From this distance, one vantage point, how can they know for sure this convergence is actually going to "collide" as opposed to just skim past each other? You can't tell how far apart they are in all 3 axii, just 2.
You get the third axis by comparing the Doppler shift with the apparent lateral speed. It's basic trig.
It would take nearly forever for you to cool off that much, you would explode due to pressure differential
No, you would not. Standard air pressure is about 15 PSI. Thus, being in vacuum can never apply more than 15 PSI to your internal organs, unless you came from a substantially pressurized environment.
SCUBA divers experience sudden pressure changes in the realm of 15 PSI all the time. They don't "explode," they just get the bends. It's something you want to avoid, definitely, but you aren't going to blow your guts just because the ambient pressure drops by 15 PSI.
...right. If someone is insane enough to ignore the alarm and he still tries to harm my family, he can't ignore a.45.
I didn't say the gun couldn't KILL him. Just that it won't SCARE him. So you can't rely on fear factor, you have to actually aim and hit. Anybody who sticks around with alarms going off is clearly nuts anyway.
And if your argument is that he could take the weapon away and use it against me--well, I'd rather have some chance of stopping him than no chance.
I'm not arguing against the efficacy of the weapon as a killing device. But it is clearly not effective as a DETERRENT in this case.
So you're saying you should have no defense against someone breaking in to harm you and/or your family for a minimum of 5-10 minutes?
With an extremely loud klaxon and flashing lights going off, do you really think the intruder is going to stick around on the ASSUMPTION that the cops won't be there within X minutes?
The purpose of the alarm isn't to notify the police in time to respond and catch the perpetrator. The purpose of the alarm is to scare the crap out of said perpetrator and get him OFF your property. If the invader is insane enough to ignore the alarms going off, he's probably also insane enough to stand up to you and your firearm.
assuming some nebulae-dwelling planet-sized life-form wants to leave everything he's ever known and travel a bazillion miles in an uncomfortable setting (imagine the life support for that!) just to meet you is the most arrogant sentiment of all!
Just to meet me? I said nothing of the sort. How about "because it wants to?" Again, who are you to predict the whims of a being the size of a planet?
The summary is inaccurate when it says that the package is 'illegal'.
But does it say that? "Illegal software installer" could be interpretted as a software installer which is illegal, or as an installer which installs "illegal software."
In other words, is it "(Illegal software) installer" or "Illegal (software installer)?" I believe the former was the intended meaning.
A civilization that survives long enough to reach the technological level necessary for interstellar spaceflight will have stabilized its population and learned how to use local resources to make their home world a paradise. Why go anywhere else? The expense is enormous, the payoff non-existent.
That statement boggles the mind. You're assuming, from a human context, that no living thing in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE would EVER want to engage in space travel. Head swollen a bit?
For that matter, you assume that all livings beings in the universe must be located on "worlds." What about a space-dwelling species that inhabits the nebula of a supernova, feeding off the remnant energy and matter? Such a being could be planetary in size, itself. Are you suggesting that such beings should never want to leave their home nebula?
Who the hell are you anyway, to tell all the species which may inhabit the universe, what to do?
But sure, I guess from a naive Star Trek sort of viewpoint where the only relevant species out there are humanoid and pretty much exactly like us, your madness makes sense.
One of the outcomes of a MAJORITY of marriages is kind of "genetic fusing" -- or haven't you heard? I guess you haven't got to that part yet. I'll let it be a surprise for you.
The basic problem in all relationships, not just marriages, is a lack of complete understanding. We humans are reasonably good at communicating our mental states to each other, but it's never perfect. We spend most of our lives with nothing more than a "pretty good idea" of what our partner is thinking or feeling. Once you've figured out how to communicate, you can work together to find solutions to your difficulties that are appropriate for BOTH of you.
There's no rule that tells you how to get along. You tell EACH OTHER that part. The trick is learning how to say it, and hear it when the other says it.
Along with all the other hot women, maybe? Obviously you've never BEEN to Defcon.
At Defcon there is a definite shortage of brilliant women. But there is DEFINITELY no shortage of what I call "scene sluts" who will pretty much have sex with anybody weighing in under 500 pounds, so long as you buy the drinks.
It sounds like a joke, but it's not. Ask anybody who's been there (which clearly doesn't include you)
There are features in the C++ standard that are so extremely difficult to correctly implement in standard compliant C that it's a complete waste of effort trying to pass via C while compiling.
The only thing I can imagine that would be hard to map directly onto C would be exceptions. Can you confirm that this is what you mean? Because nothing else comes to mind that would be "extremely difficult" to implement.
Even then, it's possible to emulate C++-style exceptions in C. I've done it -- the best description I can think of is "horrifically ugly." But it's possible.
Yeah, it sucks that they are going to a non-free option where the cheapest version is about $150 USD, but guess what - that is what the kids will see in the corporate world by the time they graduate from college.
Guess what -- in the corporate world you don't pay for your own copy of Office from your own fucking pocket.
Gperf might be reasonable as a perfect hash generator for those incredibly rare situations when the extra work due to a hash collision is really the one thing standing between you and acceptable performance of your application.
The primary REAL use of gperf is generating keyword recognizers for language parsers. It's another tool in the same vein as lex and yacc.
His job wasn't to "be perfect." His job was to write a proposal. The other peoples' job was to make sure it contained no mistakes. He did his job, they didn't.
Anyway, this has nothing to do with parenting, by the government or otherwise. It is merely a convenient excuse to convince people that universal monitoring is something they actually want. In most other places, the "save the children" argument doesn't fly. Here, it works greaaaaaat.
So Jobs ditches the concept of a finite, immutable set of buttons and replaces it with a potentially infinitely reconfigurable set of buttons and calls that a REDUCTION in complexity?
Seriously. Just because it's a touch-screen doesn't make it any less of a "button."
Thus the company could always say "this application was rejected because the applicant's income was too low, and would have been accepted if the applicant had earned X thousand more a year." Raising the question, of course, of whether this was the real reason. Or what it means to talk about "the real reason" in the case of a decision made by a neural net.
How is it any different from dealing with a person? You have no idea if what somebody tells you is "real." And people can get hunches, where they feel that a situation is a certain way but without knowing quite why they feel that way. Basically, there's no difference between a neural net not being able to explain its "opinion" and a human not being able to explain his opinion.
You seem to think that we can always get to the root of the matter by simply questioning the banker. That seems... laughable.
Slashdot Mirror
From this distance, one vantage point, how can they know for sure this convergence is actually going to "collide" as opposed to just skim past each other? You can't tell how far apart they are in all 3 axii, just 2.
You get the third axis by comparing the Doppler shift with the apparent lateral speed. It's basic trig.
It would take nearly forever for you to cool off that much, you would explode due to pressure differential
No, you would not. Standard air pressure is about 15 PSI. Thus, being in vacuum can never apply more than 15 PSI to your internal organs, unless you came from a substantially pressurized environment.
SCUBA divers experience sudden pressure changes in the realm of 15 PSI all the time. They don't "explode," they just get the bends. It's something you want to avoid, definitely, but you aren't going to blow your guts just because the ambient pressure drops by 15 PSI.
I didn't say the gun couldn't KILL him. Just that it won't SCARE him. So you can't rely on fear factor, you have to actually aim and hit. Anybody who sticks around with alarms going off is clearly nuts anyway.
And if your argument is that he could take the weapon away and use it against me--well, I'd rather have some chance of stopping him than no chance.
I'm not arguing against the efficacy of the weapon as a killing device. But it is clearly not effective as a DETERRENT in this case.
So you're saying you should have no defense against someone breaking in to harm you and/or your family for a minimum of 5-10 minutes?
With an extremely loud klaxon and flashing lights going off, do you really think the intruder is going to stick around on the ASSUMPTION that the cops won't be there within X minutes?
The purpose of the alarm isn't to notify the police in time to respond and catch the perpetrator. The purpose of the alarm is to scare the crap out of said perpetrator and get him OFF your property. If the invader is insane enough to ignore the alarms going off, he's probably also insane enough to stand up to you and your firearm.
assuming some nebulae-dwelling planet-sized life-form wants to leave everything he's ever known and travel a bazillion miles in an uncomfortable setting (imagine the life support for that!) just to meet you is the most arrogant sentiment of all!
Just to meet me? I said nothing of the sort. How about "because it wants to?" Again, who are you to predict the whims of a being the size of a planet?The summary is inaccurate when it says that the package is 'illegal'.
But does it say that? "Illegal software installer" could be interpretted as a software installer which is illegal, or as an installer which installs "illegal software."
In other words, is it "(Illegal software) installer" or "Illegal (software installer)?" I believe the former was the intended meaning.
Why is this kind of lapse so much more socially acceptable than driving while intoxicated? Come on people, spell it out for me.
Most people I know would admit to driving while tired/falling asleep. And yet nobody would admit to driving drunk, even if they've done it.
There is no fundamental right to drive drunk.
I'm sorry. I'm looking in the Constitution here for the page that says "Rights we don't have." I can't find it. Can you give me a reference?
Now drunks will have yet ANOTHER excuse why it wasn't "their fault" when they mow over a minivan full of 6th graders.
"The car wasn't supposed to let me drive! It let me drive so I figured I was okay! Not my fault!"
How about we take some fucking RESPONSIBILITY for our actions, eh?
A civilization that survives long enough to reach the technological level necessary for interstellar spaceflight will have stabilized its population and learned how to use local resources to make their home world a paradise. Why go anywhere else? The expense is enormous, the payoff non-existent.
That statement boggles the mind. You're assuming, from a human context, that no living thing in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE would EVER want to engage in space travel. Head swollen a bit?
For that matter, you assume that all livings beings in the universe must be located on "worlds." What about a space-dwelling species that inhabits the nebula of a supernova, feeding off the remnant energy and matter? Such a being could be planetary in size, itself. Are you suggesting that such beings should never want to leave their home nebula?
Who the hell are you anyway, to tell all the species which may inhabit the universe, what to do?
But sure, I guess from a naive Star Trek sort of viewpoint where the only relevant species out there are humanoid and pretty much exactly like us, your madness makes sense.
Shoot, we've only had radio technology since the 1940s!
Wh-wh-wha... what?
One of the outcomes of a MAJORITY of marriages is kind of "genetic fusing" -- or haven't you heard? I guess you haven't got to that part yet. I'll let it be a surprise for you.
The basic problem in all relationships, not just marriages, is a lack of complete understanding. We humans are reasonably good at communicating our mental states to each other, but it's never perfect. We spend most of our lives with nothing more than a "pretty good idea" of what our partner is thinking or feeling. Once you've figured out how to communicate, you can work together to find solutions to your difficulties that are appropriate for BOTH of you.
There's no rule that tells you how to get along. You tell EACH OTHER that part. The trick is learning how to say it, and hear it when the other says it.
Along with all the other hot women, maybe? Obviously you've never BEEN to Defcon.
At Defcon there is a definite shortage of brilliant women. But there is DEFINITELY no shortage of what I call "scene sluts" who will pretty much have sex with anybody weighing in under 500 pounds, so long as you buy the drinks.
It sounds like a joke, but it's not. Ask anybody who's been there (which clearly doesn't include you)
How do you figure 2.1%?
42.8 / 40.7 = 1.052, or a relative increase in efficiency of 5.2%.
Simpler, consider an increase of 1% to 2% efficiency instead. It's quite obvious that you've DOUBLED your performance, not increased it by 1%.
There are features in the C++ standard that are so extremely difficult to correctly implement in standard compliant C that it's a complete waste of effort trying to pass via C while compiling.
The only thing I can imagine that would be hard to map directly onto C would be exceptions. Can you confirm that this is what you mean? Because nothing else comes to mind that would be "extremely difficult" to implement.
Even then, it's possible to emulate C++-style exceptions in C. I've done it -- the best description I can think of is "horrifically ugly." But it's possible.
Yeah, it sucks that they are going to a non-free option where the cheapest version is about $150 USD, but guess what - that is what the kids will see in the corporate world by the time they graduate from college.
Guess what -- in the corporate world you don't pay for your own copy of Office from your own fucking pocket.
Gperf might be reasonable as a perfect hash generator for those incredibly rare situations when the extra work due to a hash collision is really the one thing standing between you and acceptable performance of your application.
The primary REAL use of gperf is generating keyword recognizers for language parsers. It's another tool in the same vein as lex and yacc.
Where's the Foot icon? Optimizing command line parsing? Oh God, my sides are splitting.
To piss off bitter little minions like you?
His job wasn't to "be perfect." His job was to write a proposal. The other peoples' job was to make sure it contained no mistakes. He did his job, they didn't.
Parenting is dead in America. End of story.
Anyway, this has nothing to do with parenting, by the government or otherwise. It is merely a convenient excuse to convince people that universal monitoring is something they actually want. In most other places, the "save the children" argument doesn't fly. Here, it works greaaaaaat.
So Jobs ditches the concept of a finite, immutable set of buttons and replaces it with a potentially infinitely reconfigurable set of buttons and calls that a REDUCTION in complexity?
Seriously. Just because it's a touch-screen doesn't make it any less of a "button."
Thus the company could always say "this application was rejected because the applicant's income was too low, and would have been accepted if the applicant had earned X thousand more a year." Raising the question, of course, of whether this was the real reason. Or what it means to talk about "the real reason" in the case of a decision made by a neural net.
How is it any different from dealing with a person? You have no idea if what somebody tells you is "real." And people can get hunches, where they feel that a situation is a certain way but without knowing quite why they feel that way. Basically, there's no difference between a neural net not being able to explain its "opinion" and a human not being able to explain his opinion.
You seem to think that we can always get to the root of the matter by simply questioning the banker. That seems... laughable.
I guess that's your problem. Sorry, you don't get to define the terms.
Libel? Yeah. My impression of... um... some anonymous drunk, has been forever tainted.
What the hell are you on about?