Cosmic rays include many kinds of charged particles -- protons, electrons, alpha particles etc -- streaming out from the sun (and arriving from other places). Electromagnetic radiation is also known as sunlight, and is, as you said, not deflected by magnetic fields.
haskell failed in supporting for-loops (MapM_ is not exactly the same thing)
for lo hi action = mapM_ action [lo.. hi]
for 1 4 print 1 2 3 4
I don't see how this relates to correctness though. The nice thing about for in most languages is its termination guarantee; you don't get that in the C++ version.
My understanding is that Aryabhata also used epicycles to model planetary movement (and by the way, even if they're not literally there, they can be incredibly accurate, which only adds to my annoyance at the way they get ridiculed). I've heard about the ellipse thing, but never seen any evidence (which, naturally, doesn't mean it's not true!)
This is another of those "dumb science" metaphors that are flung around with no regard for history. The heliocentric model of the solar system did nothing to solve the problem of epicycles, and given what was known at the time, would you have come up with ellipses?
In fact, paradigm shift was a useful expression long before it was hijacked by business consultants. I suppose this is the destiny of any phrase that describes, shall we say, a great leap forward -- to be misused and misapplied until people end up forgetting what it once actually meant.
How would you prefer the search for a unification theory to proceed? And why are you so angry? It's not for you to decide how people who are smarter than either of us should spend their time.
The idea of a luminiferous aether followed naturally from the observation that light acted like a wave, and one of the fundamental things about waves is that they travelled in a medium.
This lead to experiments designed to detect the medium of light (like the famous Michelson-Morley one), to the Lorentz transformations and the Theory of Relativity. The aether conjecture is science at its best: hypothesis, experiment, falsification, paradigm shift. Why it's used as a metaphor for stupidity has always been a mystery to me.
Of course being a couch-scientist (worse than amateur scientist), I might be hugely wrong, but somehow, I don't think I am (surprisingly).
Unfortunately, you are wrong, and I guess it's not that surprising, considering your... interesting take on cosmology. Einstein's work was intimately concerned with the nature of spacetime, so saying that "he looked soley[sic] at matter" is flat-out wrong.
Space and matter are the same? Then either space has a gravitational effect, or they're the "same" in a way that doesn't include a fundamental property of matter, which is to say that they're not the same at all (you'll recognise the quote "in exactly the same way that bricks don't" -- it speaks to nature of classification rather elegantly I think).
So why hasn't the gravitational effect of space been detected? Oh, wait, because the scientists missed something. Silly scientists!
Ha ha! It's funny because you have no idea what you're talking about. While you're sitting on your couch throwing spitballs, people with something to say are trying to understand the nature of the universe.
Doesn't the idea of discovering something utterly new have any attraction for you at all? When the first extra-solar planet was reported, what did you do? Whine because there weren't any pictures?
Why don't you keep a record of all the times you call a friend because of a feeling. Put down a tick if they had big news, and a cross if they didn't. Get back to me in a couple of years. The human brain is extraordinarily selective about these things.
we'll have to wait till Discovery is near ready to go again.
What's Endeavour up to?
Beautiful landing today; sure, it's expensive, and maybe a technological dead end, but that thing was in orbit and an hour later it landed. On wheels. I stayed up all night to watch STS-1 take off, and it still hasn't become mundane.
Slashdot Mirror
Ob. Cyanide and Happiness
http://explosm.net/comics/3557...
I've time travelled from the 1970s to 2014, and I'm not dead ...
Are you feeling bad because your gender was ignored? That's ... adorable.
Coming in late, but you might like http://www.pepysdiary.com/
Technically you're correct, but of course, these companies are actually doing something useful
Who reads fantasy for 'gritty realism'?
Me. Indeed, it's one of my favourite genres. See Hugh Cook's novels for a great example of this sort of thing.
Cosmic rays include many kinds of charged particles -- protons, electrons, alpha particles etc -- streaming out from the sun (and arriving from other places). Electromagnetic radiation is also known as sunlight, and is, as you said, not deflected by magnetic fields.
You have five weeks of vacation "built up." Here in Socialist Europe, we get five weeks of vacation every year. Yes, you're doing it wrong.
haskell failed in supporting for-loops (MapM_ is not exactly the same thing)
for lo hi action = mapM_ action [lo
for 1 4 print
1
2
3
4
I don't see how this relates to correctness though. The nice thing about for in most languages is its termination guarantee; you don't get that in the C++ version.
anything which continually scans the entire heap when you're out of RAM is a showstopping problem and makes GC useless for real applications.
Luckily, GC has advanced since the 1960s.
My understanding is that Aryabhata also used epicycles to model planetary movement (and by the way, even if they're not literally there, they can be incredibly accurate, which only adds to my annoyance at the way they get ridiculed). I've heard about the ellipse thing, but never seen any evidence (which, naturally, doesn't mean it's not true!)
Remember "epicycles?"
This is another of those "dumb science" metaphors that are flung around with no regard for history. The heliocentric model of the solar system did nothing to solve the problem of epicycles, and given what was known at the time, would you have come up with ellipses?
In fact, paradigm shift was a useful expression long before it was hijacked by business consultants. I suppose this is the destiny of any phrase that describes, shall we say, a great leap forward -- to be misused and misapplied until people end up forgetting what it once actually meant.
How would you prefer the search for a unification theory to proceed? And why are you so angry? It's not for you to decide how people who are smarter than either of us should spend their time.
The idea of a luminiferous aether followed naturally from the observation that light acted like a wave, and one of the fundamental things about waves is that they travelled in a medium.
This lead to experiments designed to detect the medium of light (like the famous Michelson-Morley one), to the Lorentz transformations and the Theory of Relativity. The aether conjecture is science at its best: hypothesis, experiment, falsification, paradigm shift. Why it's used as a metaphor for stupidity has always been a mystery to me.
The lack of specificity in your invitation to a dick-swinging contest is ... illuminating.
Of course being a couch-scientist (worse than amateur scientist), I might be hugely wrong, but somehow, I don't think I am (surprisingly).
Unfortunately, you are wrong, and I guess it's not that surprising, considering your ... interesting take on cosmology. Einstein's work was intimately concerned with the nature of spacetime, so saying that "he looked soley[sic] at matter" is flat-out wrong.
Space and matter are the same? Then either space has a gravitational effect, or they're the "same" in a way that doesn't include a fundamental property of matter, which is to say that they're not the same at all (you'll recognise the quote "in exactly the same way that bricks don't" -- it speaks to nature of classification rather elegantly I think).
So why hasn't the gravitational effect of space been detected? Oh, wait, because the scientists missed something. Silly scientists!
As opposed to doing what exactly with your intellectual property?
Ha ha! It's funny because you have no idea what you're talking about. While you're sitting on your couch throwing spitballs, people with something to say are trying to understand the nature of the universe.
Doesn't the idea of discovering something utterly new have any attraction for you at all? When the first extra-solar planet was reported, what did you do? Whine because there weren't any pictures?
Why don't you keep a record of all the times you call a friend because of a feeling. Put down a tick if they had big news, and a cross if they didn't. Get back to me in a couple of years. The human brain is extraordinarily selective about these things.
What's Endeavour up to?
Beautiful landing today; sure, it's expensive, and maybe a technological dead end, but that thing was in orbit and an hour later it landed. On wheels. I stayed up all night to watch STS-1 take off, and it still hasn't become mundane.
As a Lisp programmer
[...]
GC promotes sloppy programming.
I cannot reconcile these two statements.
Birds that live longer would tend to have more trouble during a shift, and would get weeded out of the gene pool from time to time.
Every old bird was a young bird once, and thus had plenty of opportunities to pass its genes on. The net effect is zero.
Birds don't live for decades.
Cockatoos can live for more than sixty years.
it might be okay if its a tall, thin redhead that enjoys being around nerds.
Here you go!
Your ... self-righteousness ... overwhelms me ...
If you do the math, its almost a purely exponential decay.
No, no, it perfectly matches the bottom of a parabola. It's about to shoot up again and WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!
Oh, hang on, it's a cubic. Everybody gets the next flu will become IMMORTAL.