Good point, and even though there's now a lower limit it's not a real
problem. Anyway, the inverse scheme is a bit problematic because for large
x the differences between adjacent 1/x are very small. In fact the highest
number (using integers) would be the length of the rod in atomic
dimensions. Unless, of course, you start messing around with multiple
marks..
--
In order to treat the number as a fraction between 0 and 1, you must have
an upper limit for the integer result.
Of course, the two constraints amount to the same problem, a limited data
capacity.
But
it is interesting that even when the atomic aspect is ignored, there has
to be an agreed limit to the capacity.
--
If the idea of an illegal number is taken seriously, it has huge effects
on everything. It's hard to do science, for instance, if you're missing
some numbers fundamentally. "I'm sorry we cannot publish the grand theory
of everything because the derivation involves an illegal number."
This also raises the interesting question whether you could take any
pattern in nature, filter it through some (legal) algorithm and get DeCSS.
You could always (in principle) hack such a filter that produced the DeCSS
code out of any pattern you happen to choose. Because there number of such
patterns is infinite, there would be an infinite number of filters
(including all filters already written). But since they cannot outlaw
nature (I hope), all filters would become illegal.
However, the above scenario is so absurd that the only conclusion is: you
just can't outlaw DeCSS!-)
--
Pi is defined to be a constant, but the 'effective pi' in a curved space
(even of constant curvature)
varies according to the size of the circle, just as you noted.
So the curvature of space could be found by comparing the different values
of effective pi. But in any reasonable space, its value approaches
3.14159265358979323846... in the limit of zero radius, hence crackpot.
On a side note, in Greenland pi is only about 3.0 because everything
shrinks in the cold;-)
--
IMHO it is the base ten. No funny factors of 3, 12 or whatever between
smaller and larger units. It's great having only one such factor, but even
better when it's the same as the base of our numerals.
In fact, this reminds of Fahrenheit degrees. (flamewar not intended, but
looks inevitable:-) How can someone define 32 as the 'zero point'? OK, I
admit perhaps the F scale was not originally based on water, but as the
temperatures most often refer to weather, the freezing of water would be
the best reference - the difference between positive and negative temp is
obvious in nature.
--
If there's any logic in the preference of the dd/mm/yyyy format over
mm/dd/yyyy, it is that 1 day < 1 month < 1 year, the units of time
are in a sequence of increasing duration.
With this logic, for date / time the decreasing units notation would
probably make more
sense: 2001 March 14, 01:59.
--
He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits
from
rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line ofthirty cubits to measure
around it. -- 1 Kings 7:23
When the above was written, the average curvature of space was higher. Now
that more time has passed since the Big Bang (the moment of infinite
curvature), the value of $\pi$ is a bit higher. You may wonder how such a
measurable effect can emerge in just a few thousand years, but remember
the big bang was about 6000 years ago, as has been
scientifically calculated from Biblical data.
--
I had the same problem, but the hourly installer (the same installer with
an extra option) seems to behave nicely. However, I can't tell for sure
until the installation is finished, and at this download rate it seems to
take forever.
--
As has been pointed out since the days of Turing, hardware is simply
'frozen' software, from the algorithmic point of view. Hence the border
between what can and cannot be patented, should not be drawn between the
two, and the UK decision makes a lot of sense. I'm not in great favour of
software patents, but then again not for hardware either (though I have
one pending, but only because the company I worked for insisted...;-)
--
Agreed. IMHO one of the more stupid consequences of patents is this: if a
company wants to use something already patented by others, they may end up
re-inventing it slightly differently. I guess this was one of the original
arguments for a patent system, to force further innovation, but enough
wheels are enough.
--
I doubt how much power the UK will have on the EU regulations in this
issue, considering the extent to which they are already detaching
themselves from it - most notably by not having joined the Euro currency.
Other than that, I find this very positive, particularly the notion that
innovations should not be left unpatented simply because they are based on
software. At least it is a principle of bringing a bit of sanity into the
patent system, but then we'll see if it means anything in practice.:-/
--
I was thinking of the time before the mid-90s when Internet was brought to
the masses. By then PC+Windows was already such an established system that
it was the obvious choice for going online with. I agree it could have
been any other platform, were it not for M$'s strategies in the first
place.
--
I think it would be a lot better for the PC and technology in general if there were
something new
happening with computers again, or if, perhaps, Linux were to get more generally popular.
The latter, I think.
Much of what M$ has done looks like reinventing the wheel. Admittedly, they had a lot to do
with getting the computer to everyone's home, which was a Good Thing(TM) for today's hackers.
However, as we're shifting back from the PC to a networked ideology, the Unices suddenly seem
so much better. And they've been around a lot longer, why did we ignore them in favour of PC
in the first place? OK, maybe an average person couldn't afford a Unix-capable box in their
home in the 1980s, and didn't want all the hassle. But my point is, rather than desperately
going for something new for its own sake, people should learn Unix (probably in the form of
Linux) and see what is has to offer, they would be surprised. There's huge potential in Unix
which was previously unseen because it only ran on mainframes and the like. But now
people can finally run decent Unix workstations/servers on their home computers, it's exciting
to see what this renaissance will bring about.
--
What's wrong with, for instance, remote X? While it might not
be the most effective choice over the Internet, I have a feeling these
companies are re-inventing wheels (in the case of M$, square wheels;).
I once discussed with a friend about developing a remote working
environment for her company. I hardly remembered remote X because I'd got
so used to it, I thought we simply have to develope something new.
This discussion on technologies like.NET again shows the problem with
Microsoft trying to extrapolate the PC of 1980 into something more widely
useful - something the Unices have had forever.
--
Re:How small is usable?
on
Paper Phones
·
· Score: 1
IMHO Nokia 'The Matrix' 8110[i] was an excellent phone, small enough to be carried with you
all the time, but could be extended to span from ear to mouth. This is a neat, simple idea
which I hope will be used in the future phones as well - unless we all go hands free.
[OT] I wonder what the Nokia people were thinking of when they named 3310, since 'p3310' is
Finnish (you know where Nokia is from:-) script kiddie slang for 14m3, 1u53r or something
like that.
--
IAAP. Speed of sound == sqrt(pressure / density), for most gases the
pressure is proportional to density so the speed of sound is (roughly)
constant.
--
IANASS (supersonic specialist) but as a physics
student I've gathered some info on this. There's not really any 'sound
barrier' to break. The myth has probably smething to do with the sonic
boom which you feel/hear if a supersonic aircraft flies by, but that
happens even when it's flying at a constant speed (greater than speed of
sound).
For airplanes, something may be happening at the transition speed, since
wings operate differently for sub/supersonic speeds. But this should have
no effect for the skydiver. He may have other problems with the heat from
the air drag, though. Also the pressure differences created in the air
around him can have interesting effects - high on the head, low on the
sides. But these will occur even in subsonic speeds.
Now if there's a supersonic specialist around, please correct me if I'm
wrong:-)
--
My impression was that this invention would enable us to integrate
fiber-optic connections into the silicon circuits, thus removing some
bottlenecks.
--
Indirect bandgap - check the real research paper
on
Silicon LED
·
· Score: 1
It is mentioned in the actual research paper here.
They explain the band structure can be modified by introducing an array of
dislocations, which create a special kind of strain field in the crystal
structure.
--
Oh yes. That's funny. But if moderators find it funny too, think about who they will reward
with Score:5, Funny. Probably the thing that is funny, not the comment.
--
Slashdot Mirror
Good point, and even though there's now a lower limit it's not a real problem. Anyway, the inverse scheme is a bit problematic because for large x the differences between adjacent 1/x are very small. In fact the highest number (using integers) would be the length of the rod in atomic dimensions. Unless, of course, you start messing around with multiple marks..
--
In order to treat the number as a fraction between 0 and 1, you must have an upper limit for the integer result. Of course, the two constraints amount to the same problem, a limited data capacity. But it is interesting that even when the atomic aspect is ignored, there has to be an agreed limit to the capacity.
--
This also raises the interesting question whether you could take any pattern in nature, filter it through some (legal) algorithm and get DeCSS. You could always (in principle) hack such a filter that produced the DeCSS code out of any pattern you happen to choose. Because there number of such patterns is infinite, there would be an infinite number of filters (including all filters already written). But since they cannot outlaw nature (I hope), all filters would become illegal.
However, the above scenario is so absurd that the only conclusion is: you just can't outlaw DeCSS!-)
--
--
On a side note, in Greenland pi is only about 3.0 because everything shrinks in the cold ;-)
--
In fact, this reminds of Fahrenheit degrees. (flamewar not intended, but looks inevitable :-) How can someone define 32 as the 'zero point'? OK, I
admit perhaps the F scale was not originally based on water, but as the
temperatures most often refer to weather, the freezing of water would be
the best reference - the difference between positive and negative temp is
obvious in nature.
--
With this logic, for date / time the decreasing units notation would probably make more sense: 2001 March 14, 01:59.
--
When the above was written, the average curvature of space was higher. Now that more time has passed since the Big Bang (the moment of infinite curvature), the value of $\pi$ is a bit higher. You may wonder how such a measurable effect can emerge in just a few thousand years, but remember the big bang was about 6000 years ago, as has been scientifically calculated from Biblical data.
--
I had the same problem, but the hourly installer (the same installer with an extra option) seems to behave nicely. However, I can't tell for sure until the installation is finished, and at this download rate it seems to take forever.
--
As has been pointed out since the days of Turing, hardware is simply 'frozen' software, from the algorithmic point of view. Hence the border between what can and cannot be patented, should not be drawn between the two, and the UK decision makes a lot of sense. I'm not in great favour of software patents, but then again not for hardware either (though I have one pending, but only because the company I worked for insisted ... ;-)
--
Agreed. IMHO one of the more stupid consequences of patents is this: if a company wants to use something already patented by others, they may end up re-inventing it slightly differently. I guess this was one of the original arguments for a patent system, to force further innovation, but enough wheels are enough.
--
Other than that, I find this very positive, particularly the notion that innovations should not be left unpatented simply because they are based on software. At least it is a principle of bringing a bit of sanity into the patent system, but then we'll see if it means anything in practice. :-/
--
BTW, here there are programmes on TV but programs on computers.
--
I was thinking of the time before the mid-90s when Internet was brought to the masses. By then PC+Windows was already such an established system that it was the obvious choice for going online with. I agree it could have been any other platform, were it not for M$'s strategies in the first place.
--
The latter, I think.
Much of what M$ has done looks like reinventing the wheel. Admittedly, they had a lot to do with getting the computer to everyone's home, which was a Good Thing(TM) for today's hackers. However, as we're shifting back from the PC to a networked ideology, the Unices suddenly seem so much better. And they've been around a lot longer, why did we ignore them in favour of PC in the first place? OK, maybe an average person couldn't afford a Unix-capable box in their home in the 1980s, and didn't want all the hassle. But my point is, rather than desperately going for something new for its own sake, people should learn Unix (probably in the form of Linux) and see what is has to offer, they would be surprised. There's huge potential in Unix which was previously unseen because it only ran on mainframes and the like. But now people can finally run decent Unix workstations/servers on their home computers, it's exciting to see what this renaissance will bring about.
--
What's wrong with, for instance, remote X? While it might not be the most effective choice over the Internet, I have a feeling these companies are re-inventing wheels (in the case of M$, square wheels ;).
I once discussed with a friend about developing a remote working environment for her company. I hardly remembered remote X because I'd got so used to it, I thought we simply have to develope something new.
This discussion on technologies like .NET again shows the problem with
Microsoft trying to extrapolate the PC of 1980 into something more widely
useful - something the Unices have had forever.
--
[OT] I wonder what the Nokia people were thinking of when they named 3310, since 'p3310' is Finnish (you know where Nokia is from :-) script kiddie slang for 14m3, 1u53r or something
like that.
--
Seven minutes of free fall! Don't they say it's better than sex? And now it even lasts longer...
--
IAAP. Speed of sound == sqrt(pressure / density), for most gases the pressure is proportional to density so the speed of sound is (roughly) constant.
--
For airplanes, something may be happening at the transition speed, since wings operate differently for sub/supersonic speeds. But this should have no effect for the skydiver. He may have other problems with the heat from the air drag, though. Also the pressure differences created in the air around him can have interesting effects - high on the head, low on the sides. But these will occur even in subsonic speeds.
Now if there's a supersonic specialist around, please correct me if I'm wrong :-)
--
My impression was that this invention would enable us to integrate fiber-optic connections into the silicon circuits, thus removing some bottlenecks.
--
It is mentioned in the actual research paper here. They explain the band structure can be modified by introducing an array of dislocations, which create a special kind of strain field in the crystal structure.
--
Oh yes. That's funny. But if moderators find it funny too, think about who they will reward with Score:5, Funny. Probably the thing that is funny, not the comment.
--
If you pronounce it letter by letter, she^H^H^H^Hit's a real QT. :-)
--
Probably when people complaining about grammar mistakes will start to check their own spelling.
--