Wikipedia "blew away" "Encyclopedia Brittanica"? Not only do you not know what you're talking about, you don't know how to spell it. What an utterly asinine statement.
voting age is 18 in Sweden. In the over-18 population segment, approval rating of the Pirate Party drops to a mere 0.235%, corresponding to.82 seats (which is ok, as, incidentally, their smartest member has an IQ of 82).
The wave front velocity of light is c. Period. Yes, you can come up with all kinds of setups to change phase or group velocity. No, you can't use them to transmit information superluminally. Case closed.
Nonsense. Could you please provide a link to the "federal law" that supposedly "forbids" Scientology? Scientology does not enjoy tax-exempt status in Germany, because it was deemed to be for-profit, that's all.
This is not about magnets at all. The "cold technology" developed by DESY and favored by the committee is about superconducting RF resonators (which are used for particle acceleration).
You can't change the speed of light (in vacuum). Such a change would be undetectable. All you can do is distinguish the cases of c being 0, finite>0, or infinite. Real natural constants have to be dimensionless, so a change can not be compensated by rescaling measuring rods and clocks. The fine structure constant, of course, is dimensionless.
The US Forefathers were smart - they intentionally left the specific details of how to collect the vote and tally the results to the states, and ultimately, the local county districts.
Probably it wasn't so much a precaution as practical reasons; it's hard to implement a centralized voting system in a huge, sparsely populated country with messengers on horses the fastet means of communications. I
I never cease to be amazed about the superhuman intelligence Americans attribute to their forefathers. They were drafting the first democratic constitution in modern times. To assume that they got it right, and people 150 years later, with all their past experience and constitutional theory, got it wrong, seems a somewhat steep claim.
Somehow, the U.S. constitution reminds me of a FORTRAN compiler: there are a lot of smart ideas in it, it was the first of its kind, and it was a tremendous achievement at the time. However, the theory underlying it was in its infancy, and there were no practical experiences of how to do it right. It's venerable, and we all learned from it, but let's not assume it's perfect and better than C or the typical European parliamentary constitution, respectively, just because it's older.
If I wanted to rig an election in the US, I would have to rig it ONE COUNTY AT A TIME
I fail to see the difference with German election procedures. Votes have to be added in a treelike fashion, and you have your choice of where to intercept the process.
If you're looking at any object in the sky
(beside the celestial north pole, that is),
it will leave a circular trace on a long-time
photographic exposure. To counteract this
effect, you let the telescope rotate in
the opposite direction of the earth's rotation.
Obviously, this isn't possible with the
mercury telescope.
You need energy to cool it down, and you
waste energy heating it up. Think of it as
just a steam engine. Carnot (who developed the
theory of that) is in his state of maximum
entropy for 177 years now, but people still
don't know his name, it seems. The efficiency
of any engine is (best case) limited by 1-Temperature_difference/Final_Temperature,
and that's much closer to 1 for combustion
engines. So, ernegy-wise, it's a clear loser;
the only advantage might be in terms of better
emission control when (centrally) generating the needed energy to cool down the nitrogen.
Oops, I meant ergative. Languages are
ergative when the case marker for the
subject of an intransitive verb is the
same as that for the direct object of
a transitive verb. All instances of "Alice" in
"Alice loves Bob", "Alice runs" and "Bob runs" have the same case marker (although one cannot
see it in English, but one could in Latin), whereas in ergative languages the "Bob"s would have the same case marker. Basque is an example of an ergative language, IIRC.
> What is the German word for 'compassion'?
> (Its a trick question; as far as i know, there
> is no German word for compassion.)
Mitleid, Mitgefuehl, Einfuehlung, Empathie
would spring to mind... Other than that,
I have the impression that your expectations
about typical German behavioral traits influence your judgement of German-written software. I
certainly haven't noticed anything like it.
In my opinion, programming languages mirror natural languages only loosely. But there are certainly some things which makes programming
languages similar to natural English:
(1) English is almost inflection-free, which means
(2) that it has to have a strict word ordering
(3) which make programming languages simple to parse
German, however, has case markers and therefore
free word ordering.
So, in principle, you could exploit that feature
in a natural-language-like programming language:
ASSIGN value TO variable
WEISE der Variablen den Wert ZU
WEISE den Wert der Variablen ZU
which would be unambigious in German.
However, the case markers in German are in many cases bound to the articles, and usually, one just would have something like
ASSIGN b TO a
WEISE a b ZU
where the case markers have disappeared, so
even the German version would have to rely on a
(previously agreed upon) word order.
Thus, the strict word ordering of today's English-like language seems pretty inevitable to me.
However, if we leave the realm of Indoeuropean
languages with its "a does b to c" scheme, the
question would certainly be a different one.
Agglutinating languages? Non-ergative languages?
They probably might have developed a totally
different concept of writing down algorithms
(or might even have developed a non-von-Neumannian
machine).
Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia "blew away" "Encyclopedia Brittanica"? Not only
do you not know what you're talking about, you don't know
how to spell it. What an utterly asinine statement.
That's the correction factor between rms and peak-to-peak. The
correction factor between rms and average is pi/sqrt(8) ~ 1.1107.
voting age is 18 in Sweden. In the over-18 population segment, .82 seats (which is ok, as, incidentally,
approval rating of the Pirate Party drops to a mere 0.235%,
corresponding to
their smartest member has an IQ of 82).
The wave front velocity of light is c. Period. Yes, you can come up with all kinds of setups to change phase or group velocity. No, you can't use them to transmit information superluminally. Case closed.
Look it up in your local penal code. What's your
problem?
Nonsense. Could you please provide a link to the "federal law" that supposedly "forbids" Scientology?
Scientology does not enjoy tax-exempt status in
Germany, because it was deemed to be for-profit,
that's all.
> --Last yeer I kudn't spel Injunear...Now I are
> one!
Try spending the next year on learning the
difference between Switzerland and Sweden.
Hey, he's the *libertarian* presidential
candidate. Being stark raving mad is part
of the job description.
This is not about magnets at all. The "cold technology" developed by DESY and favored by
the committee is about superconducting RF
resonators (which are used for particle
acceleration).
No. Whether or not you radiate substantially
depends on the frequency and the geometry of your
system. In this case, you don't.
> The problem with capacitive connections is that
> you are, for all intents and purposes, using small
> radio links
No, you're not. There are coupling capacitors
in nearly every input stage of nearly every
audio device. Are these "radio links", too?
Harry steckte seinen Zauberstab rasch in seine Hose zurück und versuchte möglichst unschuldig dreinzublicken.
You can't change the speed of light (in vacuum).
Such a change would be undetectable. All you can do is distinguish the cases of c being 0, finite>0, or infinite. Real natural constants have to be dimensionless, so a change can not be compensated by rescaling measuring rods and clocks. The fine structure constant, of course, is dimensionless.
The US Forefathers were smart - they intentionally left the specific details of how to collect the vote and tally the results to the states, and ultimately, the local county districts.
Probably it wasn't so much a precaution as practical reasons; it's hard to implement a centralized voting system in a huge, sparsely populated country with messengers on horses the fastet means of communications. I
I never cease to be amazed about the superhuman intelligence Americans attribute to their forefathers. They were drafting the first democratic constitution in modern times. To assume that they got it right, and people 150 years later, with all their past experience and constitutional theory, got it wrong, seems a somewhat steep claim.
Somehow, the U.S. constitution reminds me
of a FORTRAN compiler: there are a lot of smart
ideas in it, it was the first of its kind, and it was a tremendous achievement at the
time. However, the theory underlying it was
in its infancy, and there were no practical
experiences of how to do it right. It's venerable,
and we all learned from it, but let's not assume it's perfect and better than C or the typical European parliamentary constitution, respectively, just because it's older.
If I wanted to rig an election in the US, I would have to rig it ONE COUNTY AT A TIME
I fail to see the difference with German election
procedures. Votes have to be added in a treelike
fashion, and you have your choice of where to
intercept the process.
Obviously not the same. Think of the case
of A importing goods for $600, B for $200.
If A and B are married, A is not charged
$20.
I think the term "crash course" should be
restricted to MS OS classes.
That's per particle. Now, typical bunch charges
are in the range of nanocoulombs, so we have around 10^10 particles. Sounds better?
It's a very, very, very obvious hoax.
If you're looking at any object in the sky
(beside the celestial north pole, that is),
it will leave a circular trace on a long-time
photographic exposure. To counteract this
effect, you let the telescope rotate in
the opposite direction of the earth's rotation.
Obviously, this isn't possible with the
mercury telescope.
You need energy to cool it down, and you
waste energy heating it up. Think of it as
just a steam engine. Carnot (who developed the
theory of that) is in his state of maximum
entropy for 177 years now, but people still
don't know his name, it seems. The efficiency
of any engine is (best case) limited by 1-Temperature_difference/Final_Temperature,
and that's much closer to 1 for combustion
engines. So, ernegy-wise, it's a clear loser;
the only advantage might be in terms of better
emission control when (centrally) generating the needed energy to cool down the nitrogen.
Oops, I meant ergative. Languages are
ergative when the case marker for the
subject of an intransitive verb is the
same as that for the direct object of
a transitive verb. All instances of "Alice" in
"Alice loves Bob", "Alice runs" and "Bob runs" have the same case marker (although one cannot
see it in English, but one could in Latin), whereas in ergative languages the "Bob"s would have the same case marker. Basque is an example of an ergative language, IIRC.
> What is the German word for 'compassion'?
... Other than that,
> (Its a trick question; as far as i know, there
> is no German word for compassion.)
Mitleid, Mitgefuehl, Einfuehlung, Empathie
would spring to mind
I have the impression that your expectations
about typical German behavioral traits influence your judgement of German-written software. I
certainly haven't noticed anything like it.
In my opinion, programming languages mirror natural languages only loosely. But there are certainly some things which makes programming
languages similar to natural English:
(1) English is almost inflection-free, which means
(2) that it has to have a strict word ordering
(3) which make programming languages simple to parse
German, however, has case markers and therefore
free word ordering.
So, in principle, you could exploit that feature
in a natural-language-like programming language:
ASSIGN value TO variable
WEISE der Variablen den Wert ZU
WEISE den Wert der Variablen ZU
which would be unambigious in German.
However, the case markers in German are in many cases bound to the articles, and usually, one just would have something like
ASSIGN b TO a
WEISE a b ZU
where the case markers have disappeared, so
even the German version would have to rely on a
(previously agreed upon) word order.
Thus, the strict word ordering of today's English-like language seems pretty inevitable to me.
However, if we leave the realm of Indoeuropean
languages with its "a does b to c" scheme, the
question would certainly be a different one.
Agglutinating languages? Non-ergative languages?
They probably might have developed a totally
different concept of writing down algorithms
(or might even have developed a non-von-Neumannian
machine).