What if there were two earths rotating around the sun at the same distance? Wouldn't the sun be stationary then? Hypothetical, but true, no?
Try playing with this. If the values are precise, then yes, the sun will be stationary. But, give the sun just a slight initial velocity and the system goes quite funky. Any tiny change will upset this system.
Here's the values I used: Body 1: 200 0 0 0 -1 (or 0 for stable system) Body 2: 10 142 0 0 140 Body 3: 10 -142 0 0 -140
Although this might be one application, it's more likely that the military would want to use it for intelligence gathering: imagine how much information is out there, if only we could separate it out from the noise?
Reading the article, however, I'm not sure that this by itself would serve much purpose even then, though, given digital communications. Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that point.
LDS students may be endorsed only by the bishop of the ward (1) in which they live and (2) that holds their current Church membership record.
Translation: If you're a member of the church, go see your bishop.
Non-LDS students are to be endorsed by (1) the local ecclesiastical leader if the student is an active member of the congregation, (2) the bishop of the LDS ward in which they currently reside, or (3) the nondenominational BYU chaplain.
Translation: If you're not a member, go find any one of those three people to get an endorsement.
That person will hold a short interview and basically ask if you will live by the school's honor code. Say yes, and you have your endorsement.
Here's the specific form: Ecclesiastical Endorsement. Please feel free to ignore the parts specific to LDS applicants.
As I said, there's no requirement to be religious (only a statement "encouraging" non-LDS students to attend their respective religious services). Think of it like marriage: you don't have to go do a church to get married (although that's what religious people do), just go to the county building and sign a form or two.
But I don't think your problem is with the application process or with religion in itself: it's with the rules and regulations that go with being a BYU student.
You know what? That's fine: not even all "Mormons" want (or have to) live by those rules: I even know some that have a (gasp!) beard! They just go elsewhere for school, and nobody thinks the lesser of them.
Oh, if only they believe what you imagine they do... the world would be a much simpler place.
I won't bother going into too much detail here, but your comment started with a common misconception (that the followers of Christ in the Book of Mormon all had white skin, with dark skin being a curse for wickedness), ventured into the strange (using "Elohim," a name Mormons use for God, to make their beliefs all the more strange), and ended with complete nonsense (and designed to be flamebait, to boot!).
Yes, their beliefs can be strange when exaggerated and misunderstood, but please don't try to purposefully misrepresent them like that.
Oh, noes! A fear of the female body!!! Fear of homosexuals!!! A fear of beards!!!
Oh, wait. No, it's not fear -- a term you clearly picked to deprave those you obviously don't understand.
I mean, this shit sounds like something you'd find the Taliban advocating.
I find this in connection with "Forced religion" bit to be quite amusing. BYU requires that its students be upstanding, moral people (using an "Ecclesiastical Endorsement" to do this). Never do they force others to be their religion, or to be a member of any other. All the school asks is that the students take some religion classes -- no more than you'd get from a catholic school (and some would say much less).
And they certainly don't advocate killing others to enforce what they believe. Feel free to compare them to Islam if you like (and there's some interesting comparisons there)... but drawing on the Taliban? Come on!
And thus, when I heard that BYU, founded on principles of racism, moral superiority, and hatred of atheists, I was surprised they had abandoned enough of their core principles to have a paleontology department that accurately dated fossils.
Strange, nothing I read from here, here, or here say anything about these "core priniciples."
It's quite interesting to see how many times scientific discoveries from BYU are discussed here on slashdot. Even more amazing is how ignorant slashdot readers are of the school and its students.
This is what annoys me most about modeling hardware in VHDL, verilog, etc. versus programming software.
With software, the goal is to fix any warning messages (even with -Wall), to the point that many programming standards require -Werror as well. The warnings are generally important to follow and are generally heeded.
With hardware, synthesizing a design produces hundreds of warnings even with simple designs -- many of which warn about common, intended behavior. Maybe I just used crappy tools? Either way, the warnings were ignored simply because they didn't seem to be important.
The lesson: don't overload the user with warnings, but use them selectively and usefully.
Other possible ideas would be to just assign a number to your error and make it flash. Flashing gives a sense of urgency and, as long as your list of typical errors is small, the user should be able to recall a flashing number. If you get into the hundreds, this might not work so well.
Oh, please no! Flashing is annoying and will only make them close the window faster, if anything. If it's that important that the user remember something, it should be written to some log (hmmm... are there any OS's anymore that don't have a logging capability?)
Oh, but I see all sorts of potential abuse here. Why does every program think that they're the most important application running on your computer? Do I really want every notification message to require such specific acknowledgment?
Imagine Clippy talking out loud./me shudders
Let's work on getting rid of modal message boxes completely instead: make them unnecessary when possible. Then we can talk about making sure the user reads the few truly important ones that are left.
And yet, you (and every homeopathist out there) don't seem to understand how homeopathy works either... because it simply doesn't.
Yes, I am aware that a small portion of the homeopathic community favor low-level dilutions for (possibly) valid medical reasons. But nearly all homeopathy is not what you're claiming.
While I've not found a peer-reviewed study about the latter...
Please return when you've found it. I know people with MS and other diseases "curable" by homeopathy.
On a side note, my brother-in-law (a doctor) told me once that every study has to take into account a 30% placebo effect. Can anyone confirm this?
Exactly -- that would be worthless. Rather, they need an advisory panel that can examine the QA practices and such.
I'm used to examining million LOC codebases -- give me or anyone else here on./ a few days to look at their procedures, bug database, unit tests, etc., and we'll be able to tell whether this sort of problem could occur again and what was done to solve it. But I wouldn't/couldn't do the testing myself, ever.
I disagree -- paying attention to your health is one thing, but any time you take a placebo (and sometimes potentially dangerous) cure instead of a real, effective treatment, you're losing out on all counts.
Ever gotten vaccinated against the flu or smallpox? Same basic principle as homeopathy: introduce a small quantity of Something Bad^tm into the body, to trigger an immune response.
Except, vaccines actually work. No, really!
Homeopathy doesn't (generally) claim that the small amount of the substance creates the cure, but that it's the dilution itself of that substance that helps. Homeopathy is based on wild guesswork and superstition -- don't try to claim that it "trigger[s] an immune response," please.
2c: I file for a patent, going over my head in debt in the process (barrier to entry 6) 3c: I sell the patent! Profit! 3d: I don't sell the patent, and file for bankruptcy.
3d can, of course, then be followed by your steps 4 and 5. Oh, joy.
I disagree -- there have been several times when I'll output the seed to a log so I can reproduce results, mainly to debug the software when I get unexpected outputs.
However, that doesn't reduce the need for true randomness.
*Facts presented so far in this case are less than facts until a court rules. I don't claim to know what happened, I'm just a sheep parroting the hearsay I come across.
Thanks for the footnote... it should be at the end of every post in this discussion./. can really go rampant on speculation, but what's new?
I am a big proponent of some form of public healthcare but I dislike the fact that many of the people here in the US that are arguing for it will not acknowledge that it's simply going to expensive. They point to the naive out-of-pocket expense in Canada or The Netherlands without acknowledging the true cost of the system in the form of higher taxes.
Exactly! Here's the sequence:
1) US health care is stupidly expensive 2) Any government-provided heath care has to pay those rates behind the scenes (plus bureaucratic costs on top of it all) 3) We then pay out the nose in taxes (or costs passed down to consumers, etc)
The focus needs to be on the underlying problem, not the solution that only masks the problem.
Run the numbers: a $1 trillion overhaul over 10 years (assuming 300 million people) costs over $300 per person per year. For a family of four, that's over $100 per family per month. And that's just the cost of "fixing" the system, not providing the care itself!
Though, as an aside, some people actually do leave the US because of healthcare. Many more would like to, but can't afford to move any more than they can afford their healthcare premiums (some of my friends fall into the latter category).
Wait... so maybe if we get rid of the leeches on the health care system, everybody's cost will go down! Seems like we finally found a way of fixing the system!
Slashdot Mirror
What if there were two earths rotating around the sun at the same distance? Wouldn't the sun be stationary then? Hypothetical, but true, no?
Try playing with this. If the values are precise, then yes, the sun will be stationary. But, give the sun just a slight initial velocity and the system goes quite funky. Any tiny change will upset this system.
Here's the values I used:
Body 1: 200 0 0 0 -1 (or 0 for stable system)
Body 2: 10 142 0 0 140
Body 3: 10 -142 0 0 -140
Although this might be one application, it's more likely that the military would want to use it for intelligence gathering: imagine how much information is out there, if only we could separate it out from the noise?
Reading the article, however, I'm not sure that this by itself would serve much purpose even then, though, given digital communications. Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that point.
LDS students may be endorsed only by the bishop of the ward (1) in which they live and (2) that holds their current Church membership record.
Translation: If you're a member of the church, go see your bishop.
Non-LDS students are to be endorsed by (1) the local ecclesiastical leader if the student is an active member of the congregation, (2) the bishop of the LDS ward in which they currently reside, or (3) the nondenominational BYU chaplain.
Translation: If you're not a member, go find any one of those three people to get an endorsement.
That person will hold a short interview and basically ask if you will live by the school's honor code. Say yes, and you have your endorsement.
Here's the specific form: Ecclesiastical Endorsement. Please feel free to ignore the parts specific to LDS applicants.
As I said, there's no requirement to be religious (only a statement "encouraging" non-LDS students to attend their respective religious services). Think of it like marriage: you don't have to go do a church to get married (although that's what religious people do), just go to the county building and sign a form or two.
But I don't think your problem is with the application process or with religion in itself: it's with the rules and regulations that go with being a BYU student.
You know what? That's fine: not even all "Mormons" want (or have to) live by those rules: I even know some that have a (gasp!) beard! They just go elsewhere for school, and nobody thinks the lesser of them.
Oh, if only they believe what you imagine they do ... the world would be a much simpler place.
I won't bother going into too much detail here, but your comment started with a common misconception (that the followers of Christ in the Book of Mormon all had white skin, with dark skin being a curse for wickedness), ventured into the strange (using "Elohim," a name Mormons use for God, to make their beliefs all the more strange), and ended with complete nonsense (and designed to be flamebait, to boot!).
Yes, their beliefs can be strange when exaggerated and misunderstood, but please don't try to purposefully misrepresent them like that.
Oh, noes! A fear of the female body!!! Fear of homosexuals!!! A fear of beards!!!
Oh, wait. No, it's not fear -- a term you clearly picked to deprave those you obviously don't understand.
I mean, this shit sounds like something you'd find the Taliban advocating.
I find this in connection with "Forced religion" bit to be quite amusing. BYU requires that its students be upstanding, moral people (using an "Ecclesiastical Endorsement" to do this). Never do they force others to be their religion, or to be a member of any other. All the school asks is that the students take some religion classes -- no more than you'd get from a catholic school (and some would say much less).
And they certainly don't advocate killing others to enforce what they believe. Feel free to compare them to Islam if you like (and there's some interesting comparisons there) ... but drawing on the Taliban? Come on!
And thus, when I heard that BYU, founded on principles of racism, moral superiority, and hatred of atheists, I was surprised they had abandoned enough of their core principles to have a paleontology department that accurately dated fossils.
Strange, nothing I read from here, here, or here say anything about these "core priniciples."
It's quite interesting to see how many times scientific discoveries from BYU are discussed here on slashdot. Even more amazing is how ignorant slashdot readers are of the school and its students.
This is what annoys me most about modeling hardware in VHDL, verilog, etc. versus programming software.
With software, the goal is to fix any warning messages (even with -Wall), to the point that many programming standards require -Werror as well. The warnings are generally important to follow and are generally heeded.
With hardware, synthesizing a design produces hundreds of warnings even with simple designs -- many of which warn about common, intended behavior. Maybe I just used crappy tools? Either way, the warnings were ignored simply because they didn't seem to be important.
The lesson: don't overload the user with warnings, but use them selectively and usefully.
Other possible ideas would be to just assign a number to your error and make it flash. Flashing gives a sense of urgency and, as long as your list of typical errors is small, the user should be able to recall a flashing number. If you get into the hundreds, this might not work so well.
Oh, please no! Flashing is annoying and will only make them close the window faster, if anything. If it's that important that the user remember something, it should be written to some log (hmmm ... are there any OS's anymore that don't have a logging capability?)
Oh, but I see all sorts of potential abuse here. Why does every program think that they're the most important application running on your computer? Do I really want every notification message to require such specific acknowledgment?
Imagine Clippy talking out loud. /me shudders
Let's work on getting rid of modal message boxes completely instead: make them unnecessary when possible. Then we can talk about making sure the user reads the few truly important ones that are left.
Well, that certainly explains the malware the school installed on the laptops. Infected, indeed!
And yet, you (and every homeopathist out there) don't seem to understand how homeopathy works either ... because it simply doesn't.
Yes, I am aware that a small portion of the homeopathic community favor low-level dilutions for (possibly) valid medical reasons. But nearly all homeopathy is not what you're claiming.
While I've not found a peer-reviewed study about the latter...
Please return when you've found it. I know people with MS and other diseases "curable" by homeopathy.
On a side note, my brother-in-law (a doctor) told me once that every study has to take into account a 30% placebo effect. Can anyone confirm this?
Exactly -- that would be worthless. Rather, they need an advisory panel that can examine the QA practices and such.
I'm used to examining million LOC codebases -- give me or anyone else here on ./ a few days to look at their procedures, bug database, unit tests, etc., and we'll be able to tell whether this sort of problem could occur again and what was done to solve it. But I wouldn't/couldn't do the testing myself, ever.
I'd even be happy with a lone consultant, just to advise them. It's a start, at least.
Finally, a way for Obama to actually create jobs!
I disagree -- paying attention to your health is one thing, but any time you take a placebo (and sometimes potentially dangerous) cure instead of a real, effective treatment, you're losing out on all counts.
Ever gotten vaccinated against the flu or smallpox? Same basic principle as homeopathy: introduce a small quantity of Something Bad^tm into the body, to trigger an immune response.
Except, vaccines actually work. No, really!
Homeopathy doesn't (generally) claim that the small amount of the substance creates the cure, but that it's the dilution itself of that substance that helps. Homeopathy is based on wild guesswork and superstition -- don't try to claim that it "trigger[s] an immune response," please.
2c: I file for a patent, going over my head in debt in the process (barrier to entry 6)
3c: I sell the patent! Profit!
3d: I don't sell the patent, and file for bankruptcy.
3d can, of course, then be followed by your steps 4 and 5. Oh, joy.
I disagree -- there have been several times when I'll output the seed to a log so I can reproduce results, mainly to debug the software when I get unexpected outputs.
However, that doesn't reduce the need for true randomness.
Don't worry ... mod points are distributed randomly.
The comment used to have non-alphanumerics, but slashdot doesn't support unicode.
We talk about it for two reasons:
1) Its one of the few things that we may or may not have details about
2) It makes the school look that much more ridiculous.
If a government is running a school, the government must not impinge on student rights.
Just because the rules still apply doesn't mean that they are followed.
*Facts presented so far in this case are less than facts until a court rules. I don't claim to know what happened, I'm just a sheep parroting the hearsay I come across.
Thanks for the footnote ... it should be at the end of every post in this discussion. /. can really go rampant on speculation, but what's new?
I am a big proponent of some form of public healthcare but I dislike the fact that many of the people here in the US that are arguing for it will not acknowledge that it's simply going to expensive. They point to the naive out-of-pocket expense in Canada or The Netherlands without acknowledging the true cost of the system in the form of higher taxes.
Exactly! Here's the sequence:
1) US health care is stupidly expensive
2) Any government-provided heath care has to pay those rates behind the scenes (plus bureaucratic costs on top of it all)
3) We then pay out the nose in taxes (or costs passed down to consumers, etc)
The focus needs to be on the underlying problem, not the solution that only masks the problem.
Run the numbers: a $1 trillion overhaul over 10 years (assuming 300 million people) costs over $300 per person per year. For a family of four, that's over $100 per family per month. And that's just the cost of "fixing" the system, not providing the care itself!
Though, as an aside, some people actually do leave the US because of healthcare. Many more would like to, but can't afford to move any more than they can afford their healthcare premiums (some of my friends fall into the latter category).
Wait ... so maybe if we get rid of the leeches on the health care system, everybody's cost will go down! Seems like we finally found a way of fixing the system!