Not really. Mavericks did some really cool stuff under the hood. Timer-coalescing, "App Nap", and compressed memory are all pretty big. Take a look at the relevant sections of the Ars review to see what I mean.
The Apple approach is to buy a new phone every year. I know of no Apple users who've kept their Macs for less than 5 years (unless they dropped it down the stairs or let it soak in a coffee hot-tub). I've used plenty that were in the 8-10 range, and they were still kicking along just fine.
Last I heard, we can already contain reactions that are hot enough where the cross-sections for aneutronic Deuterium + He3 reactions start becoming viable, though maybe that's only for MCF designs, and not for what the NIF guys are up to.
Having talked to some of these guys when I was working on a fusion sciences grant last summer, one of the interesting challenges of building a reactor this way is launching pellets at a fast enough rate.
The Big Bang Theory is about as obscure as any other television show which regularly garners 15 million viewers per episode, which is to say, did you just come out from under your rock for this month's hermit convention, or have you decided to rejoin society?
No kidding. I'm a native (American-)English speaker, and generally can parse through even the really thick accents from places like Scotland, Ireland, India, America deep south, etc. I even do alright with Newfies. Most of the time I can't even *read* what my African American friends are writing to each other on Facebook, let alone understand it in conversation. AAVE is whack.
I definitely appreciate the offer, but the article in your previous post is enough to sate my curiosity for now:) Not looking to plunge headfirst into time/frequency metrology so much as I wanted at least one good article that wasn't dumbed down for lay audiences.
Ah, you're using "summing" as a synonym for counting? That helps me understand your previous post a little better, even if it still strikes me as an odd word choice. And yes, the quote appears to be correct (though imprecise as might be expected from a press release), because a little bit more research brings up Allan-variance. You may also be interested in this reply from another well-qualified poster.
Sounds like you're talking amplitude, not frequency. Stability (and accuracy) are both tied to duration. To quote TFA, "Stability can be thought of as how precisely the duration of each tick matches every other tick." Summing the peaks doesn't tell you how much time passed between them.
To compare drift at all, you have to be collecting a time series of some sort. If I draw two lines on the bank of a river, and say "this line is data showing that a stick floated from this point to the far end of the line, and the other is data showing how far another stick floated", there really are no meaningful comparisons you can make without knowing something about the respective times over which those processes occurred.
So it seems then that this conversation has more to do with lay misuse of the term "measured" than with the experimental process. They *measured* the waveform. They're *calculating* both the accuracy and the stability based on those measurements.
Still missing the question here, but you hit it with the standards-related info in your other response. I'm not at all fuzzy on the difference between accuracy and precision. My question was based on the observation that both quantities require you to have sampled the waveform as a time-series in order to calculate them. The accuracy requires you to measure the average number of peaks per unit time, and the stability requires you to measure the variance in the time between peaks. Both require you to know *when* the peaks landed.
Those are different *comparisons* on the same measurement. They're the same measurement, or at least could be if you set it up sensibly. If you're measuring the waveform as a time-series, you can both count the number of peaks, and the statistical characteristics of the distance between peaks. One of the replies below leads me to believe that it merely takes longer to make the necessary comparisons to a reference standard for the accuracy, because of the dependence on the behavior of the reference clocks.
So in other words, they did take the correct set of measurements for calculating both stability and accuracy, but the number crunching on the latter takes longer because it has to be compared against reference time?
But that leaves my original question: how do you collect data in a way that gives one but not the other? Both require you to record the frequency over time, do they not?
This is helpful, but was what I'd already pulled up via Google, and doesn't answer my question, per se. Both sound as if they are properties of the frequency distribution, which is why I was asking what data would give you one but not the other (I have a physics degree, so I actually "get" how the clock works. I'm interested in the data analysis).
Thanks for the explanation, but that's the part I'd more or less already figured out. It still leaves my question unanswered, what *data* would you collect that allows you to determine one but not the other? A couple of the other posts had the same issue.
They measured the stability but not the accuracy? Aren't both essentially frequency measurements? Can someone explain what data you would collect that would allow you to determine one but not the other?
Slashdot Mirror
The ending of the movie was also shockingly good, and the best preserved aspect of the adaptation process.
Not really. Mavericks did some really cool stuff under the hood. Timer-coalescing, "App Nap", and compressed memory are all pretty big. Take a look at the relevant sections of the Ars review to see what I mean.
The Apple approach is to buy a new phone every year. I know of no Apple users who've kept their Macs for less than 5 years (unless they dropped it down the stairs or let it soak in a coffee hot-tub). I've used plenty that were in the 8-10 range, and they were still kicking along just fine.
anti-science, you say?
Bingo.
Last I heard, we can already contain reactions that are hot enough where the cross-sections for aneutronic Deuterium + He3 reactions start becoming viable, though maybe that's only for MCF designs, and not for what the NIF guys are up to.
Having talked to some of these guys when I was working on a fusion sciences grant last summer, one of the interesting challenges of building a reactor this way is launching pellets at a fast enough rate.
The Big Bang Theory is about as obscure as any other television show which regularly garners 15 million viewers per episode, which is to say, did you just come out from under your rock for this month's hermit convention, or have you decided to rejoin society?
Just to be clear, you're aware that, for example, LLVM/Clang, WebKit, and CUPS are all Apple developed at this point?
No kidding. I'm a native (American-)English speaker, and generally can parse through even the really thick accents from places like Scotland, Ireland, India, America deep south, etc. I even do alright with Newfies. Most of the time I can't even *read* what my African American friends are writing to each other on Facebook, let alone understand it in conversation. AAVE is whack.
Dunno why this is moderated funny. Apparently today's batch of mods don't actually know that the word codec is an abbreviation for coder/decoder.
Shouldn't this, technically speaking, be a "bright day" or a "sunny day"? After all, that's what I call it when the cloud-coverage breaks around here.
I definitely appreciate the offer, but the article in your previous post is enough to sate my curiosity for now :) Not looking to plunge headfirst into time/frequency metrology so much as I wanted at least one good article that wasn't dumbed down for lay audiences.
Ah, you're using "summing" as a synonym for counting? That helps me understand your previous post a little better, even if it still strikes me as an odd word choice. And yes, the quote appears to be correct (though imprecise as might be expected from a press release), because a little bit more research brings up Allan-variance. You may also be interested in this reply from another well-qualified poster.
*That's* what I was looking for! Thanks for the good reading material :)
Sounds like you're talking amplitude, not frequency. Stability (and accuracy) are both tied to duration. To quote TFA, "Stability can be thought of as how precisely the duration of each tick matches every other tick." Summing the peaks doesn't tell you how much time passed between them.
To compare drift at all, you have to be collecting a time series of some sort. If I draw two lines on the bank of a river, and say "this line is data showing that a stick floated from this point to the far end of the line, and the other is data showing how far another stick floated", there really are no meaningful comparisons you can make without knowing something about the respective times over which those processes occurred.
So it seems then that this conversation has more to do with lay misuse of the term "measured" than with the experimental process. They *measured* the waveform. They're *calculating* both the accuracy and the stability based on those measurements.
Still missing the question here, but you hit it with the standards-related info in your other response. I'm not at all fuzzy on the difference between accuracy and precision. My question was based on the observation that both quantities require you to have sampled the waveform as a time-series in order to calculate them. The accuracy requires you to measure the average number of peaks per unit time, and the stability requires you to measure the variance in the time between peaks. Both require you to know *when* the peaks landed.
Those are different *comparisons* on the same measurement. They're the same measurement, or at least could be if you set it up sensibly. If you're measuring the waveform as a time-series, you can both count the number of peaks, and the statistical characteristics of the distance between peaks. One of the replies below leads me to believe that it merely takes longer to make the necessary comparisons to a reference standard for the accuracy, because of the dependence on the behavior of the reference clocks.
So in other words, they did take the correct set of measurements for calculating both stability and accuracy, but the number crunching on the latter takes longer because it has to be compared against reference time?
But that leaves my original question: how do you collect data in a way that gives one but not the other? Both require you to record the frequency over time, do they not?
This is helpful, but was what I'd already pulled up via Google, and doesn't answer my question, per se. Both sound as if they are properties of the frequency distribution, which is why I was asking what data would give you one but not the other (I have a physics degree, so I actually "get" how the clock works. I'm interested in the data analysis).
Thanks for the explanation, but that's the part I'd more or less already figured out. It still leaves my question unanswered, what *data* would you collect that allows you to determine one but not the other? A couple of the other posts had the same issue.
They measured the stability but not the accuracy? Aren't both essentially frequency measurements? Can someone explain what data you would collect that would allow you to determine one but not the other?