they had intentionally changed Morotolla phones so they wouldn't go straight to the web like they were designed, but go through a broker the phone company carried. It effectively doubled the # of bytes your transmitted
Evil bastards.
True that. Maybe a bit off-topic, but I have to add that some promotional Sony Ericsson ones (W660 comes in mind, you would be eligible to get them 'for free' if you were one of those customers that talked much) were 'pimped' by vodafone to try to connect to the internet VIA A FRIGGIN' DIALUP (through vodafone's portal ofcourse) by pressing almost any button after finishing a call- super-easy to accidently connect, at what could be the most expensive internet session, possibly second only to satellite.
What makes that an evil plan is that though the carrier knows that you possibly already have a much better smartphone of the likes of a nokia Nxxx or whatnot, they would still offer the pimped one on the hopes of you passing it through to your grandparents or smth- so they would 'catch' more subscribers.
What's awesome is that people would get the phones, and then subscribe to a competitor's carrier, where the dialup wouldn't work- so no connection sneaked up you, no charge.
'If it's possible to make a decent living selling books online, then why does it feel so shameful to do this work?'
Dealing stuff for money IS shameful- this is a very mild case though. If you're seriously asking yourself this kind of questions while enterprising, then you should consider not being a salesperson. Plus don't quit your dayjob, I got a friend that has been reselling LPs, and it is not everyday that a Japanese collector will bid $50 on one of his records bought en masse from a garage sale.
Savitz writes that people scanning books sometimes get kicked out of thrift stores and retail shops and that libraries are beginning to advertise that no electronic devices are allowed at their sales.
Horseshit. All in all, what I see as shameful here is for libraries to employ such tactics to buy time to figure out how they can do this for themselves.
If this is a fleamarket dance, I don't see why the rules should apply one way. Is it illegal to buy with intent to resale?
'Zuckerberg's dominance can be
attributed partly to the clean interface of his site, partly to the
cachet of the Harvard name and partly to luck.'
And it can also attributed mainly to the sneaky way of introducing it as a need-to-have-university-email-account-to-enter-we-are-serious-here (remember the early days anyone?), and because people love to brag and stalk.
Aren't all rings of this nature formed form orbiting debris - debris caused by collisions?
Possibly yes, but that is not a scientific explanation; with that attitude, everything is formed by collapsing and colliding- astrophysics' goal is also to quantify; why this kind of rings and not some other? Why not similar ones to every planet? What are the initial conditions that lead to the development of Saturn's rings?
The thought that Jupiter will have rings once the conflicting orbits of it's moons finally cause them to collide is not new.. it's expected and assumed that it will happen..
Here is a hypothesis with a counterintuitive ring to it; there are many stable orbital configurations where orbiters need not align themselves with the body that they are orbiting- in english, there is no reason for planetary rings to be exactly aligned over their host planet's equator. The fact that they do, hints strongly to the assumption that they were formed at the same time with that planet; meaning that the same clump of rotating self-gravitating mass oblated due to friction, and while collapsing partially broke up due to gravitational perturbations from outside the system. That scenario would account for the alignment and that makes it pretty hard to beat.
They don't need to; you can hand in a list of the people that CANNOT referee your submitted paper, because of whatever reasons (meaning you don't have to explain yourself)
Just release video with the left/right frames (side-by-side, above/below, alternating, you choose) and let each of us view it optimally on our hardware.
In a simulation like this, the most important physical effect to model is gravity.
No, it's not. Or it is. Actually, you can't say until you run it and compare the results with other setups and, better yet, with what you see in the Cosmos.
Imagine that every galaxy is, more or less, surrounded by all the others- thus, unless you have superclusters in proximity gravity cancels out. Seen as a system with components, though, the gravitational interactions between individual stars (from which the shape of the galaxy emerges from) are important. Yet, forces such as e/m might be mild, but operating over big timescales may greately influence the outcome- imagine that the whole thing is turbulance-driven; i.e. only a small fraction of matter/energy of the universe 'settles' into stars, planets, iPods and lolcatz (that's due to gravity); the rest is running loose in the wild, and plays a catalytic -if I may- role finetuning the rest of the picture.
To explain the former better, accounting for plasma flows (a very resource-hungry problem) can give one an idea on the fraction of the material that is being ejected back to the system. Again, one may ignore some interactions (for speed's sake) and compare results with others and the Cosmos; depending of the problem one could say that gravity is the most important, but that is not always the case.
You've modded this funny, but it's true (disclaimer; I'm doing numerical simulations for a living)-
On a physical problem that can be described by a handful of equations (as in a per-particle simulation of gravity and electromagnetism, or a per-mesh element of a fluid) the calculations are very simple; the caveat is that they have to be iterated a couple of trillion times before getting a result; GPUs are designed to do exactly this (probably as a colaterral of how they are designed to handle vertices). Why do you think nVidia has been selling these ?
Judging from their (Indian gov) demands on Blackberry and Skype, I'll not be surprised if this turns out to be backdoored- 'USB connectivity' involves GPS, widely used by tourists and tr'rists-
It's not all about illumination- there is many a occasion where the heat produced by the incandescent bulb is desired; keeping food warm, keeping your pet reptile happy, to name a few.
I am definately for sanity in resource management, but I can't fathom this banning obsession-
Offtopic maybe but I need to post this; A pc with a streaming-capable connection is a receiver- so is any smartass cellphone. In Denmark, f.i., TV people push you to pay the radio/tv licence fee if you have a TV, and/or a radio, and/or a streaming-capable internet connection (64Kbps+), and/or a 'modern' cellphone.
So unless they ones in UK are complete morons no, you cannot get away without paying the TV licence. Unless you never allow them to peek into your space- but then again THz scanning is right around the corner, so good luck with that.
Second. I also do not mind the pitching down (or up) in order to 'make' the thing audible. In pretty much the same spirit of color processing/enhancement, it 'normalizes' the emissions into a hearing range- this can give one tools to perform more intuitive science, something that always encapsulates a potential for further discoveries- why not 'see' in UV or IR or whatever, since we do have the means to do so? I have to agree though that this technique is decade's old, and probably our fellows just crave media attention =)
No hard feelings there; you have to be popular to get the funds! I recommend some restrain though in grandiose statements such as "Life on Mars discovered already!" or "Subsurface Oceans confirmed under most solar system bodies!" and the like
Btw, one of my former teachers in Compact Astrophysics did the same with Pulsars; no need for pitching up or down there, since most of the periodic signals can be 'heard' already (if you just cat waveform >/dev/audio)
In addition, even the ultra-high-resolution cameras in spy satellites would probably not be of that much use from geostationary orbit (GEO), since GEO is very far away
I tend to disagree- the biggest factor that craps up the imagery is the atmospheric distortion, and adaptive optics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_optics can work miracles on compensating for that. I do not doubt that there can be many low-orbit spy satellites, but then a very elegant tracking system would have to be used to get a video of this Great Leader taking a dump. On a geostationary orbit, I would assume you need to point the camera(s) only once.
Slashdot Mirror
they had intentionally changed Morotolla phones so they wouldn't go straight to the web like they were designed, but go through a broker the phone company carried. It effectively doubled the # of bytes your transmitted
Evil bastards.
True that. Maybe a bit off-topic, but I have to add that some promotional Sony Ericsson ones (W660 comes in mind, you would be eligible to get them 'for free' if you were one of those customers that talked much) were 'pimped' by vodafone to try to connect to the internet VIA A FRIGGIN' DIALUP (through vodafone's portal ofcourse) by pressing almost any button after finishing a call- super-easy to accidently connect, at what could be the most expensive internet session, possibly second only to satellite.
What makes that an evil plan is that though the carrier knows that you possibly already have a much better smartphone of the likes of a nokia Nxxx or whatnot, they would still offer the pimped one on the hopes of you passing it through to your grandparents or smth- so they would 'catch' more subscribers.
What's awesome is that people would get the phones, and then subscribe to a competitor's carrier, where the dialup wouldn't work- so no connection sneaked up you, no charge.
Nice poetic justice twist, huh?
Real physicists wear suspenders!
Real physicists wear THE SAME suspenders EVERY DAY.
Here, fixed that for you
'If it's possible to make a decent living selling books online, then why does it feel so shameful to do this work?'
Dealing stuff for money IS shameful- this is a very mild case though. If you're seriously asking yourself this kind of questions while enterprising, then you should consider not being a salesperson. Plus don't quit your dayjob, I got a friend that has been reselling LPs, and it is not everyday that a Japanese collector will bid $50 on one of his records bought en masse from a garage sale.
Savitz writes that people scanning books sometimes get kicked out of thrift stores and retail shops and that libraries are beginning to advertise that no electronic devices are allowed at their sales.
Horseshit. All in all, what I see as shameful here is for libraries to employ such tactics to buy time to figure out how they can do this for themselves. If this is a fleamarket dance, I don't see why the rules should apply one way. Is it illegal to buy with intent to resale?
'Zuckerberg's dominance can be attributed partly to the clean interface of his site, partly to the cachet of the Harvard name and partly to luck.'
And it can also attributed mainly to the sneaky way of introducing it as a need-to-have-university-email-account-to-enter-we-are-serious-here (remember the early days anyone?), and because people love to brag and stalk.
.. and the error bar roughly equals the Earth's diameter. So it might hit the Earth. Or it mightn't.
It explains why a flying saucer shape is used.
That, and that it looks pretty badass.
If you just find one of these
.. and there there is another, smaller one. They could come in pairs! Sneaky, but efficient.
Aren't all rings of this nature formed form orbiting debris - debris caused by collisions?
Possibly yes, but that is not a scientific explanation; with that attitude, everything is formed by collapsing and colliding- astrophysics' goal is also to quantify; why this kind of rings and not some other? Why not similar ones to every planet? What are the initial conditions that lead to the development of Saturn's rings?
The thought that Jupiter will have rings once the conflicting orbits of it's moons finally cause them to collide is not new.. it's expected and assumed that it will happen..
Here is a hypothesis with a counterintuitive ring to it; there are many stable orbital configurations where orbiters need not align themselves with the body that they are orbiting- in english, there is no reason for planetary rings to be exactly aligned over their host planet's equator. The fact that they do, hints strongly to the assumption that they were formed at the same time with that planet; meaning that the same clump of rotating self-gravitating mass oblated due to friction, and while collapsing partially broke up due to gravitational perturbations from outside the system. That scenario would account for the alignment and that makes it pretty hard to beat.
They don't need to; you can hand in a list of the people that CANNOT referee your submitted paper, because of whatever reasons (meaning you don't have to explain yourself)
The WSJ report is behind a paywall, but it's accessible in full through a Google search.
Ah! Like softare. Got it.
Just release video with the left/right frames (side-by-side, above/below, alternating, you choose) and let each of us view it optimally on our hardware.
... or just release the raw data!
In a simulation like this, the most important physical effect to model is gravity.
No, it's not. Or it is. Actually, you can't say until you run it and compare the results with other setups and, better yet, with what you see in the Cosmos.
Imagine that every galaxy is, more or less, surrounded by all the others- thus, unless you have superclusters in proximity gravity cancels out. Seen as a system with components, though, the gravitational interactions between individual stars (from which the shape of the galaxy emerges from) are important. Yet, forces such as e/m might be mild, but operating over big timescales may greately influence the outcome- imagine that the whole thing is turbulance-driven; i.e. only a small fraction of matter/energy of the universe 'settles' into stars, planets, iPods and lolcatz (that's due to gravity); the rest is running loose in the wild, and plays a catalytic -if I may- role finetuning the rest of the picture.
To explain the former better, accounting for plasma flows (a very resource-hungry problem) can give one an idea on the fraction of the material that is being ejected back to the system. Again, one may ignore some interactions (for speed's sake) and compare results with others and the Cosmos; depending of the problem one could say that gravity is the most important, but that is not always the case.
You've modded this funny, but it's true (disclaimer; I'm doing numerical simulations for a living)-
On a physical problem that can be described by a handful of equations (as in a per-particle simulation of gravity and electromagnetism, or a per-mesh element of a fluid) the calculations are very simple; the caveat is that they have to be iterated a couple of trillion times before getting a result; GPUs are designed to do exactly this (probably as a colaterral of how they are designed to handle vertices). Why do you think nVidia has been selling these ?
Judging from their (Indian gov) demands on Blackberry and Skype, I'll not be surprised if this turns out to be backdoored- 'USB connectivity' involves GPS, widely used by tourists and tr'rists-
Anyway I'm getting one. Or more.
It's not all about illumination- there is many a occasion where the heat produced by the incandescent bulb is desired; keeping food warm, keeping your pet reptile happy, to name a few.
I am definately for sanity in resource management, but I can't fathom this banning obsession-
I beg to differ.
What you perceive as gravity in this plane is nothing but the work of Graviel, one of the Archangels.
Yup- note also how other insects have their own, specialized fungal Nemeses; quite old news
Offtopic maybe but I need to post this; A pc with a streaming-capable connection is a receiver- so is any smartass cellphone. In Denmark, f.i., TV people push you to pay the radio/tv licence fee if you have a TV, and/or a radio, and/or a streaming-capable internet connection (64Kbps+), and/or a 'modern' cellphone.
So unless they ones in UK are complete morons no, you cannot get away without paying the TV licence. Unless you never allow them to peek into your space- but then again THz scanning is right around the corner, so good luck with that.
... but good teachers are better.
The only thing we know is what it looks like in different colors.
Uuh .. black?
Second. I also do not mind the pitching down (or up) in order to 'make' the thing audible. In pretty much the same spirit of color processing/enhancement, it 'normalizes' the emissions into a hearing range- this can give one tools to perform more intuitive science, something that always encapsulates a potential for further discoveries- why not 'see' in UV or IR or whatever, since we do have the means to do so? I have to agree though that this technique is decade's old, and probably our fellows just crave media attention =)
No hard feelings there; you have to be popular to get the funds! I recommend some restrain though in grandiose statements such as "Life on Mars discovered already!" or "Subsurface Oceans confirmed under most solar system bodies!" and the like
Btw, one of my former teachers in Compact Astrophysics did the same with Pulsars; no need for pitching up or down there, since most of the periodic signals can be 'heard' already (if you just cat waveform > /dev/audio)
So you know who their sponsor is- after all, they DO have sponsors, don't they!
I call them 'Hawking cells'
In addition, even the ultra-high-resolution cameras in spy satellites would probably not be of that much use from geostationary orbit (GEO), since GEO is very far away
I tend to disagree- the biggest factor that craps up the imagery is the atmospheric distortion, and adaptive optics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_optics can work miracles on compensating for that. I do not doubt that there can be many low-orbit spy satellites, but then a very elegant tracking system would have to be used to get a video of this Great Leader taking a dump. On a geostationary orbit, I would assume you need to point the camera(s) only once.
.. does it run Linux?