I love my wife, but I can have a summer time affair with an ncredibly sexy woman. what should I do ?
I think I should buy my daughter a litle puppy because she wants it so bad and she worked hard at school, but I'm sure there will be problems with my neighbours what should I do ?
I want to ask something to slashdot, but maybe noone can answer it.. what should I do ?
This just doesn't make sense... are you sure that if your company has a bad time it's not due to some peoples lack of decision ?
I mean.. come on.. how can a good CTO ask something like that ?
I don't think I would even ask my mom if I should share my candies with these or these friends not having enough candies for everybody, and being say.. hmm.. 8 ?
My advice is that you should take a few days to think about your problem. not only it might be harmful to your actual company, but it could be to the ones that want to hire you. once you realised you should decide all this by yourself, you will have solved two problems.
Yes I did but
Distributing the points equidistantly is difficult
The vertices on a geodesic sphere you are talking about aren't even close to be equidistantly distributed (unless you are talking of a restricted set of points, not 'n'). they are symetrically distributed, and well enough to model the sphere for the purpose, but if you use those vertices to solve the magnets distribution problem, you will run into problems:)
There is simply no math solution to the problem
The only way you have to equidistantly distribute n points on a sphere right now is with a computer simulation.
You could for example randomly put n electrically charged particles on the sphere (same charge of course), and run the physics simulation until stability is reached, wich will give you the desired result. (I think that's the method they used to model the 100 faces dice)
Or you could try some other incremental approches, again, randomly distributing the n points and run some kind of algorhim that would move all the points trying to minimize diostances, or something like that...
Still, I agree with you it is to be noticed that this was a major problem to solve
While the maths to solve the problem are in fact so complex they don't even exist. (we don't have a general formula to diistribute the point, neither have we a recurent algorithm.. nothing.. (afaik))
But..
In the article, for the purpose of building this motor, it is clearly an engineering problem, not a mathematical one.
A good aproximation obtained with any method (but not the model you would get from 3DS or whatever) that aproximately distribute the points with as much precision as you need is just enough and I think any student in computing science should be able to solve it without too much trouble
I'm terrified they talk about one great math problem they had to solve to build the motor:
How to uniformaly place n points on a sphere.
And has much as 80 !! wow !!
Now years ago, lots of us RPG fans were playing with the famous 100 faces dice.
So I suppose those guys never played RPG
Now how are we supposed to trust that kind of people ??:)
They probably have only evil uses for their motor
Wait wait !!! they admit it !!!
They pretend to have us play pingpong on our computers.. Arrrgggggg
I agree most useful tasks would be performed by non human shaped robots.
But that's not all of them.
Think about entertainment industry, or very very simple human tasks (not that they must be that simple for the robot, but they are wayyy too boring for a human, still, a 'human presence' is somewhat 'required') like opening an hotel door.
Things like that.
Anyway, I think the best applications (in the robot field) will be the ones using this motor to asist human rather than replace them. This should sometime lead to some much better prothesis, or to 'enhancments' (not talking about arm replacement, but rather some sort of strong armor.
For example, to work very deep under sea, or in outer space, or whatever, having a human working, but assisted, in the way the armor he wears is 'active'.
oh well.. you get the picture
Errrr.. so...
we should rape the spammers ?
oh.. we should spam the rapists ?? :)
Anyway, I somewhat agree with you about not raping the rapist.. it's actually not enough
Oh well.. better not get into this anyway..
I think I hate you for reminding me that rapists do exist while I was enjoying a nice, mostly funny discussion. Shouting so loud was so much necessary to get heard ?
Guess that makes it a nice troll if I even got to answer...
Re:Technically accurate?!
on
Antitrust
·
· Score: 1
Someone mod this last one up !!:) Antitrust is actually pretty technically accurate. The computers have a real operating system on them (GNOME) and programmers have real code on their screens (it looks like some flavor of C).
Oh well.. just how many of those 3 stars should disapear ?
Re:NYTimes exaggerates again
on
Stop, Light.
·
· Score: 1
I have to disagree
They don't exagerate more than anyone of us who says 'light travels slower in non-vacuum media'
As the very same phenomena appears. When we talk about the speed of light in such a medium, we deal with statistics, not with individual photons
By the way, those photons are 'not the same' when they 'get out'. Anyway, those scientists forgot to be idiots, if they claim to do such a thing, it is relevant. It might be mistaken/wrong, whatever (cold fusion anyone ?). but it is still relevant. That's what matters for the conversation here, as its correctness if far beyond our capacity to be evaluated/judged on a slashdot board (unless some very big heads enter the conversation, but I doubdt they would (I don't doubdt they exist, but I'm pretty sure there is no way they can give more than a personal opinion on this, correctness is not a matter of intuition here since long time in quantum physics)).
The claim has a very strong importance on quantic theory I believe (ability to reproduce *exactly* a photon).
For a statistical effect. (how do you understand (feel) light any other way ?), their claim to slow and stop light is very relevant, and it is not worse than when we say 'light travels slower in water than in void space'
In fact, in this case it is correct, if the claim to reproduce the original photons with great exactitude is right. (don't confuse correctness and relevance).
So if they can reproduce with great exactitude incoming photons to reproduce them at 'any time' and so on, quanticaly, they are slowing down and stopping light, as there is no way to diferentiate incoming photons from the outgoing ones. On the other hand, we are always talking about light traveling slower in one or another medium, when in fact, the photons are very affected. there are plenty of ways to diferentiate them, and in fact we use this every day to assume things on the media (absorption spectrums, etc..)
So don't be confused, the article claim isn't wronger than anyone of us in 'common talking', and in fact, for the first time (??), it might be much more correct than we are every day. (say, if the claim is verified)
Slashdot Mirror
I love my wife, but I can have a summer time affair with an ncredibly sexy woman. what should I do ?
I think I should buy my daughter a litle puppy because she wants it so bad and she worked hard at school, but I'm sure there will be problems with my neighbours what should I do ?
I want to ask something to slashdot, but maybe noone can answer it.. what should I do ?
This just doesn't make sense... are you sure that if your company has a bad time it's not due to some peoples lack of decision ?
I mean.. come on.. how can a good CTO ask something like that ?
I don't think I would even ask my mom if I should share my candies with these or these friends not having enough candies for everybody, and being say.. hmm.. 8 ?
My advice is that you should take a few days to think about your problem. not only it might be harmful to your actual company, but it could be to the ones that want to hire you. once you realised you should decide all this by yourself, you will have solved two problems.
Distributing the points equidistantly is difficult
The vertices on a geodesic sphere you are talking about aren't even close to be equidistantly distributed (unless you are talking of a restricted set of points, not 'n'). they are symetrically distributed, and well enough to model the sphere for the purpose, but if you use those vertices to solve the magnets distribution problem, you will run into problems
There is simply no math solution to the problem
The only way you have to equidistantly distribute n points on a sphere right now is with a computer simulation.
You could for example randomly put n electrically charged particles on the sphere (same charge of course), and run the physics simulation until stability is reached, wich will give you the desired result. (I think that's the method they used to model the 100 faces dice)
Or you could try some other incremental approches, again, randomly distributing the n points and run some kind of algorhim that would move all the points trying to minimize diostances, or something like that...
Still, I agree with you it is to be noticed that this was a major problem to solve
While the maths to solve the problem are in fact so complex they don't even exist. (we don't have a general formula to diistribute the point, neither have we a recurent algorithm.. nothing.. (afaik))
But..
In the article, for the purpose of building this motor, it is clearly an engineering problem, not a mathematical one.
A good aproximation obtained with any method (but not the model you would get from 3DS or whatever) that aproximately distribute the points with as much precision as you need is just enough and I think any student in computing science should be able to solve it without too much trouble
I'm terrified they talk about one great math problem they had to solve to build the motor: :)
How to uniformaly place n points on a sphere.
And has much as 80 !! wow !!
Now years ago, lots of us RPG fans were playing with the famous 100 faces dice.
So I suppose those guys never played RPG
Now how are we supposed to trust that kind of people ??
They probably have only evil uses for their motor
Wait wait !!! they admit it !!!
They pretend to have us play pingpong on our computers.. Arrrgggggg
But that's not all of them.
Think about entertainment industry, or very very simple human tasks (not that they must be that simple for the robot, but they are wayyy too boring for a human, still, a 'human presence' is somewhat 'required') like opening an hotel door. Things like that.
Anyway, I think the best applications (in the robot field) will be the ones using this motor to asist human rather than replace them. This should sometime lead to some much better prothesis, or to 'enhancments' (not talking about arm replacement, but rather some sort of strong armor.
For example, to work very deep under sea, or in outer space, or whatever, having a human working, but assisted, in the way the armor he wears is 'active'.
oh well.. you get the picture
Errrr.. so...
:)
we should rape the spammers ?
oh.. we should spam the rapists ??
Anyway, I somewhat agree with you about not raping the rapist.. it's actually not enough
Oh well.. better not get into this anyway..
I think I hate you for reminding me that rapists do exist while I was enjoying a nice, mostly funny discussion. Shouting so loud was so much necessary to get heard ?
Guess that makes it a nice troll if I even got to answer...
Someone mod this last one up !! :)
Antitrust is actually pretty technically accurate. The computers have a real operating system on them (GNOME) and programmers have real code on their screens (it looks like some flavor of C).
Oh well.. just how many of those 3 stars should disapear ?
They don't exagerate more than anyone of us who says 'light travels slower in non-vacuum media'
As the very same phenomena appears. When we talk about the speed of light in such a medium, we deal with statistics, not with individual photons
By the way, those photons are 'not the same' when they 'get out'. Anyway, those scientists forgot to be idiots, if they claim to do such a thing, it is relevant. It might be mistaken/wrong, whatever (cold fusion anyone ?). but it is still relevant. That's what matters for the conversation here, as its correctness if far beyond our capacity to be evaluated/judged on a slashdot board (unless some very big heads enter the conversation, but I doubdt they would (I don't doubdt they exist, but I'm pretty sure there is no way they can give more than a personal opinion on this, correctness is not a matter of intuition here since long time in quantum physics)).
The claim has a very strong importance on quantic theory I believe (ability to reproduce *exactly* a photon).
For a statistical effect. (how do you understand (feel) light any other way ?), their claim to slow and stop light is very relevant, and it is not worse than when we say 'light travels slower in water than in void space'
In fact, in this case it is correct, if the claim to reproduce the original photons with great exactitude is right. (don't confuse correctness and relevance).
So if they can reproduce with great exactitude incoming photons to reproduce them at 'any time' and so on, quanticaly, they are slowing down and stopping light, as there is no way to diferentiate incoming photons from the outgoing ones. On the other hand, we are always talking about light traveling slower in one or another medium, when in fact, the photons are very affected. there are plenty of ways to diferentiate them, and in fact we use this every day to assume things on the media (absorption spectrums, etc..)
So don't be confused, the article claim isn't wronger than anyone of us in 'common talking', and in fact, for the first time (??), it might be much more correct than we are every day. (say, if the claim is verified)