-minority government would come out of the election as a victorious majority government).
His party (the Conservative Party of Canada) declared in their election that a new bill would be introduced containing pretty much the same provisions. It was never really discussed during the election period, though.
Pretty much everyone expected to see that follow-up bill soon, but Harper did not win his bet and got yet another minority government. He never had a chance to introduce the new bill; barely weeks after the election, the 3 main opposition parties declared that they intended to bring down the governing party in the first motion of non-confidence to come. We then learned that they had signed an accord to form a minority coalition in order to take power when Stephen Harper will have to dissolve parliament again.
So Harper prorogated (ended early) the parliamentary session, which means that when parliament opens its doors again in late january, the conservatives are at high risk of losing power (either the coalition takes over, or parliament is dissolved and we have elections yet again). If Harper doesn't find a way out of that, we will have the very happy consequence of the Canadian DMCA's final death.
And then people wonder why their blazing fast quad-core equipped new computer doesn't really feel faster than that 800mhz running win2k in the corner.
Feature bloat is not the only problem. Lazy programming is much worse.
Give me a single reason why you would do the second implementation instead of gcnaddict's. Readability? Hah! I've spent probably less than 5 hours coding in my whole life yet I could understand (by transliterating to pseudo-code) his algorithm as easily as I could the slower, ressource-hog version.
I can't help myself to think that if you really believe what you said, you are a shame to the programming profession.
Slashdot Mirror
Shouldn't you ask to be reimbursed? After all, all of your visible work for the course was destroyed by the teacher, it's the same as if she refused to teach you.
That is the problem; I don't come into the U.S. to pick a fight, not at all. Yet border agents now treat us (I'm canadian) as if I was Iranian (not that I wish to imply that these people do not deserve respect). Under the Bush administration, they started treating us exactly as if we had no rights. I find this to be especially insulting, coming from a country that has been our closest ally in many respects for decades. Even more so considering that I treat american tourists, even the stereotypically obnoxious ones, with the utmost respect.
Also, please note that most of the text of the constitution and amendments mention the word people, or individuals, and not citizens.
I'm not being a prick; I'm being reasonable. You don't need every citizen of the U.S. to think that way for it to become dangerous to travelers. You only need a given threshold, or an administration that thinks that way. As such, under the Bush administration (who deliberately treated incoming travelers with much, much less respect than citizens), I visited once, but could not bear the thought of being treated again with the same border xenophobia.
I do love the United States, its people, culture and land. So I am eagerly waiting for the Obama administration to (hopefully) set enough things right before I come again. But it pains me everytime I see someone has adopted the stance of the parent with regards to tourism.
Btw, I'm not a shithead, nor do I "visit and shit upon" other countries. I consider myself to be a traveler and not a tourist, and as such, I treat citizens of other countries most respectfully, whether I am in their land or they are in mine.
(Although I do agree that these people need to be getting some sort of trial before they are held indefinitely. However, if they are not American citizens, they are not subject to the bill of rights.)
Two words: Fuck you.
People like you are the reason why I won't travel to the united states, and why I've personally advised many friends against travelling there too. I reckon I've stopped more than a dozen tourists from heading there, and I'm proud of it. There are thousands or more of other people like me around the globe, and we are doing our best on this matter. Your fucking arrogant elitist attitude of "they are not citizens, they do not deserve rights" begets nothing else.
The ratio of mass to radius of a black hole is well known (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius). It is precisely 1.48Ã--10-27 m/kg. We also know that the maximum energy the LHC can give to a proton is 7 TeV, for 14 TeV collisions. Convert 14 TeV into mass through e=mc^2, and you can easily get the schwarzshild radius.
The LHC isn't physically capable of higher energy levels needed for larger black holes.
Like shooting additional mass at a black hole is a good idea...
I picture it that way:
Evil Witch/Black Hole: "I'll swallow your soul! I'll swallow your soul!"
Bruce smiles wickedly:
Bruce: "I have no soul. Starve."
*Turns around*
I'm only doing some slight napkin math here, but you might find this interesting.
The maximum energy proton-proton collision possible with the lhc is 14 TeV.
Assuming that no energy at all gets lost and it is completely converted into a microscopic black hole, that black hole will have a mass of roughly 2.5e-24 kg, which implies a schwarzshild radius of 3.7e-50. Do you understand the statistical probability of such a small particle actually hitting a nucleus? Even on a timescale of hours, the probability is laughable.
Let's try to put it into words how probable it is for it to actually gain mass by hitting another particle. First, it'd have to "hit" an atom. However, an atom is mostly composed of vacuum. An hydrogen atom, for instance, has a radius of 1.2e-10 meters, while the nucleus itself is 1.5e-15 meters. So the black hole passing through the atom has the same chance of hitting the nucleus as a point-like object randomly thrown in a circle of 20 000km radius has of hitting a basketball.
But, from the vantage point of a microscopic black hole, even a proton is mostly empty space. The upper limit of the size of a quark is currently known to be 1e-18 meters, although it is believed to be many orders of magnitude smaller. Assuming the maximum possible size, that'd be like hitting one out of 3 basketballs in a circle of 200km radius.
That is, take one vanishingly small probability, and multiply it by another, slightly less vanishingly small probability. The chance of this happening is abysmal.
But what happens if it does hit?
We don't know for sure how the interaction would happen. Let's go again for the worst and say that for some absurd reason, the black hole eats a quark, and the tied gluons pull the other quarks in (it definitely wouldn't happen this way, but whatever, I'm being the devil's advocate here). What did the black hole gain?
The mass of a whole proton is 938 MeV. That means the black hole didn't even get to 14.001 TeV mass, up from 14.000.
Don't forget that all the time this microscopic black hole is fighting against herculean odds to hit other particles for minimal gain, it is also evaporating at an alarming rate.
Now, how threatened do you feel?
The odds of two cosmic rays hitting each other is vanishingly small. However, even if the particles accelerated in the LHC do hit each other, the overall energy of the collision is still many orders of magnitudes under that of an ordinary cosmic ray hitting a stationary particle.
because otherwise they are just working to make their people dumber.
Don't you realise that this is _exactly_ what is intended?
A dumb populace is much easier to rule.
How is this news? According to wikipedia, the game has been released on June 1st, 2007.
Hell, even Penny Arcade talked about this more than a year ago in http://www.penny-arcade.com/2007/12/21/the-next-gen/
I don't want to come off as trollish, but...
Same thing happened to me, except that when I wanted to get out of the program I had some internet problems and never got to do it. Forgot about it for a bit more than a month, then I saw the charge on my credit card.
Turns out that if you cancel, even after the trial has run out and your card has been charged, they will refund you up to a year if you haven't used the service.
God, schmod. I want my monkeyman!
I don't see how this is an obligatory quote. It's barely able to summon a hint of a smile, is not that much relevant to the topic at hand, and is a barely noticeable sentence from a movie that has a lot of much better quotes to pick from.
The best part is the guy who wrote the article knew that all the people reading it would cause so much pollution as to herald the end of our species, yet he made it available on the net anyways.
Jerk.
They have been milking this island with foliage covering everything precisely because it is easy to render.
*Brain fart*
To use that insanely a-propos quote from Billy Madison:
What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this chatroom is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
It is not a sloppy convention. Within the field of astrophysics, metal is understood to mean any material that is (almost) exclusively produced by nucleosynthesis. That is to say, everything but H and He.
I say almost because we can now synthesise our own.
First thing I thought when seeing the article is, 'As soon as I buy myself those glasses, I'll also buy a wii remote; might as well go all the way.'
I'd combine this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw) with the glasses.
fiat (plural fiats)
1. An authoritative command or order to do something; an effectual decree.
can you name anyone who uses Linux for professional photography editing?
I do. I'm a budding photojournalist and I consider that no event picture should ever need to be photoshopped. As such whatever photo editing I need never really goes past slight exposure correction, fixing white balance, etc.
For montages and stuff, well, that's why you have a graphist.
Of course I am not speaking for professional photographers of the artsy type, but even then I consider that you can do pretty much anything you need with gimp. Photoshopped works often lie more towards computer-generated works than pictures.
Same thing for me. Bought an xp license with my laptop, but of course the shop never gave me a cd key or even a cd, all they tell you is to make a backup cd. Did I really want to backup all the crapware that comes with a laptop? No.
So when the XP install finished rotting after a couple years, I installed ubuntu on the laptop, and now I consider that I possess the legitimate right to "pirate" (for the lack of a better word - it isn't pirating, since it belongs to me) one copy of XP at a time. So my windows desktop is currently running a pirated version, but I don't feel guilty in the slightest.
FYI, Canada doesn't have its own version of the DMCA (yet). Let me try to do a timeline of what happened to it.
In september 2008, Bill C-61 died on the table when Prime Minister Stephen Harper decided to dissolve parliament (he hoped that his then-minority government would come out of the election as a victorious majority government).
His party (the Conservative Party of Canada) declared in their election that a new bill would be introduced containing pretty much the same provisions. It was never really discussed during the election period, though.
Pretty much everyone expected to see that follow-up bill soon, but Harper did not win his bet and got yet another minority government. He never had a chance to introduce the new bill; barely weeks after the election, the 3 main opposition parties declared that they intended to bring down the governing party in the first motion of non-confidence to come. We then learned that they had signed an accord to form a minority coalition in order to take power when Stephen Harper will have to dissolve parliament again.
So Harper prorogated (ended early) the parliamentary session, which means that when parliament opens its doors again in late january, the conservatives are at high risk of losing power (either the coalition takes over, or parliament is dissolved and we have elections yet again). If Harper doesn't find a way out of that, we will have the very happy consequence of the Canadian DMCA's final death.
C-C-C-C-Combo breaker!
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/04/23/le-twittre/
And then people wonder why their blazing fast quad-core equipped new computer doesn't really feel faster than that 800mhz running win2k in the corner.
Feature bloat is not the only problem. Lazy programming is much worse.
Give me a single reason why you would do the second implementation instead of gcnaddict's. Readability? Hah! I've spent probably less than 5 hours coding in my whole life yet I could understand (by transliterating to pseudo-code) his algorithm as easily as I could the slower, ressource-hog version.
I can't help myself to think that if you really believe what you said, you are a shame to the programming profession.
Also, get off my lawn.
http://xkcd.com/376/