I think what you're saying is that it isn't a nuclear bomb, which is correct. It's hydrogen gas from the reactor core which is building up to explosive levels and detonating. Still, it's an explosion, and the primary risk is that the reactor's containment might be breached and radioactivity be released into the surrounding areas, such as occurred in the Chernobyl or Three Mile Island nuclear accidents. It's hardly reason to call it a "false alarm" - the cause for alarm is well-founded.
Regular business hours aren't 24/7 because some businesses don't get enough customers at night to make it profitable for them to remain staffed and open for business. What you propose doesn't fix that.
If it affects you that strongly, why not try getting up 15 minutes earlier every few days for the couple of weeks preceding it so you'll be eased into it instead of shifting entirely at once?
It was a misleading summary, actually people liked it more when they thought it was cleaning! "Although Cody touched the subjects in exactly the same way, they reacted more positively when they believed Cody intended to clean their arm versus when they believed Cody intended to comfort them."
What's more, according to the article people respond to human nurses in a similar way: if they thought that the nurse was just doing their job, the patients were okay with the physical contact, but when they thought that the nurse was attempting to comfort them they were less comfortable with it.
No. Re-focusing light creates a virtual image. Remember that from optics? It is the distance to that which the inverse square law follows, and that virtual image (in the case of a laser) is very, very far away. In a perfect laser, the distance to the virtual image would be infinite.
The inverse square law requires a point source. Suppose your laser has an aperture which is 1 mm in diameter. At 1000 m, the beam has expanded to a 2 mm diameter. By simple geometry you can infer that if a point-source of the light exists, it actually appears to be 1000 m behind the laser itself. Doubling the distance from the laser's aperture would only increase the distance from the virtual point-source by a factor of 1.5, not 2.
The camera's sensor would pick up infrared light (try pointing a remote control at any digital camera and pressing buttons), but I somewhat doubt a 100ns pulse of any sort of light would be very noticeable. More likely it is mostly the fairly bright light which is emitted back from the target itself as a small part of it is vaporized, combined with the dust, moisture, or whatever else in the air also being vaporized.
What baffles me about American measurements is the use of 'cup'. I mean I know that a teaspoon is 5ml, and a tablespoon is 15ml, but what the hell is a cup? Google gives 237ml, but that's a volume.
2 tablespoons = 1 fl. oz. 8 fl. oz. = 1 cup
When a recipe tells me to use a cup of flour, which is weighed out in the bowl, what the fuck are you supposed to do? Look up the density of flour?
That's because the recipes are given with measurements in weight, and measuring cups for measuring weighed ingredients have to have a different set of marking for every common ingredient. You literally can't cook without a scale in any sort of precise way.
What's more, since most cups have their volume stamped or printed somewhere, you could get by pretty decently without a set of actual measuring cups, if you had to, if your recipe listed its ingredients by their volumes.
Of course, I rarely follow a recipe. More often I just make something up.
Truly random numbers will cause collisions once in a great while
That's not a problem if you select a number randomly from the set of numbers not already in the database.
I.e. pick a random number and if it collides, repeat until you find one that doesn't.
there's a chance the implementation will pick a "random" number by a deterministic algorithm. Enough datapoints to determine the PRNG state, and you can predict the next ten codes that will be issued
That would require a lot of data points and a fairly high level of knowledge of the specific pseudo-random number generator that was used. Anyone with that level of access could probably just easier find a way to run a few codes off while bypassing the payment system.
Most dry ingredients can be scooped with the same container they are measured in. Flour is the exception, but it's entirely possible to guesstimate the amount of packing and erring on the side of too little flour will generally get you good enough results. Of course it's easier to sprinkle a little more flour in than it is to take some out.
Also, you don't measure butter. You cut the correct number of tablespoons off the stick (1/2 c., or 8 T.) based on the graduated markings printed on the wrapper.
Cooking is almost never an exact science, nor need it be.
Agreed. If you're selling it, every loaf or batch needs to be identical to the last one, so you weigh everything. But if you're just cooking for your family, as long as it's edible they'll either eat it or go hungry.
The rare instances in which you'd really need to sift the flour are vastly outweighed by the hassle of having to weigh ingredients that you've already scooped out into a measuring cup of a known size.
I think many of the recipes in the book actually need a scale with more precision than one gram. Some of the ingredients used, such as xantham gum, can have radically different effects on a sauce at 1% concentration than at.5%. For 100g of sauce, you need a tenth of a gram precision.
The obvious answer to that (if you can't just make an industrial-sized batch) is to make a supply of stock diluted to a low enough concentration that the ingredient can be accurately measured. Then reduce the amount of water or oil or whatever it is you diluted the stock with.
For some ingredients, like flour, the density can vary significantly.
That's why when the amount is particularly important you are usually supposed to sift the flour. Even so, most of the time it doesn't matter that much.
Because in order to treat sex realistically, and not as a reward at the end of a dialog tree, you would need an AI capable or responding in a realistic manner to social interactions
Why? We already have those. They're called "women". They live outside the basement.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a terrible approximation of pi. 22/7 is much better.
I think what you're saying is that it isn't a nuclear bomb, which is correct. It's hydrogen gas from the reactor core which is building up to explosive levels and detonating. Still, it's an explosion, and the primary risk is that the reactor's containment might be breached and radioactivity be released into the surrounding areas, such as occurred in the Chernobyl or Three Mile Island nuclear accidents. It's hardly reason to call it a "false alarm" - the cause for alarm is well-founded.
Regular business hours aren't 24/7 because some businesses don't get enough customers at night to make it profitable for them to remain staffed and open for business. What you propose doesn't fix that.
Fine, as long as the regular business hours occur while it's light outside where I live...
Right, do you begin to see a problem with this now? Not to mention that some people simply can't handle a nocturnal lifestyle...
If it affects you that strongly, why not try getting up 15 minutes earlier every few days for the couple of weeks preceding it so you'll be eased into it instead of shifting entirely at once?
DST is something that's imposed by the government and cannot easily be avoided if you're in an area that observes it.
You could always move. Arizona doesn't observe DST.
Some people move to dry or warm climates for reasons related to health. This isn't really that much different.
Why is everyone so easily convinced that Toyota's problems are "user error"?
Well, it makes me wonder that, anyway.
Slightly offtopic, I guess. Oh well.
Perhaps not, but I still wouldn't expect the United States' National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to issue a warning for parts of Canada.
Looks like a few things got eaten by the slashcode... that should be this:
float Q_rsqrt( float number )
{
long i;
float x2, y;
const float threehalfs = 1.5F;
x2 = number * 0.5F;
y = number;
i = * ( long * ) &y;
i = 0x5f3759df - ( i >> 1 );
y = * ( float * ) &i;
y = y * ( threehalfs - ( x2 * y * y ) );
return y;
}
It was a misleading summary, actually people liked it more when they thought it was cleaning! "Although Cody touched the subjects in exactly the same way, they reacted more positively when they believed Cody intended to clean their arm versus when they believed Cody intended to comfort them."
What's more, according to the article people respond to human nurses in a similar way: if they thought that the nurse was just doing their job, the patients were okay with the physical contact, but when they thought that the nurse was attempting to comfort them they were less comfortable with it.
No. Re-focusing light creates a virtual image. Remember that from optics? It is the distance to that which the inverse square law follows, and that virtual image (in the case of a laser) is very, very far away. In a perfect laser, the distance to the virtual image would be infinite.
The inverse square law requires a point source. Suppose your laser has an aperture which is 1 mm in diameter. At 1000 m, the beam has expanded to a 2 mm diameter. By simple geometry you can infer that if a point-source of the light exists, it actually appears to be 1000 m behind the laser itself. Doubling the distance from the laser's aperture would only increase the distance from the virtual point-source by a factor of 1.5, not 2.
The camera's sensor would pick up infrared light (try pointing a remote control at any digital camera and pressing buttons), but I somewhat doubt a 100ns pulse of any sort of light would be very noticeable. More likely it is mostly the fairly bright light which is emitted back from the target itself as a small part of it is vaporized, combined with the dust, moisture, or whatever else in the air also being vaporized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law
The inverse-square law generally applies when some force, energy, or other conserved quantity is radiated outward radially from a point source.
A laser does not act like a point source... or it does, but it acts like a point source which is very, very far away.
What baffles me about American measurements is the use of 'cup'. I mean I know that a teaspoon is 5ml, and a tablespoon is 15ml, but what the hell is a cup? Google gives 237ml, but that's a volume.
2 tablespoons = 1 fl. oz.
8 fl. oz. = 1 cup
When a recipe tells me to use a cup of flour, which is weighed out in the bowl, what the fuck are you supposed to do? Look up the density of flour?
No, you're supposed to measure it by volume.
That's because the recipes are given with measurements in weight, and measuring cups for measuring weighed ingredients have to have a different set of marking for every common ingredient. You literally can't cook without a scale in any sort of precise way.
What's more, since most cups have their volume stamped or printed somewhere, you could get by pretty decently without a set of actual measuring cups, if you had to, if your recipe listed its ingredients by their volumes.
Of course, I rarely follow a recipe. More often I just make something up.
Truly random numbers will cause collisions once in a great while
That's not a problem if you select a number randomly from the set of numbers not already in the database.
I.e. pick a random number and if it collides, repeat until you find one that doesn't.
there's a chance the implementation will pick a "random" number by a deterministic algorithm. Enough datapoints to determine the PRNG state, and you can predict the next ten codes that will be issued
That would require a lot of data points and a fairly high level of knowledge of the specific pseudo-random number generator that was used. Anyone with that level of access could probably just easier find a way to run a few codes off while bypassing the payment system.
Most dry ingredients can be scooped with the same container they are measured in. Flour is the exception, but it's entirely possible to guesstimate the amount of packing and erring on the side of too little flour will generally get you good enough results. Of course it's easier to sprinkle a little more flour in than it is to take some out.
Also, you don't measure butter. You cut the correct number of tablespoons off the stick (1/2 c., or 8 T.) based on the graduated markings printed on the wrapper.
Cooking is almost never an exact science, nor need it be.
Agreed. If you're selling it, every loaf or batch needs to be identical to the last one, so you weigh everything. But if you're just cooking for your family, as long as it's edible they'll either eat it or go hungry.
You can't measure half-cups or quarter-cups in a cup that holds a full cup?
The rare instances in which you'd really need to sift the flour are vastly outweighed by the hassle of having to weigh ingredients that you've already scooped out into a measuring cup of a known size.
I think many of the recipes in the book actually need a scale with more precision than one gram. Some of the ingredients used, such as xantham gum, can have radically different effects on a sauce at 1% concentration than at .5%. For 100g of sauce, you need a tenth of a gram precision.
The obvious answer to that (if you can't just make an industrial-sized batch) is to make a supply of stock diluted to a low enough concentration that the ingredient can be accurately measured. Then reduce the amount of water or oil or whatever it is you diluted the stock with.
For some ingredients, like flour, the density can vary significantly.
That's why when the amount is particularly important you are usually supposed to sift the flour. Even so, most of the time it doesn't matter that much.
If 2=0 then 1=0 by dividing both sides by 2.
who always types part of the body of his message in the subject line.
Because in order to treat sex realistically, and not as a reward at the end of a dialog tree, you would need an AI capable or responding in a realistic manner to social interactions
Why? We already have those. They're called "women". They live outside the basement.
and we are quite simply not at that level yet.
Well, you got that right at least.