since the person will be totally different, there is no ethical problem imho. the only problem is purely practical, "evolutional": why create an exact copy of an existing biological entity, when you can leave the gene mix matching to the nature for the possible benefit of a better random combination of genes ?
aren't really news. News would be that an atheist blogger was not jailed in $random_ME_country. Having said that, stories like these should come up, it's the least we can do to help - even a tiny bit - things change down there.
..your highest vector-resolution is still the highest vector resolution of your vector-saving camera. for example if your camera which saves to a vector format, doesn't have a high resolution, it will produce a crude vector file, which will only look good for equally small screen resolutions.
you are right. the async model is good, and yes node is useful elsewhere ( not web ) for fast prototyping i.e.. However for heavy number crunching the async model has some deficiencies as the async model is good for high I/O without much cpu processing.
the problem with node is that it's trying to be both a chef and a waiter: both a server side language AND a server. wrong in my opinion. it's like having PHP also assume the role of apache. Yeah i know, "use nginx or apache as proxy in front of it" blah blah blah. Node would be a better choice of you had some proven, tested, real web server with configuration and just used node as your language of choice.
that's true. A conservative european politician would be considered "socialist" in the states. A "socialist" european politician would be considred communist in the states.
No. It's a matter of principle. That wuld mean you are weak and a worm. The right thing to do is stand by your principles and not accept it in the first place. By accepting it in the first place, means you accept its legitimacy.
p.s. no, i'm not a religious nutjob who believes in 666 etc, atheist here.
true, it may be just that, i uniq-ed them and it's only 206 duplicated fixes ( out of about ~2200 per version ) so that accounts to less than 10% ( per version )
Hi guys. Sorry to sound like a noob ( which i am in slashdot anyway ), but is there a way to contact a slashdot user via a private message or something ? I can't seem to be able to find the appropriate option/button/whatever.
well i have done maths earlier in my life and even read "a brief history of time" still in high school ( with some difficulties in the late chapters ). But I've always had more questions and not all my questions seem to be answered ( i know they are a result of lack of knowledge ). Thanks for your thorough answer but what it did was to incentivize me to ask you even more questions!
I understand the concept of the universe as a thin egg shell ( the balloon example ), with all the matter ( galaxies ) being inside that thin shell, not above, not below... BUT..I don't see why spacetime doesn't exist below ( in the interior of the balloon ) the shell. During earlier times the radius of the shell was smaller..and smaller..down to the point when bing bang occured. But the fact that matter does not exist anymore in the interior of the balloon DOESN'T mean that spacetime doesn't exist there as well, because matter already passed from that part and the information of the gravity field is still there ( that below part may have even been part of the universe even before mattere passed through there). The information of the field gravity is still there, thus, it may be empty of matter but it still exists despite the fact that all ( most? ) of the matter is inside the thin balloon/egg shell. This makes me think that the calculation we use about the expansion rate of the universe may be wrong, as the expansion rate should be defined by the expansion of the radius of the balloon, not by the distance of two dots on the balloon. Defining it as the speed between two galaxies is not consistent because the difference will be bigger, the further away the galaxies are.
These thoughts brought this question to me right now: Let's say we have two galaxies which are some space apart in this thin universe shell. Does the light moves accross the curbed shell fabric or in a straight line ( that is "punching through" the balloon ) ?
One more question related to the shape of the universe: despite the fact that for a fraction of time it may have expanded faster than the speed of light, at any other phase, the universe is expanding at the speed of light, which is the speed that the "information" of the gravitational field of the universe spreads. Right? ( thus making the need to calculate the expansion rate irrelevant ). Am I wrong here ?
So, still the universe _has_ to be spherical ( more or less ) because the gravitational field spreads in all directions at the speed of light. Thus my visualization of the universe is that of a bubble of air inside a water tank, which bubble is constantly growing in size ( the water of the tank being nothingness, or null ). The matter of the universe may be contained in a radius smaller than the radius of the bubble, and the radius of the bubble is the same as age_of_bubble*C ( i don't take here inflation into account for simplification reasons ). So according to my (probably incorrect) visualization, this bubble does have a center and a radius
Final question: if we take the velocity vectors of only two galaxies, and we extend the lines, they should go back at the initial start point which is the "center" the bing bang point, right ?
hm yes but won't galaxy A see galaxy B moving away from it faster than the speed of light ? ( the relative movement as observed from a second galaxy.
bonus question: is the universe a sphere ? I don't understand why the universe can't have a center, wouldn't that be the "point" where big bang happened ?
pardon the ignorance but..if spacetime can expand faster than light then the matter ( galaxies, stars etc. ) which are contained into that part of spacetime, is also moving faster than light? wouldn't that contradict the fact that matter ( with mass ) can't reach the speed of light ?
so by default whatever the governments say is propaganda and whatever the "revolutionaries" say is true. Sure, you want to remain anonymous, use cash. Would you use money printed by me instead of officially printed money (government) ? Do you know who benefits the most from anonymous money ? yeap you guessed right, the criminals, not normal citizens who fear that the government cares if they buy a 5'' dildo from a sex shop
oh so i don't understand the importance of free speech now? lol ? and how exactly is free speech related to bitcoins ? are you - in your paroxysm - insinuating that they are somehow relative ? trying to add value where there isn't any ?
straw man. I never denied that criminal activities happen with the current regulated currency. What i properly explained but you carefully avoided is that an unregulated and uncontrolled method of money is to the criminals just like honey for the bears.
printing money is wrong, while on the other hand it's perfectly logical to create money out of thin air simply by gpu calculations ? and having one institution print money is wrong, having everyone do that with their gpus is right and it so much helps inflation. right.
here is one link that took me 3 seconds to google. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/fbi-fears-bitcoin/
it doesn't take an einstein to understand that criminals would rush to using unregulated and uncontrolled methods of payment/money etc.
despite the fact that i'm moderated as troll, it's all of you who really are.
Slashdot Mirror
since the person will be totally different, there is no ethical problem imho. the only problem is purely practical, "evolutional": why create an exact copy of an existing biological entity, when you can leave the gene mix matching to the nature for the possible benefit of a better random combination of genes ?
you're such a _heartless_ person!
I think the technologically hardest problem of all is the brain transferring process: correctly read and transfer.
googlenet, starts its nuclear attacks against humanity.
the latest gpus are laready 15-18 GFLOPS/watt already. *confused*
medvedev also recently trolled a bit, in a seemingly "i don't know i'm off camera" moment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHCSpm2kepo
aren't really news. News would be that an atheist blogger was not jailed in $random_ME_country. Having said that, stories like these should come up, it's the least we can do to help - even a tiny bit - things change down there.
..your highest vector-resolution is still the highest vector resolution of your vector-saving camera. for example if your camera which saves to a vector format, doesn't have a high resolution, it will produce a crude vector file, which will only look good for equally small screen resolutions.
practical interesting applications for such a material ?
you are right. the async model is good, and yes node is useful elsewhere ( not web ) for fast prototyping i.e.. However for heavy number crunching the async model has some deficiencies as the async model is good for high I/O without much cpu processing.
the problem with node is that it's trying to be both a chef and a waiter: both a server side language AND a server. wrong in my opinion. it's like having PHP also assume the role of apache. Yeah i know, "use nginx or apache as proxy in front of it" blah blah blah. Node would be a better choice of you had some proven, tested, real web server with configuration and just used node as your language of choice.
can't wait to print my intel core 6 core 980X !!!
what's with the sudden outbreak of intelligent judges' decisions in the US ?
that's true. A conservative european politician would be considered "socialist" in the states. A "socialist" european politician would be considred communist in the states.
No. It's a matter of principle. That wuld mean you are weak and a worm. The right thing to do is stand by your principles and not accept it in the first place. By accepting it in the first place, means you accept its legitimacy. p.s. no, i'm not a religious nutjob who believes in 666 etc, atheist here.
true, it may be just that, i uniq-ed them and it's only 206 duplicated fixes ( out of about ~2200 per version ) so that accounts to less than 10% ( per version )
The answer: some bugs seem to be fixed TWICE:
.. in both versions. ( 3d randomly picked number from version 17.0 )
http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/17.0/releasenotes/buglist.html
http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/16.0/releasenotes/buglist.html
there as it at least one bug ( 786386 ) which has been fixed
Hi guys. Sorry to sound like a noob ( which i am in slashdot anyway ), but is there a way to contact a slashdot user via a private message or something ? I can't seem to be able to find the appropriate option/button/whatever.
well i have done maths earlier in my life and even read "a brief history of time" still in high school ( with some difficulties in the late chapters ). But I've always had more questions and not all my questions seem to be answered ( i know they are a result of lack of knowledge ). Thanks for your thorough answer but what it did was to incentivize me to ask you even more questions!
..I don't see why spacetime doesn't exist below ( in the interior of the balloon ) the shell. During earlier times the radius of the shell was smaller..and smaller ..down to the point when bing bang occured. But the fact that matter does not exist anymore in the interior of the balloon DOESN'T mean that spacetime doesn't exist there as well, because matter already passed from that part and the information of the gravity field is still there ( that below part may have even been part of the universe even before mattere passed through there). The information of the field gravity is still there, thus, it may be empty of matter but it still exists despite the fact that all ( most? ) of the matter is inside the thin balloon/egg shell. This makes me think that the calculation we use about the expansion rate of the universe may be wrong, as the expansion rate should be defined by the expansion of the radius of the balloon, not by the distance of two dots on the balloon. Defining it as the speed between two galaxies is not consistent because the difference will be bigger, the further away the galaxies are.
I understand the concept of the universe as a thin egg shell ( the balloon example ), with all the matter ( galaxies ) being inside that thin shell, not above, not below... BUT
These thoughts brought this question to me right now: Let's say we have two galaxies which are some space apart in this thin universe shell. Does the light moves accross the curbed shell fabric or in a straight line ( that is "punching through" the balloon ) ?
One more question related to the shape of the universe: despite the fact that for a fraction of time it may have expanded faster than the speed of light, at any other phase, the universe is expanding at the speed of light, which is the speed that the "information" of the gravitational field of the universe spreads. Right? ( thus making the need to calculate the expansion rate irrelevant ). Am I wrong here ?
So, still the universe _has_ to be spherical ( more or less ) because the gravitational field spreads in all directions at the speed of light. Thus my visualization of the universe is that of a bubble of air inside a water tank, which bubble is constantly growing in size ( the water of the tank being nothingness, or null ). The matter of the universe may be contained in a radius smaller than the radius of the bubble, and the radius of the bubble is the same as age_of_bubble*C ( i don't take here inflation into account for simplification reasons ). So according to my (probably incorrect) visualization, this bubble does have a center and a radius
Final question: if we take the velocity vectors of only two galaxies, and we extend the lines, they should go back at the initial start point which is the "center" the bing bang point, right ?
hm yes but won't galaxy A see galaxy B moving away from it faster than the speed of light ? ( the relative movement as observed from a second galaxy. bonus question: is the universe a sphere ? I don't understand why the universe can't have a center, wouldn't that be the "point" where big bang happened ?
pardon the ignorance but..if spacetime can expand faster than light then the matter ( galaxies, stars etc. ) which are contained into that part of spacetime, is also moving faster than light? wouldn't that contradict the fact that matter ( with mass ) can't reach the speed of light ?
so by default whatever the governments say is propaganda and whatever the "revolutionaries" say is true. Sure, you want to remain anonymous, use cash. Would you use money printed by me instead of officially printed money (government) ? Do you know who benefits the most from anonymous money ? yeap you guessed right, the criminals, not normal citizens who fear that the government cares if they buy a 5'' dildo from a sex shop
oh so i don't understand the importance of free speech now? lol ? and how exactly is free speech related to bitcoins ? are you - in your paroxysm - insinuating that they are somehow relative ? trying to add value where there isn't any ?
straw man. I never denied that criminal activities happen with the current regulated currency. What i properly explained but you carefully avoided is that an unregulated and uncontrolled method of money is to the criminals just like honey for the bears. printing money is wrong, while on the other hand it's perfectly logical to create money out of thin air simply by gpu calculations ? and having one institution print money is wrong, having everyone do that with their gpus is right and it so much helps inflation. right.
here is one link that took me 3 seconds to google. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/fbi-fears-bitcoin/ it doesn't take an einstein to understand that criminals would rush to using unregulated and uncontrolled methods of payment/money etc. despite the fact that i'm moderated as troll, it's all of you who really are.