you start to see the power of a simple event loop and callback structure.
Kinda like all any decently performing C/C++ application would be written anyway? I mean, come on, windows and X clients had their event loops since forever, and today's async I/O on both Windows and Linux gives you async callbacks.
You need to use the rocket equation for that. At the end of the burn, you'll be lighter.
Assuming Voyager with a NEXT thruster (unrealistic since the NEXT would need a much heavier RTG!),
delta_v= v_exhaust * ln(m_initial / m_final)
At 720kg initial weight, assuming 80kg initial propellant weight (I couldn't find it anywhere!), at I_sp=4000 we have exhaust velocity v_ex = I_sp*g = 40,000m/s.
If we humans go to Mars, it'll be very, very hard not to seed the environment with life. Of course said life might take very long to flourish, but contamination of Martian surface is a real problem for human visitors.
Oh, but you didn't read the article, then. The sequencing was done for him as a favor, for free. He only spent money on preparing the samples, that's not very expensive.
The sequencing was done, according to the article, by a friendly company, not in his basement, and it was done for free. I don't think money played a huge role. His connections and education did, for sure.
The humanities, at least the way I teach them, give you uncertainty, doubt and skepticism.
Dude, if the way engineering and science are taught doesn't give one a healthy dose of skepticism, they are not being taught right. The humanities are not the answer to incorrect teaching of science or engineering. Feynman's Caltech commencement speech is all about how science should be done. It's all about doubting yourself and actively working to undermine your warm feeling of being right. You must be your worst adversary - that way, and only that way, you can be guaranteed to win the battle. You control your worst enemy. That's the way good science is done, that's the way good engineering is done.
As time goes, I get tired of keeping the paperback bindings open. Kinda inconvenient when you want to read and scratch your wife's back. She loves when I read. She gets scratched for hours:)
I doubt anyone in the public had any idea about the possibility of nuclear weaponry either.
Anyone who was following current developments in physics was aware of the possibility well before WW II started.
I actually wish that U.S. had tech to do fast factorizations since then we might be needing some new innovations when it comes to public key cryptosystems. RSA gets boring after a while and I really wish there was something fresh and just as fundamental to come since. Maybe there is and I missed it?
Bullshit. Sure it was no great battle, I agree. It was a small-scale siege of a jail where the entrenched honcho's deputies were attempting to tamper with ballots. I don't see what has it got to do with vigilantism, it was very obvious what was going on and there was no other law enforcement available to deal with it.
Exactly. Throwing the Iraq and Afghanistan money after heart disease research would be way more productive. My bet is that the whole field of medical research, worldwide, has not seen that kind of money ever. Even if you add everything up since medical research has ever began.
I think they could have enough hardware to break small numbers (a couple/day, maybe) of RSA-encrypted negotiations of session keys, and perhaps may have something that can go much faster through keyspace of common symmetric ciphers. I think all you really need to stay secure these days is to change your private keys often and make sure all valuable data uses public key cryptography only, no symmetric ciphers. Unfortunately, common internet protocols like SSL only use public key crypto to negotiate symmetric session keys (IIRC). If you can recover session keys quickly, you don't even need to bother with brute-forcing factorization problems in public key crypto.
NSA has their hands on the latest and greatest gadgets, including quantum computers, which can, theoretically, decrypt anything
LOL. Classical computers can theoretically decrypt anything too, so what's your point? So far there was no demonstration of any non-classical computer system that runs significantly faster than classical ones. Even if you take a rather mediocre measure of being "significantly" faster - I merely mean faster by a low-order polynomial in N (say, N or N^2 times faster). I'm not even hinting at expecting something that can do O(N!) problems in polynomial time.
That's of course after first verifying that the CPU doesn't contain backdoors that trigger code execution upon hitting a special sequence of data. You pretty much have to lay out a simple 8-bit CPU by hand on large sheets of mylar, have that fabbed, toggle the monitor, then assembler, into it, then code a simple Pascal compiler, then use it to design something larger, and keep doing it until you've got yourself to the modern days.
Well, if you heat up enough, you'll get ionization (plasma).
But this is purely a thermal effect! The radiation doesn't ionize, the radiation heats up the material sufficiently so that the ionization occurs spontaneously due to collisions between atoms or molecules. Just because you have ionization doesn't mean that the radiation is ionizing!!
Of course to heat up to such high temperatures you'd need much more power than your typical microwave oven.
This is a rather nonsensical statement. Everything depends on the thermal balance of the sample you're heating up. Without knowing that, you can't make any arguments as to how much power is needed. Hint: low-pressure gases have low thermal conductivity and low volumetric heat:)
Tissues are not very transparent to UV-B, so this problem is limited to outer skin layers. Moreover, we adapt over generations by varying the melanin content. It takes about a 100 generations to go from full white to full black, and vice versa (there go the racial arguments, LOL). I'd say that given DNA's efficiency of storing information, the UV-B sensitivity is but a nitpick.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, but I have the original manual, so that shouldn't be a problem.
you start to see the power of a simple event loop and callback structure.
Kinda like all any decently performing C/C++ application would be written anyway? I mean, come on, windows and X clients had their event loops since forever, and today's async I/O on both Windows and Linux gives you async callbacks.
You need to use the rocket equation for that. At the end of the burn, you'll be lighter.
Assuming Voyager with a NEXT thruster (unrealistic since the NEXT would need a much heavier RTG!),
delta_v= v_exhaust * ln(m_initial / m_final)
At 720kg initial weight, assuming 80kg initial propellant weight (I couldn't find it anywhere!), at I_sp=4000 we have exhaust velocity v_ex = I_sp*g = 40,000m/s.
Thus delta_v = 40,000 m/s * ln(720/640) = 4.7 km/s (10,500 mph).
This is one of the most insightful short AC comments, like, ever. Good job, AC! :)
If we humans go to Mars, it'll be very, very hard not to seed the environment with life. Of course said life might take very long to flourish, but contamination of Martian surface is a real problem for human visitors.
Oh, but you didn't read the article, then. The sequencing was done for him as a favor, for free. He only spent money on preparing the samples, that's not very expensive.
The sequencing was done, according to the article, by a friendly company, not in his basement, and it was done for free. I don't think money played a huge role. His connections and education did, for sure.
Said someone who never got his/her back scratched :)
The humanities, at least the way I teach them, give you uncertainty, doubt and skepticism.
Dude, if the way engineering and science are taught doesn't give one a healthy dose of skepticism, they are not being taught right. The humanities are not the answer to incorrect teaching of science or engineering. Feynman's Caltech commencement speech is all about how science should be done. It's all about doubting yourself and actively working to undermine your warm feeling of being right. You must be your worst adversary - that way, and only that way, you can be guaranteed to win the battle. You control your worst enemy. That's the way good science is done, that's the way good engineering is done.
As time goes, I get tired of keeping the paperback bindings open. Kinda inconvenient when you want to read and scratch your wife's back. She loves when I read. She gets scratched for hours :)
Yup, because an English degree and love of literature makes one no more fallible to typos. Never ever, unh unh.
Yeah, because most of COBOL's syntactic sugar and library functionality couldn't be replicated, say, in C++. LOL.
It is not hard to be right about a lot of things, you just say all options. The hard thing is to get a good hit/miss ratio.
Now that's insightful!
warp even the most basic rules of physics
Now that is a meaningless phrase if I ever saw one. Could someone explain what the fuck was the submitter thinking while writing this nonsense?
I doubt anyone in the public had any idea about the possibility of nuclear weaponry either.
Anyone who was following current developments in physics was aware of the possibility well before WW II started.
I actually wish that U.S. had tech to do fast factorizations since then we might be needing some new innovations when it comes to public key cryptosystems. RSA gets boring after a while and I really wish there was something fresh and just as fundamental to come since. Maybe there is and I missed it?
Bullshit. Sure it was no great battle, I agree. It was a small-scale siege of a jail where the entrenched honcho's deputies were attempting to tamper with ballots. I don't see what has it got to do with vigilantism, it was very obvious what was going on and there was no other law enforcement available to deal with it.
Exactly. Throwing the Iraq and Afghanistan money after heart disease research would be way more productive. My bet is that the whole field of medical research, worldwide, has not seen that kind of money ever. Even if you add everything up since medical research has ever began.
I think they could have enough hardware to break small numbers (a couple/day, maybe) of RSA-encrypted negotiations of session keys, and perhaps may have something that can go much faster through keyspace of common symmetric ciphers. I think all you really need to stay secure these days is to change your private keys often and make sure all valuable data uses public key cryptography only, no symmetric ciphers. Unfortunately, common internet protocols like SSL only use public key crypto to negotiate symmetric session keys (IIRC). If you can recover session keys quickly, you don't even need to bother with brute-forcing factorization problems in public key crypto.
NSA has their hands on the latest and greatest gadgets, including quantum computers, which can, theoretically, decrypt anything
LOL. Classical computers can theoretically decrypt anything too, so what's your point? So far there was no demonstration of any non-classical computer system that runs significantly faster than classical ones. Even if you take a rather mediocre measure of being "significantly" faster - I merely mean faster by a low-order polynomial in N (say, N or N^2 times faster). I'm not even hinting at expecting something that can do O(N!) problems in polynomial time.
Let's hope there's a whoosh in order here. I'm in a positive mood today :)
As far as backdoors go - let's be realistic, there's nothing to suggest either way. That's the sad world we live in...
That's of course after first verifying that the CPU doesn't contain backdoors that trigger code execution upon hitting a special sequence of data. You pretty much have to lay out a simple 8-bit CPU by hand on large sheets of mylar, have that fabbed, toggle the monitor, then assembler, into it, then code a simple Pascal compiler, then use it to design something larger, and keep doing it until you've got yourself to the modern days.
Well, if you heat up enough, you'll get ionization (plasma).
But this is purely a thermal effect! The radiation doesn't ionize, the radiation heats up the material sufficiently so that the ionization occurs spontaneously due to collisions between atoms or molecules. Just because you have ionization doesn't mean that the radiation is ionizing!!
Of course to heat up to such high temperatures you'd need much more power than your typical microwave oven.
This is a rather nonsensical statement. Everything depends on the thermal balance of the sample you're heating up. Without knowing that, you can't make any arguments as to how much power is needed. Hint: low-pressure gases have low thermal conductivity and low volumetric heat :)
Tissues are not very transparent to UV-B, so this problem is limited to outer skin layers. Moreover, we adapt over generations by varying the melanin content. It takes about a 100 generations to go from full white to full black, and vice versa (there go the racial arguments, LOL). I'd say that given DNA's efficiency of storing information, the UV-B sensitivity is but a nitpick.
You oven can go to about say 300 degrees celsius equivalent to about 0.05 eV.
Said someone who never actually used the microwave oven...