Probably death. Same as would happen to a bird that flew into the outflow of the stack of a coal burning power plant. Or chopped up in the blade of a wind turbine. Or sucked up the chimney of a solar convector and ground up in the spinning turbine. Or blown away by the shotgun of the custodian of a solar panel installation for crapping all over his solar cells. For nuclear, I guess it might smack into the side of the cooling tower and die.
How many corpses of dead squirrels are on the roadways of Portland, Oregon? I'd guess it's in the thousands at any given moment, but we keep on driving. There seems to be no shortage of squirrels though.
I think you missed the point. The ISA (instruction set architecture) may be standardized (even then, there are dozens of variants), but you don't even really have an idea what sort of bus you're going to be sitting on, let alone anything else. On an x86 system you know you've got a north bridge, a south bridge, a particular type of PIC, a certain kind of timer, PCI, etc. While you could certainly build a computer based on an x86 that is completely unlike that, it would be an oddball. On ARM systems, no, pretty much anything that isn't an industry x86 architecture, it's just total chaos.
Microsoft will end up specifying a particular reference platform. Those of us who have NDAs with MS will get the details in the next little while. I even know which variant of ARM is going to be used, though of course I can't say what that is right now.
The PE format most decidedly doesn't support fat EXEs. Read the spec, page 12, if you need proof. There's only one field in the file for the architecture type, and that field can only hold one value. There are no currently documented methods for embedding multiple PE sections for multiple architectures into a single file. That isn't to say there isn't some way it could be shoehorned in, but as of yet, there is no way to have a fat EXE on Windows.
Alert! When you change the definition of "size" so that size is measured differently that before, the size of things changes! More on this in a future broadcast.
Am I allowed to introduce a variable 'd' -- the total pressure drop in the system, including pipe loss -- and a variable 'f' -- the efficiency of the pump? Also, I'm presuming that 'z' is the vertical dimension?
Well, swearing at you didn't work, so I'll switch to treating you as a child.
What I asked, sweetheart, is which of the following two things you believe in your own little head. Here's number 1 for you. "I believe that the taxes I pay toward unemployment are paid ultimately for my own benefit." Let's say you believe that ok honey? If that's the case, why would you refuse to take an unemployment payout when you are eligible for it?
And here's the other possibility, you perfect angel. "I believe that the taxes I pay toward unemployment are paid ultimately for the benefit of others." Let's say you think that instead of number 1. If that's the case, then why would you resent it when those people make use of that benefit?
Today I'm a programmer, and I make more than twice what my idiot math teachers made, and probably have more fun doing it.
As a programmer, you must have experience with the following phenomenon: you come back to a piece of code you yourself wrote, a year or so later, and not only can you not remember how it works, you don't even remember that you're the one who wrote it. It's great and everything that you could turn the formulas into a computer program, but as a fellow programmer myself, I can tell you that I can turn all kinds of formulas into programs even if I don't understand the damn formulas.
The goal, which you apparently missed completely, was to learn math, not how to turn a formula into a computer program. There's simply no way around the fact that most of this stuff can only be mentally internalized by rote and repetition. It sucks, it's boring, it's also how learning happens. What you did, and your following smart-ass attempts to defend your case, had a quite foreseeable outcome. Although I commend your mother for going to bat for you. Seems like parents don't have the guts for that in most cases lately.
Incompatible laws lead to paradoxical consequence! News at 11! How are we to deal with this insurmountable problem? Perhaps with a change to the law.... No, that would never work.
A donation to charity is made with the express purpose of helping OTHER PEOPLE. When you pay taxes into the unemployment program, do you feel as if you are doing it to help others or to help yourself? If you feel that it's to help yourself, why would you not take the payout? If you feel it is to help other people, why do you call those people leeches? Furthermore, I am in no way legally compelled to donate to charity. Your comparison is ridiculous and your viewpoint paradoxical.
What's the point in "teaching" math if you let the calculator do 90% of the work?
What's the point in "teaching" math if you let the decimal system and all that clever carry-the-one shit do all the work? I mean seriously, students need to learn what addition really is -- make them put 198 beans into a pot, then put another 61 beans in the pot, then count the beans to get the answer.
Being a human is about being smart, not being dumb. Forcing a student to do addition on paper when the student is studying partial differential equations is nothing but an insult. By that point I think they've earned the right to not continually have to prove that they can add two numbers together.
As an undergrad taking physics I had this bad habit of forgetting my calculator, especially on test day. I'd end up doing longhand division and taking up half the paper and leaving less room to write the actual answer. The professor started asking me what the hell I was smoking.
Why should we pay for the unemployment program from our own taxes and then altruistically choose not to benefit from it? I guess you enjoy paying into the system and having leeches collect on it. Sorry dude, I've been paying taxes into this program since I got out of high school and you're fucking crazy if you think I won't take the benefit if and when I'm eligible for it.
Sure, there's the second system effect to contend with, where you try to cram in all the crap you wish you'd had in version 1.0 and end up making an even bigger mess in version 2.0, but that's just an observation, not a law of nature.
Also, by "written from the ground up" I do not mean tossing out the Constitution and starting completely from scratch. To continue the computer analogy, let's treat the Constitution like the hardware. We know it works, it's just the pile of shit built on top of it that's wrong. Development is an iterative process for sure, but if you flat-out refuse to throw away your models which are clearly broken you'll eventually end up out of business.
It's so cute how you think law makers would make laws against the interest of bankers.
The complete failure of our system of government is an orthogonal problem to what we're discussing here.
If you compare the United States government to a computer program, it's basically a pile of hacks upon hacks sitting on top of a shitty core library. The hacks are there because the core is all fucked up, but just because you can make it work by adding even more hacks doesn't mean the whole thing won't fall down and collapse eventually. We need USA 2.0 at this point, written from the ground up.
No it won't. Like it or not, there's a need for a unique individual identifier in the credit industry. If you can prove you pay your bills, you're less of a risk, and can get lower rates from them. A lender does not need a SSN to lend you money. It's just that all of them choose to require it and a credit check to minimize their risk. If you feel this is wrong, feel free to start your own lending company which does not require SSNs nor credit checks, and tell us how that works out for you.
"Being a lender is tough! Whaa!"
Boo hoo, cry me a river. There's enough profit incentive in lending that they'll figure something out.
If you make the collection of social security numbers a felony I guarantee you the banks would stop doing it. To make doubly sure, make it a civil tort so that the individual who was asked for their SSN can sue the bank. Let everyone know they can do this. It would stop instantly.
Names and addresses I can get from a phone book. SSNs are "not to be used for identification purposes." Thus, BFD.
Place blame squarely where it belongs: lending providers and others who use the SSN as some sort of magic key to an individual's identity. All it takes is a simple law and this shit could stop next week.
A person's pulse rate and blood pressure increase when active. Man, I can wait to see what these guys decide to study next. Maybe they'll answer that big open question that's been bugging humanity for centuries -- just what temperature DOES water boil at?
I bet you don't wake up at the same time every day, for a number of unpredictable reasons. But if you failed to wake up for a 48 hour period, I'd say you were "overdue." The exact frequency of you waking up is unpredictable, but there is in fact some underlying cause for you waking up, and this can be examined scientifically.
The gamblers fallacy only applies when the events are independent of each other. Earthquake events are clearly not independent of each other. If you take a piece of plywood, set it up on two cinder blocks, and start applying weight to the center of the board, displacing it further and further, it goes without saying that the board is more likely to snap in half the more it is displaced -- or are you going to dispute something as obvious as that?
Feynman was not talking about complexity. Complexity is not the problem. The problem is that although we can predict various things with astonishing accuracy, we have no idea WHY these things occur the way they do at the deepest level. "Here's the rule for how photons and electrons interact with each other." Okay, why do they do that? We have no idea.
It's simply a boundary in our knowledge. You can keep expanding this boundary by asking "Why" and going down a level, but it doesn't seem like there's some simple thing sitting at the bottom which explains it all. At some point the "why" questions become useless because the answer is just framed in terms of more "why" questions. This doesn't indicate a failure of science, you're simply looking at the horizon we haven't expanded beyond.
So you're talking about blowing up a Volkswagon with a cluster bomb instead of a nuclear warhead. The car is still destroyed afterward. If the 7.4 had happened without a preceding 9.2 people would be talking about the 6.6 aftershocks being "not even close" to the 7.4... People, all of these are really big earthquakes.
The real test is to come up with the hypothesis first, then collect the data.
The hypothesis came first. The hypothesis is, "A cluster of jet events with close energies indicates the presence of a particle with a certain mass" -- this method has been used time and again to detect new particles and is nothing new. This is just another instance of the same. If you take issue with the idea, you're pretty much going against reality because this is how new particles are, and have been, identified.
You can quibble about statistical margins and what not, but this is not an instance of seeing something weird then grasping at straws to explain it. In the past, the explanation of such "bumps" has often been the presence of a new kind of particle.
Simple solution which should prevent this happening in the future, is to disable autocomplete for Italian Google. They'll need to live without that feature, but what else can you do when the Italian courts keep slamming down like this?
Slashdot Mirror
Probably death. Same as would happen to a bird that flew into the outflow of the stack of a coal burning power plant. Or chopped up in the blade of a wind turbine. Or sucked up the chimney of a solar convector and ground up in the spinning turbine. Or blown away by the shotgun of the custodian of a solar panel installation for crapping all over his solar cells. For nuclear, I guess it might smack into the side of the cooling tower and die.
How many corpses of dead squirrels are on the roadways of Portland, Oregon? I'd guess it's in the thousands at any given moment, but we keep on driving. There seems to be no shortage of squirrels though.
I think you missed the point. The ISA (instruction set architecture) may be standardized (even then, there are dozens of variants), but you don't even really have an idea what sort of bus you're going to be sitting on, let alone anything else. On an x86 system you know you've got a north bridge, a south bridge, a particular type of PIC, a certain kind of timer, PCI, etc. While you could certainly build a computer based on an x86 that is completely unlike that, it would be an oddball. On ARM systems, no, pretty much anything that isn't an industry x86 architecture, it's just total chaos.
Microsoft will end up specifying a particular reference platform. Those of us who have NDAs with MS will get the details in the next little while. I even know which variant of ARM is going to be used, though of course I can't say what that is right now.
The PE format most decidedly doesn't support fat EXEs. Read the spec, page 12, if you need proof. There's only one field in the file for the architecture type, and that field can only hold one value. There are no currently documented methods for embedding multiple PE sections for multiple architectures into a single file. That isn't to say there isn't some way it could be shoehorned in, but as of yet, there is no way to have a fat EXE on Windows.
Alert! When you change the definition of "size" so that size is measured differently that before, the size of things changes! More on this in a future broadcast.
Am I allowed to introduce a variable 'd' -- the total pressure drop in the system, including pipe loss -- and a variable 'f' -- the efficiency of the pump? Also, I'm presuming that 'z' is the vertical dimension?
Well, swearing at you didn't work, so I'll switch to treating you as a child.
What I asked, sweetheart, is which of the following two things you believe in your own little head. Here's number 1 for you. "I believe that the taxes I pay toward unemployment are paid ultimately for my own benefit." Let's say you believe that ok honey? If that's the case, why would you refuse to take an unemployment payout when you are eligible for it?
And here's the other possibility, you perfect angel. "I believe that the taxes I pay toward unemployment are paid ultimately for the benefit of others." Let's say you think that instead of number 1. If that's the case, then why would you resent it when those people make use of that benefit?
Today I'm a programmer, and I make more than twice what my idiot math teachers made, and probably have more fun doing it.
As a programmer, you must have experience with the following phenomenon: you come back to a piece of code you yourself wrote, a year or so later, and not only can you not remember how it works, you don't even remember that you're the one who wrote it. It's great and everything that you could turn the formulas into a computer program, but as a fellow programmer myself, I can tell you that I can turn all kinds of formulas into programs even if I don't understand the damn formulas.
The goal, which you apparently missed completely, was to learn math, not how to turn a formula into a computer program. There's simply no way around the fact that most of this stuff can only be mentally internalized by rote and repetition. It sucks, it's boring, it's also how learning happens. What you did, and your following smart-ass attempts to defend your case, had a quite foreseeable outcome. Although I commend your mother for going to bat for you. Seems like parents don't have the guts for that in most cases lately.
Incompatible laws lead to paradoxical consequence! News at 11! How are we to deal with this insurmountable problem? Perhaps with a change to the law.... No, that would never work.
"Hey, I'm paying taxes to benefit *myself*, and I don't *benefit* from that project, so I shouldn't have to ..."
Show me where I said that. Do it. Quote me, and explain where I said that.
If you actually think that's what I said, then you're even more of a fucking retard than I thought. May I suggest a repeat of third grade English?
A donation to charity is made with the express purpose of helping OTHER PEOPLE. When you pay taxes into the unemployment program, do you feel as if you are doing it to help others or to help yourself? If you feel that it's to help yourself, why would you not take the payout? If you feel it is to help other people, why do you call those people leeches? Furthermore, I am in no way legally compelled to donate to charity. Your comparison is ridiculous and your viewpoint paradoxical.
What's the point in "teaching" math if you let the calculator do 90% of the work?
What's the point in "teaching" math if you let the decimal system and all that clever carry-the-one shit do all the work? I mean seriously, students need to learn what addition really is -- make them put 198 beans into a pot, then put another 61 beans in the pot, then count the beans to get the answer.
Being a human is about being smart, not being dumb. Forcing a student to do addition on paper when the student is studying partial differential equations is nothing but an insult. By that point I think they've earned the right to not continually have to prove that they can add two numbers together.
As an undergrad taking physics I had this bad habit of forgetting my calculator, especially on test day. I'd end up doing longhand division and taking up half the paper and leaving less room to write the actual answer. The professor started asking me what the hell I was smoking.
Why should we pay for the unemployment program from our own taxes and then altruistically choose not to benefit from it? I guess you enjoy paying into the system and having leeches collect on it. Sorry dude, I've been paying taxes into this program since I got out of high school and you're fucking crazy if you think I won't take the benefit if and when I'm eligible for it.
You can't borrow, but that also means the banks can't lend. A bank that can't lend is a dead bank.
Sure, there's the second system effect to contend with, where you try to cram in all the crap you wish you'd had in version 1.0 and end up making an even bigger mess in version 2.0, but that's just an observation, not a law of nature.
Also, by "written from the ground up" I do not mean tossing out the Constitution and starting completely from scratch. To continue the computer analogy, let's treat the Constitution like the hardware. We know it works, it's just the pile of shit built on top of it that's wrong. Development is an iterative process for sure, but if you flat-out refuse to throw away your models which are clearly broken you'll eventually end up out of business.
It's so cute how you think law makers would make laws against the interest of bankers.
The complete failure of our system of government is an orthogonal problem to what we're discussing here.
If you compare the United States government to a computer program, it's basically a pile of hacks upon hacks sitting on top of a shitty core library. The hacks are there because the core is all fucked up, but just because you can make it work by adding even more hacks doesn't mean the whole thing won't fall down and collapse eventually. We need USA 2.0 at this point, written from the ground up.
No it won't. Like it or not, there's a need for a unique individual identifier in the credit industry. If you can prove you pay your bills, you're less of a risk, and can get lower rates from them. A lender does not need a SSN to lend you money. It's just that all of them choose to require it and a credit check to minimize their risk. If you feel this is wrong, feel free to start your own lending company which does not require SSNs nor credit checks, and tell us how that works out for you.
"Being a lender is tough! Whaa!"
Boo hoo, cry me a river. There's enough profit incentive in lending that they'll figure something out.
If you make the collection of social security numbers a felony I guarantee you the banks would stop doing it. To make doubly sure, make it a civil tort so that the individual who was asked for their SSN can sue the bank. Let everyone know they can do this. It would stop instantly.
Names and addresses I can get from a phone book. SSNs are "not to be used for identification purposes." Thus, BFD.
Place blame squarely where it belongs: lending providers and others who use the SSN as some sort of magic key to an individual's identity. All it takes is a simple law and this shit could stop next week.
A person's pulse rate and blood pressure increase when active. Man, I can wait to see what these guys decide to study next. Maybe they'll answer that big open question that's been bugging humanity for centuries -- just what temperature DOES water boil at?
I bet you don't wake up at the same time every day, for a number of unpredictable reasons. But if you failed to wake up for a 48 hour period, I'd say you were "overdue." The exact frequency of you waking up is unpredictable, but there is in fact some underlying cause for you waking up, and this can be examined scientifically.
The gamblers fallacy only applies when the events are independent of each other. Earthquake events are clearly not independent of each other. If you take a piece of plywood, set it up on two cinder blocks, and start applying weight to the center of the board, displacing it further and further, it goes without saying that the board is more likely to snap in half the more it is displaced -- or are you going to dispute something as obvious as that?
Feynman was not talking about complexity. Complexity is not the problem. The problem is that although we can predict various things with astonishing accuracy, we have no idea WHY these things occur the way they do at the deepest level. "Here's the rule for how photons and electrons interact with each other." Okay, why do they do that? We have no idea.
It's simply a boundary in our knowledge. You can keep expanding this boundary by asking "Why" and going down a level, but it doesn't seem like there's some simple thing sitting at the bottom which explains it all. At some point the "why" questions become useless because the answer is just framed in terms of more "why" questions. This doesn't indicate a failure of science, you're simply looking at the horizon we haven't expanded beyond.
So you're talking about blowing up a Volkswagon with a cluster bomb instead of a nuclear warhead. The car is still destroyed afterward. If the 7.4 had happened without a preceding 9.2 people would be talking about the 6.6 aftershocks being "not even close" to the 7.4... People, all of these are really big earthquakes.
The real test is to come up with the hypothesis first, then collect the data.
The hypothesis came first. The hypothesis is, "A cluster of jet events with close energies indicates the presence of a particle with a certain mass" -- this method has been used time and again to detect new particles and is nothing new. This is just another instance of the same. If you take issue with the idea, you're pretty much going against reality because this is how new particles are, and have been, identified.
You can quibble about statistical margins and what not, but this is not an instance of seeing something weird then grasping at straws to explain it. In the past, the explanation of such "bumps" has often been the presence of a new kind of particle.
Simple solution which should prevent this happening in the future, is to disable autocomplete for Italian Google. They'll need to live without that feature, but what else can you do when the Italian courts keep slamming down like this?