You listed "graphics", and trigonometry is used numerous places in graphics. Try doing anything remotely three dimensional, or try doing the most basic thing of drawing a circle, without using trigonometry.
Re:I'm not an expert...
on
Office 12 Exposed
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
But there's not a whole lot of thing to go through - just type the feature you want in a textbox.
And after all that gui development, we're back at vim.:)
The biggest problem with Katrina wasn't the hurricane itself, it was the flooding from the levee breaks, which may not have been on the list of scenarios.
Actually, it was at the top of scenarios for just about anyone who was paying attention to the news, or listening to the local FEMA people for the last couple of years. That unfortunately does not include the president or director of FEMA.
All freedom of speech means is that the Government won't try to stop your (should be political) speech.
I have news for you. Lawsuits are empowered by the government, so if the government empowers someone to sue you regarding a comment, then the government is not granting you freedom to speak that comment.
And freedom of speech is not restricted to supporting or rejecting a political candidate. Honest protest of any issue is permissible, and among consenting adults discussion of essentially any topic is permissible. If Burger King were putting cyanide in their french fries, and a blogger posts about this, would you say this is not covered under free speech because it has nothing to do with an election, and that Burger King should then have the right to sue the blogger?
The only case under which Burger King would have the right to sue would be if Burger King could demonstrate that there were no cyanide in its french fries, that the blogger intentionally fabricated the story to damage Burger King's reputation, and that a reasonable person would believe the story produced by the blogger.
Guaranteeing freedom of speech, and thus a free society, requires far more than just not putting people in prison for making political statements.
There should be a moderation for +6, more informative than the article.
For example, in this request letter, the information requested is entirely about research funding (a disclosure requirement in order to receive federal funding for research), and about the science itself and obtaining the necessary data and code to examine and reproduce the results.
Considering that there HAVE been published questions raised about the reproducibility of Mann's work, and considering that this work was federally funded, then these seem like legitimate questions to ask.
When a scientist publicly advocates policy changes based on publicly funded research, then the full funding, data, and process used to generate that research need to be available to the public.
For the people that think "OMG the radiation!" think of it this way - you have no problems with a 1 degree change in temperature. You'd have a big problem with a 100 degree in temperature. Likewise, some radiation is ok
Sure, if you assume the human body is built like a thermometer, but that would be a ridiculously naive assumption. Studies have demonstrated that microwave power levels which don't cause significant heating still cause significant and harmful effects, some by directly damaging DNA in a non-ionizing fashion, and some by disrupting lipid membranes in the body, such as found in the blood brain barrier.
There are far more effects of radiation on complex and polarized molecules than you get from thermal models or billiard ball simplifications of radiation.
and most gear puts out *less* than the Earth naturally radiates
Only if you assume all wavelengths are identical to the human body, which is not at all the case. Every wavelength is absorbed by different parts of the body in different amounts, and every wavelength interacts in different ways with different molecules.
Smarter people than myself have said it, if the people you have know a certain language, use that, don't force them to use something else even if it is conceived to be better.
Why? If the people you have can't adapt their skills to a new programming language, then you might need to hire new people anyway. The idea of "use what you know" just causes people to use less effective tools for the job, which can often result in more clunky, less flexible, or less secure code.
The better solution is to, first, have good people around who know a lot of languages and know a lot about design, then discuss the specific parameters of the project WITH them, and have them work out proposals for which languages should be used to match those specific design requirements. And then choose the language that's best for the job, and everyone who works there should adapt to it and learn it, since that's most of what a coding job is about anyway.
Unorthodoxy is science is fine, as long as the resulting discoveries are repeatable / provable.
And just how do you know which unorthodox things are repeatable and provable before investigating them? Supreme intuition?:)
Many scientists today are comfortable sitting on the soulders of giants, but are afraid to jump off. The great leaps in history are made by those with the courage to try things without knowing beforehand whether or not they will work.
For example, we think mirrors flip you around left to right. Well...it's just as correct to think they've flipped you around up to down. If you flipped an image in the mirror up to down, the person would be correct, although standing on their head.
Uh, no it's not. That would be silly. Look in a mirror, raise your hand, and try to conceive of the image of your hand going down. The reason mirrors flip left and right is because left and right are defined relative to which direction is forward, and mirrors flip which direction is forward. Up and down are defined more absolutely in terms of which direction the Earth is.
Second, your formula doesn't even support your statement that all objects travel at the speed of light. This is a nonsensical statement and I suppose it only figures that it needs nonsensical math to back it up, but wow you take it to extremes.
Actually, this has become a fairly standard and accepted way of formulating SR from a simple geometric viewpoint.
It's okay to criticize people's theories, but if you're going to insult them and call them a "crank", at least make sure you're completely correct first.
Again, I'm probably missing your point, but what about healthcare, transport, communications, lifestyle, construction, entertainment, etc., etc.? One thing classical computers are good at is automation. How would a quantum computer improve on a classical one in this respect?
The simple honest answer is that no one really knows, because quantum computing algorithm development is still in its infancy. That we have so many profound developments already (namely the enormous impact that the quantum simulation capabilities will have across numerous fields of science) is reason enough to build them, but undoubtedly we have barely scratched the surface of the new capabilities they will yield.
That it's possible to construct algorithms like Grover's search algorithm hints that there may be an entire class of asymptotic speed improvements which will be discovered.
like several people e-mailing one person but not each other, which is how some criminal networks operate.
Yeah... And classes?
We used to have a right to assemble somewhere, now if only I could find where that was written. Ah, there it is. No, wait, that just says, "Some rights are more inalienable than others." Hmm...
Why should people assume that copyrights will last their entire lifetime? The copyright is not a declaration of authorship. Original authorship never ends. Copyright is an exclusive right to sell a product and prepare derivative works of it, for the purpose of providing a financial incentive for the creation of new art. That's all.
I say it should last a fixed, reasonable, and constrained number of years, regardless of the lifespan of the creator. If I write a book and die tomorrow, my family should have the same financial opportunity from that work as they would in the case where I write a book and miraculously live another 70 years.
And extending copyright for an extremely long period of time greatly hinders the progress of knowledge and growth of art, as I explained above.
You missed the key point. Sure McCartney and Ringo are still alive, but does extending their copyright from 50 years to 70 or 100 make them any more likely to have produced more art? Would a single drop of extra art be made by any artists today if copyrights lasted 100 years instead of 50?
On the contrary, I suspect art would actually suffer and decrease from such an extension. Shakespeare gets remade and reinterpreted on a regular basis, and each new reinterpretation is a new artistic work, and often expresses a slightly different experience. After art becomes public domain, it becomes a part of the palette.
Apple's marketshare would benefit from a merger, but Intel's marketshare would be significantly hurt from it. Apple is a computer distributer, and Intel has to seduce computer distributers. By merging with Apple, Intel loses impartiality, and the other computer distributers are suddenly put in a position where supporting Intel means endangering their own future, making a jump to (or preference for) AMD much more likely and sensible.
So if a merger happens, the people at the top of Intel are probably a little bit crazy. It'd be one of the least productive tech mergers since AOL Time-Warner.
Could you give me a link to where some made "nano gold" that was red and reactive because I don't think it's possible.
The phenomenon he's referring to is called "plasmon resonance". I can't seem to find any good pictures in google, but they can look red around diameters of, say, 50nm or so.
This experiment has been repeated successfully and other scientists have reviewed the results: it looks like the real thing this time.
Note that this is not the same as OTHER groups reproducting a result. But as others have said here, the physics certainly fits such that even if this were flawed, it's certainly believable that non-breakeven fusion could be done in a similar fashion.
With that said, the setup is a clever arrangement.:)
Perhaps you haven't noticed the tendency of people on cell phones to drive faster than everyone else. See, the cell phone is a distraction which reduces attention to everything around you, so in order to resolve this, cell phone using drivers go as fast as they can and swerve through traffic as much as they can, so they get to where they are going faster to avoid being a danger to everyone else on the road. Or something like that...
Infact, if alot of the larger publishers are pushing for it, it most likely means its not fair.
Copyright should ONLY serve as an incentive to the artist. Extending them to 100 years presents zero extra incentive, and thus serves no purpose other than reducing public access to information and art.
The idea of copyright is to increase the total art available, not decrease the availability of art.
When you count the ballots one way, Fred wins. Count them again and Mary wins. Count them some more times and you continue to get random results between Fred and Mary being the winner. This is not what people are interested in - any people. The people being voted for deserve a "fair" and reproducible result.
First, electronic voting does not present a solution to more "fair" results. In fact, there are a large number of convincing examples that it produces significantly less fair results, with the ease of lone individuals manipulating the vote count for an entire machine or region.
Second, electronic voting without a paper trail does not make a reproducible result. It solves the problem of fluctuation in the results by simply counting once, and destroying the information which led to that initial count. This is not reproducible. People are actively OPPOSING electronic voting machines with paper trails because they are afraid of a "recount fiasco", which means, they are more interested in having a result with no questions that can be asked, than in having a result which is fair, accurate, or reproducible.
And that's the third thing, your consideration of the important elements of a voting system discussed "fair" and "reproducible", but you missed one of the single most essential and important elements of any voting process: It needs to be accurate. A voting process which makes it easier for single individuals to get large numbers of votes diverges far away from accuracy, and that's precisely what is wrong with electronic voting. We don't have a group of watchful eyes from each party watching the count, we have an invisible tally with no permanent record of what it is or how it got there, and lone individuals can (provably, I might add, check the internet) change those results.
Fermat wrote, in the margin, "I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain." Did you ever consider that maybe this was just Fermat's last joke? Humor predates math by quite a bit.
Slashdot Mirror
You listed "graphics", and trigonometry is used numerous places in graphics. Try doing anything remotely three dimensional, or try doing the most basic thing of drawing a circle, without using trigonometry.
But there's not a whole lot of thing to go through - just type the feature you want in a textbox.
:)
And after all that gui development, we're back at vim.
The biggest problem with Katrina wasn't the hurricane itself, it was the flooding from the levee breaks, which may not have been on the list of scenarios.
Actually, it was at the top of scenarios for just about anyone who was paying attention to the news, or listening to the local FEMA people for the last couple of years. That unfortunately does not include the president or director of FEMA.
All freedom of speech means is that the Government won't try to stop your (should be political) speech.
I have news for you. Lawsuits are empowered by the government, so if the government empowers someone to sue you regarding a comment, then the government is not granting you freedom to speak that comment.
And freedom of speech is not restricted to supporting or rejecting a political candidate. Honest protest of any issue is permissible, and among consenting adults discussion of essentially any topic is permissible. If Burger King were putting cyanide in their french fries, and a blogger posts about this, would you say this is not covered under free speech because it has nothing to do with an election, and that Burger King should then have the right to sue the blogger?
The only case under which Burger King would have the right to sue would be if Burger King could demonstrate that there were no cyanide in its french fries, that the blogger intentionally fabricated the story to damage Burger King's reputation, and that a reasonable person would believe the story produced by the blogger.
Guaranteeing freedom of speech, and thus a free society, requires far more than just not putting people in prison for making political statements.
There should be a moderation for +6, more informative than the article.
For example, in this request letter, the information requested is entirely about research funding (a disclosure requirement in order to receive federal funding for research), and about the science itself and obtaining the necessary data and code to examine and reproduce the results.
Considering that there HAVE been published questions raised about the reproducibility of Mann's work, and considering that this work was federally funded, then these seem like legitimate questions to ask.
When a scientist publicly advocates policy changes based on publicly funded research, then the full funding, data, and process used to generate that research need to be available to the public.
For the people that think "OMG the radiation!" think of it this way - you have no problems with a 1 degree change in temperature. You'd have a big problem with a 100 degree in temperature. Likewise, some radiation is ok
Sure, if you assume the human body is built like a thermometer, but that would be a ridiculously naive assumption. Studies have demonstrated that microwave power levels which don't cause significant heating still cause significant and harmful effects, some by directly damaging DNA in a non-ionizing fashion, and some by disrupting lipid membranes in the body, such as found in the blood brain barrier.
There are far more effects of radiation on complex and polarized molecules than you get from thermal models or billiard ball simplifications of radiation.
and most gear puts out *less* than the Earth naturally radiates
Only if you assume all wavelengths are identical to the human body, which is not at all the case. Every wavelength is absorbed by different parts of the body in different amounts, and every wavelength interacts in different ways with different molecules.
Smarter people than myself have said it, if the people you have know a certain language, use that, don't force them to use something else even if it is conceived to be better.
Why? If the people you have can't adapt their skills to a new programming language, then you might need to hire new people anyway. The idea of "use what you know" just causes people to use less effective tools for the job, which can often result in more clunky, less flexible, or less secure code.
The better solution is to, first, have good people around who know a lot of languages and know a lot about design, then discuss the specific parameters of the project WITH them, and have them work out proposals for which languages should be used to match those specific design requirements. And then choose the language that's best for the job, and everyone who works there should adapt to it and learn it, since that's most of what a coding job is about anyway.
Would a terrorist give you a trial?
If my government is using the tactics of terrorists, then I have a serious problem with that. Why don't you?
Heck, they switched from driving on the left to driving on the right in 1967 and there were no big problems!
So they just blew a loud whistle at midnight and everyone quick swerved to the other side?
Unorthodoxy is science is fine, as long as the resulting discoveries are repeatable / provable.
:)
And just how do you know which unorthodox things are repeatable and provable before investigating them? Supreme intuition?
Many scientists today are comfortable sitting on the soulders of giants, but are afraid to jump off. The great leaps in history are made by those with the courage to try things without knowing beforehand whether or not they will work.
For example, we think mirrors flip you around left to right. Well...it's just as correct to think they've flipped you around up to down. If you flipped an image in the mirror up to down, the person would be correct, although standing on their head.
Uh, no it's not. That would be silly. Look in a mirror, raise your hand, and try to conceive of the image of your hand going down. The reason mirrors flip left and right is because left and right are defined relative to which direction is forward, and mirrors flip which direction is forward. Up and down are defined more absolutely in terms of which direction the Earth is.
Second, your formula doesn't even support your statement that all objects travel at the speed of light. This is a nonsensical statement and I suppose it only figures that it needs nonsensical math to back it up, but wow you take it to extremes.
Actually, this has become a fairly standard and accepted way of formulating SR from a simple geometric viewpoint.
It's okay to criticize people's theories, but if you're going to insult them and call them a "crank", at least make sure you're completely correct first.
Again, I'm probably missing your point, but what about healthcare, transport, communications, lifestyle, construction, entertainment, etc., etc.? One thing classical computers are good at is automation. How would a quantum computer improve on a classical one in this respect?
The simple honest answer is that no one really knows, because quantum computing algorithm development is still in its infancy. That we have so many profound developments already (namely the enormous impact that the quantum simulation capabilities will have across numerous fields of science) is reason enough to build them, but undoubtedly we have barely scratched the surface of the new capabilities they will yield.
That it's possible to construct algorithms like Grover's search algorithm hints that there may be an entire class of asymptotic speed improvements which will be discovered.
Or you can use ps2pdf, and create a pdf from any Linux app.
This line in the lead jumped out at me:
like several people e-mailing one person but not each other, which is how some criminal networks operate.
Yeah... And classes?
We used to have a right to assemble somewhere, now if only I could find where that was written. Ah, there it is. No, wait, that just says, "Some rights are more inalienable than others." Hmm...
1. Quit ...
2.
3. Profit!
Why should people assume that copyrights will last their entire lifetime? The copyright is not a declaration of authorship. Original authorship never ends. Copyright is an exclusive right to sell a product and prepare derivative works of it, for the purpose of providing a financial incentive for the creation of new art. That's all.
I say it should last a fixed, reasonable, and constrained number of years, regardless of the lifespan of the creator. If I write a book and die tomorrow, my family should have the same financial opportunity from that work as they would in the case where I write a book and miraculously live another 70 years.
And extending copyright for an extremely long period of time greatly hinders the progress of knowledge and growth of art, as I explained above.
You missed the key point. Sure McCartney and Ringo are still alive, but does extending their copyright from 50 years to 70 or 100 make them any more likely to have produced more art? Would a single drop of extra art be made by any artists today if copyrights lasted 100 years instead of 50?
On the contrary, I suspect art would actually suffer and decrease from such an extension. Shakespeare gets remade and reinterpreted on a regular basis, and each new reinterpretation is a new artistic work, and often expresses a slightly different experience. After art becomes public domain, it becomes a part of the palette.
Apple's marketshare would benefit from a merger, but Intel's marketshare would be significantly hurt from it. Apple is a computer distributer, and Intel has to seduce computer distributers. By merging with Apple, Intel loses impartiality, and the other computer distributers are suddenly put in a position where supporting Intel means endangering their own future, making a jump to (or preference for) AMD much more likely and sensible.
So if a merger happens, the people at the top of Intel are probably a little bit crazy. It'd be one of the least productive tech mergers since AOL Time-Warner.
Could you give me a link to where some made "nano gold" that was red and reactive because I don't think it's possible.
The phenomenon he's referring to is called "plasmon resonance". I can't seem to find any good pictures in google, but they can look red around diameters of, say, 50nm or so.
Here's a wiki page to get you started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmon
From the article:
:)
This experiment has been repeated successfully and other scientists have reviewed the results: it looks like the real thing this time.
Note that this is not the same as OTHER groups reproducting a result. But as others have said here, the physics certainly fits such that even if this were flawed, it's certainly believable that non-breakeven fusion could be done in a similar fashion.
With that said, the setup is a clever arrangement.
Perhaps you haven't noticed the tendency of people on cell phones to drive faster than everyone else. See, the cell phone is a distraction which reduces attention to everything around you, so in order to resolve this, cell phone using drivers go as fast as they can and swerve through traffic as much as they can, so they get to where they are going faster to avoid being a danger to everyone else on the road. Or something like that...
Infact, if alot of the larger publishers are pushing for it, it most likely means its not fair.
Copyright should ONLY serve as an incentive to the artist. Extending them to 100 years presents zero extra incentive, and thus serves no purpose other than reducing public access to information and art.
The idea of copyright is to increase the total art available, not decrease the availability of art.
When you count the ballots one way, Fred wins. Count them again and Mary wins. Count them some more times and you continue to get random results between Fred and Mary being the winner. This is not what people are interested in - any people. The people being voted for deserve a "fair" and reproducible result.
First, electronic voting does not present a solution to more "fair" results. In fact, there are a large number of convincing examples that it produces significantly less fair results, with the ease of lone individuals manipulating the vote count for an entire machine or region.
Second, electronic voting without a paper trail does not make a reproducible result. It solves the problem of fluctuation in the results by simply counting once, and destroying the information which led to that initial count. This is not reproducible. People are actively OPPOSING electronic voting machines with paper trails because they are afraid of a "recount fiasco", which means, they are more interested in having a result with no questions that can be asked, than in having a result which is fair, accurate, or reproducible.
And that's the third thing, your consideration of the important elements of a voting system discussed "fair" and "reproducible", but you missed one of the single most essential and important elements of any voting process: It needs to be accurate. A voting process which makes it easier for single individuals to get large numbers of votes diverges far away from accuracy, and that's precisely what is wrong with electronic voting. We don't have a group of watchful eyes from each party watching the count, we have an invisible tally with no permanent record of what it is or how it got there, and lone individuals can (provably, I might add, check the internet) change those results.
Fermat wrote, in the margin, "I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain." Did you ever consider that maybe this was just Fermat's last joke? Humor predates math by quite a bit.