It's been known in plain science for centuries that if you measure the angle of the moon's diameter with some uh, apparatus (a theodolyte does the job, but i'd save my money and use a camera) , this angle doesn't grow when the moon is just above the horizon. So the conclusion, that the effect is an illusion, is well established since long.
The reason a final statement on the effect is hard to reach is because they're trying to explain the mechanics of the illusion.
People who opt out will not automatically end up on nofly lists, they will not automatically be excluded from grant lists.
The reason is simple. To end up on a nofly list a number of weighted parameters are added up. By itself opting out has not enough weight to exceed the threshold.
Anyway, people only find out the database exists after the recruiter tells them. Too late to opt out then, innit?
Ok, so maybe I'm sarcastic. And cheating too.
But talking of databases, think of the good they can do have people opt-in on everything. I'm sure a recruiter can be quite persuasive if he has access to the surfing logs of these young male teenagers. You don't want your mommy to find out, do you?
I'd think the central idea of huffman coding is a tradeoff, to use shorter notations for frequent message parts, while accepting slower performance on rare messages.
SMS notations do this too. Replacing 'for' by '4'. SMS notations are optimized for the kind of messages that people send with them, and people adapt their messages to suit the weaknesses and strengths of SMS interface. For random text, a plain keyboard beats SMS keyboard.
So you can design a message where SMS is slow. And you can design a message where morse is slow.
You can take a typical SMS message (BHME@2 = be home at two o'clock), and send it as morse. I suppose morse will perform a bit faster but not very much because morse is optimized for plain language which has lots of vowels.
So imagine a morse that is optimized for SMS messages.
Imagine a model in which component A observes a thought in component B, and adjusts the contexts for component B so that the next thought of component B will think itself in another way as before.
A bit late, you might think. Yes, a bit late. Still, a lot better than nothing. And a lot richer than just a veto.
The legal system uses a mixture of(at least) two models:
- the old "crime and punishment" system which is derived from a morality where a guilty person has to suffer to pay for a sin, whatever the consequences. It's not fair to punish a lunatic.
- And the more pragmatic approach, where the effect of punishment is taken in account. Can punishment have a correcting effect or not? Should this person be taken out of circulation?
In the first case, guilt is related to responsibility and to free will. In the second, you want to know if you have the right person, and if the person has some control over his behaviour, but guilt(blame) is less relevant.
1. A starts with a general fuzzy idea of smart people 2. B points out some frequent weaknesses of smart people 3. A adjusts idea of who is smart so the idea of 'smartness' remains impeccable. "If the subject would have been TRUELY smart-intelligent-clever she would not make such mistakes"...
I suppose this shift is a good example of one of the counterproductive effects that can come from being smart(clever.intelligent). The sequence above is not wrong, but it achieves nothing. It can even slow down the exploration of the subject. Well, 'nothing'... There's the ego feeling of being right and the ability to defend it well, and the prestige value of the words is saved. To get any value from the author's claims about smart people, it's better approach to use the more limited interpretation of 'smart'.
I'm sure Putin will exploit the power outage to weaken and possibly get rid of Chubais.
Whether the FSB caused the outage directly, to prompt an attack on Chubais is another matter. Maybe they were working on a plan but it wasn't ready yet. They have a lot to do:) Even Putin sometimes just exploits opportunities.
In any case, the outcome is the same.
I have an alternative explanation for these guys
on
Tinfoil Hat House
·
· Score: 1
Energy from nuclear fusion will be available at about the same time. That 's probably because "in 50 years" is code for "anything could happen in 50 years".
They can cover a large area (a city) over a long timespan. The planes can land , recharge, and take off without much overview. Planes adjust to fill gaps when a plane leaves. And when a plane is added, it just finds its place and the others adjust. A plane breaks, the others adjust immediately. So you can also easily allocate a few planes to observe a location in more detail. The other planes will spread accordingly.
So it's the kind of stuff that the dod will drool at. Or Israel of course.
Let's see if I can make a rough estimate, while rounding every number in sight: - 5liter of blood - to pump, say 40mm Hg=500mm H2o of overpressure is needed(diff between upper and lower pressure). I recall numbers like 120 over 80 when they measure your blood pressure. - 50 beats per minute. if the heart is a big fist, say it pumps like 100ml per beat. so 5liter per minute.
So say the heart pumps 5l blood per minute 50 cm higher up. 0.5m*5kg*(10m/s2)/(50 seconds)=0.5W
Now, when doing a big effort, i think beat volume can double(from memory), and speed can go *3(180), that'sa factor of 6. Blood pressure goes up a lot too, to 160Hg, but i don't know the difference between upper and lower pressure. Make that a factor 10 in all between hard work and rest. So the heart produces 0.5 to 5 W. About.
Conclusion: at the moment, the idea of powering artificial hearts is just the/. editor mixing his own imagination with what is in the article.
It be possible one day, I suppose.
Well now I really wonder if that wild estimate was any good, or did it just hit a good number because the mistakes cancelled out... Anyone?
but if you want to know about this case, several people on the forum point out that the part that was edited out, was edited out for good reasons.
The question I'd ask here, has actually already been asked in the first 2 weeks of the Iraq war(by British soldiers): why is it so hard to survive a random encounter with American soldiers? From what i pick up, this is being realized by those in command,and there are efforts to reduce collateral damage.
It's bound to happen at some point. The hidden information immediately gets extra credibility. There's not only 'leak' value. The complete document gets extra credibility. And extra exposure. So you don't have to put anything special in the hidden part.
Also, as far as exposure is concerned, you don't just try to leak specific information. You can also try to get impressions across. This specific document has a nice "we take this investigation serious" flavor that you can build on in general.
On the other hand, you can't leak just anything that way. Realistically, what's in the hidden part of such a document is the parts that got left out in the last phase of the document after the last squeamish nitpicker got his hands on it. Deviate too much and some people will catch on.
Lastly, I disagree that current situation is comparable to the last few decades. This looks more like permanent "war-mode". All rules are off.
The discussion seems to focus on in-source comments, and polarises on whether to comment there or not. Your post at least gets away from that, but there are more places where to comment. It depends on the type of comment.
Places where to comment: - there's the headers - when checking in a revision in the repository , document per file. So that if you do a diff between revisions, you get the background behind the change. That background belongs to that moment in time. This mechanism is probably underused. - and document the whole checkin. Lavishly. - and add to that a place for the general thinking and design around the subject.
There should be lots of effort for documentation, but each time the question is, where does it go. I still think that if you show me comments in the source , I'll show you an opportunity to improve the source.
Obviously, if the ideas behind extreme programming lead to a situation where bad code is badly documented, then instead of one problem, you got two.
sure, but there's abundance of oxygen in the soil. If you had a moonbase there, there may have to be shuttles from earth to provide hygrogen and carbon. I guess it's more valuable to ship gasoline to the moon than to ship water. As for energy, use solar cells.
There is also a catch to using water for fusion. You don't need ordinary water, you need heavy water, which is present in tiny amounts in water. Better sieve through earth oceans to accumulate a little bucket of heavy water, and take the little bucket with you in the shuttle.
As for fusion, it's more realistic to rely on fission will do if needed.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, Chirac may be a sore loser, but not that sore. He'll probably think the british are already being punished enough by having to eat british food.
Possibly his boss was pretty glad, after all these years, to finally being able to say that famous phrase :)
List of online newspapers.
I'd fake it :)
... actually all Pakistani newssites I think of right now are online.
but
Maybe they're not based in Pakistan but can anyone actually confirm that all Pakistan is offline? Or almost?
It's been known in plain science for centuries that if you measure the angle of the moon's diameter with some uh, apparatus (a theodolyte does the job, but i'd save my money and use a camera) , this angle doesn't grow when the moon is just above the horizon. So the conclusion, that the effect is an illusion, is well established since long.
The reason a final statement on the effect is hard to reach is because they're trying to explain the mechanics of the illusion.
People who opt out will not automatically end up on nofly lists, they will not automatically be excluded from grant lists.
:)
The reason is simple. To end up on a nofly list a number of weighted parameters are added up. By itself opting out has not enough weight to exceed the threshold.
Anyway, people only find out the database exists after the recruiter tells them. Too late to opt out then, innit?
Ok, so maybe I'm sarcastic. And cheating too.
But talking of databases, think of the good they can do have people opt-in on everything.
I'm sure a recruiter can be quite persuasive if he has access to the surfing logs of these young male teenagers.
You don't want your mommy to find out, do you?
Woops , did it again. Sorry
Someone should use the formula to try and make as sitcom that scores as low as possible. And just maybe, still try to make it funny.
..
The factor F is for falling over and injury? Okay, you've never seen so many near accidents in such a small period
I'd think the central idea of huffman coding is a tradeoff, to use shorter notations for frequent message parts, while accepting slower performance on rare messages.
SMS notations do this too. Replacing 'for' by '4'.
SMS notations are optimized for the kind of messages that people send with them, and people adapt their messages to suit the weaknesses and strengths of SMS interface. For random text, a plain keyboard beats SMS keyboard.
So you can design a message where SMS is slow. And you can design a message where morse is slow.
You can take a typical SMS message (BHME@2 = be home at two o'clock), and send it as morse. I suppose morse will perform a bit faster but not very much because morse is optimized for plain language which has lots of vowels.
So imagine a morse that is optimized for SMS messages.
it uses 1400W power to run. Obviously you need performant cooling to keep that under control.
Imagine a model in which component A observes a thought in component B, and adjusts the contexts for component B so that the next thought of component B will think itself in another way as before.
A bit late, you might think. Yes, a bit late. Still, a lot better than nothing. And a lot richer than just a veto.
The legal system uses a mixture of(at least) two models:
- the old "crime and punishment" system which is derived from a morality where a guilty person has to suffer to pay for a sin,
whatever the consequences. It's not fair to punish a lunatic.
- And the more pragmatic approach, where the effect of punishment is taken in account.
Can punishment have a correcting effect or not? Should this person be taken out of circulation?
In the first case, guilt is related to responsibility and to free will. In the second,
you want to know if you have the right person, and if the person has some control over his behaviour, but guilt(blame) is less relevant.
1. A starts with a general fuzzy idea of smart people
,
2. B points out some frequent weaknesses of smart people
3. A adjusts idea of who is smart so the idea of 'smartness' remains impeccable.
"If the subject would have been TRUELY smart-intelligent-clever she would not make such mistakes"...
I suppose this shift is a good example of one of the counterproductive effects that can come from being smart(clever.intelligent).
The sequence above is not wrong, but it achieves nothing. It can even slow down the exploration of the subject.
Well, 'nothing'... There's the ego feeling of being right and the ability to defend it well, and the prestige value of the words is saved.
To get any value from the author's claims about smart people
it's better approach to use the more limited interpretation of 'smart'.
I'm sure Putin will exploit the power outage to weaken and possibly get rid of Chubais.
:)
Whether the FSB caused the outage directly, to prompt an attack on Chubais is another matter. Maybe they were working on a plan but it wasn't ready yet. They have a lot to do
Even Putin sometimes just exploits opportunities.
In any case, the outcome is the same.
maybe they suffer from
aluminum poisoning .
Energy from nuclear fusion will be available at about the same time. That 's probably because "in 50 years" is code for "anything could happen in 50 years".
They can cover a large area (a city) over a long timespan.
The planes can land , recharge, and take off without much overview. Planes adjust to fill gaps when a plane leaves. And when a plane is added, it just finds its place and the others adjust. A plane breaks, the others adjust immediately. So you can also easily allocate a few planes to observe a location in more detail. The other planes will spread accordingly.
So it's the kind of stuff that the dod will drool at. Or Israel of course.
Let's see if I can make a rough estimate, while rounding every number in sight:
/. editor mixing his own imagination with what is in the article.
- 5liter of blood
- to pump, say 40mm Hg=500mm H2o of overpressure is needed(diff between upper and lower pressure). I recall numbers like 120 over 80 when they measure your blood pressure.
- 50 beats per minute. if the heart is a big fist, say it pumps like 100ml per beat.
so 5liter per minute.
So say the heart pumps 5l blood per minute 50 cm higher up.
0.5m*5kg*(10m/s2)/(50 seconds)=0.5W
Now, when doing a big effort, i think beat volume can double(from memory), and speed can go *3(180), that'sa factor of 6. Blood pressure goes up a lot too, to 160Hg, but i don't know the difference between upper and lower pressure. Make that a factor 10 in all between hard work and rest.
So the heart produces 0.5 to 5 W. About.
Conclusion: at the moment, the idea of powering artificial hearts is just the
It be possible one day, I suppose.
Well now I really wonder if that wild estimate was any good, or did it just hit a good number because the mistakes cancelled out... Anyone?
but if you want to know about this case, several people on the forum point out that the part that was edited out, was edited out for good reasons.
,and there are efforts to reduce collateral damage.
The question I'd ask here, has actually already been asked in the first 2 weeks of the Iraq war(by British soldiers): why is it so hard to survive a random encounter with American soldiers? From what i pick up, this is being realized by those in command
It's bound to happen at some point. The hidden information immediately gets extra credibility. There's not only 'leak' value. The complete document gets extra credibility. And extra exposure. So you don't have to put anything special in the hidden part.
Also, as far as exposure is concerned, you don't just try to leak specific information. You can also try to get impressions across.
This specific document has a nice "we take this investigation serious" flavor that you can build on in general.
On the other hand, you can't leak just anything that way. Realistically, what's in the hidden part of such a document is the parts that got left out in the last phase of the document after the last squeamish nitpicker got his hands on it. Deviate too much and some people will catch on.
Lastly, I disagree that current situation is comparable to the last few decades. This looks more like permanent "war-mode". All rules are off.
The discussion seems to focus on in-source comments, and polarises on whether to comment there or not.
Your post at least gets away from that, but there are more places where to comment. It depends on the type of comment.
Places where to comment:
- there's the headers
- when checking in a revision in the repository , document per file. So that if you do a diff between revisions, you get the background behind the change. That background belongs to that moment in time. This mechanism is probably underused.
- and document the whole checkin. Lavishly.
- and add to that a place for the general thinking and design around the subject.
There should be lots of effort for documentation, but each time the question is, where does it go.
I still think that if you show me comments in the source , I'll show you an opportunity to improve the source.
Obviously, if the ideas behind extreme programming lead to a situation where bad code is badly documented, then instead of one problem, you got two.
imagine what can be done when this research is combined with research into the vegetative-state-inducing effects of television.
Vegetative State! What's the white house have to say about this?
that kids grow up quickly these days
UV for hardening materials has been in use in dentistry for a long time. But that's not shape changing.
I myself find the reference to "light" misleading.
Fast and bulbous is the way to go..
sure, but there's abundance of oxygen in the soil. If you had a moonbase there, there may have to be shuttles from earth to provide hygrogen and carbon. I guess it's more valuable to ship gasoline to the moon than to ship water. As for energy, use solar cells.
There is also a catch to using water for fusion. You don't need ordinary water, you need heavy water, which is present in tiny amounts in water. Better sieve through earth oceans to accumulate a little bucket of heavy water, and take the little bucket with you in the shuttle.
As for fusion, it's more realistic to rely on fission will do if needed.