This might be more useful on Semantic Web pages. I mean, the hardest part is to figure out what the question is trying to ask for. Then it's a simple lookup of the web (or wikipedia) to pull up that item. The problem they are talking about (and don't appear to solve) is to translate your question into the best way to ask for what you're looking for. The problem is, there's no structure to a standard one line search. Maybe they could have you enter some more information as helpful hints. Say you're looking for a book, you remember a phrase from it, "I'll never forget that bottle of cherry fizz, not as long as I live" and you vaguely remember the book is orange, or yellow or maybe red. You could give it that as hints without specifying. The problem is that once you get past that point, the only thing that matters is raw indexed pages. If you have 10B pages you are more likely to have the "right page" than someone with 10M pages. Of course, what do you deem to be a successful search? If you are a creationist, you want to search for evolution and have it return the evidence AGAINST evolution. If you're a nazi, you probably want only those pages that deny the holocaust. Still others might want the true facts. So really, the next search doesn't just need to figure out the best facts, they need to figure out what you are thinking, and provide you with exactly the picture of the world you are looking for.
Hello! It appears as though your heart has stopped!
Would you like to:
1) Restart your heart, and languish in a coma, fed with a feeding tube while your family stuggles to pay your mounting hospital bills 2) Die here on the street. (By the way, you're missing out on an incredible canoli just 2 blocks to the North).
*1*
Please wait while the system restarts....
Hello! It appears you have just woken up from a coma!
Since you are groggy, now is the perfect time to sign up for Microsoft Live Email service!
First they came... First they came for the hackers. But I never did anything illegal with my computer, so I didn't speak up. Then they came for the pornographers. But I thought there was too much smut on the Internet anyway, so I didn't speak up. Then they came for the anonymous remailers. But a lot of nasty stuff gets sent from anon.penet.fi, so I didn't speak up. Then they came for the encryption users. But I could never figure out how to work PGP anyway, so I didn't speak up. Then they came for me. And by that time there was no one left to speak up.
-- Alara Rogers
Or the original:
In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me - and by that time no one was left to speak up.
6000K? Who cares? The thing is, this bulb is generating about 10 times the lumens per watt of input power as a standard incandescent. That means that it is dissipating more energy in the form of light and less in the form of heat. Regardless of the internal temperature of the plasma, how "hot" the bulb gets is really a function of the actual dissipated energy. For instance, a spark of static electricity has an extremely high "temperature" but it doesn't burn you. Granted, some of that energy might be occuring in the infra-red range, but I doubt it will be any hotter than a normal bulb.
Also, if you look at HPS (high-pressure sodium vapor) lamps, the orange ones they use for street lights, the vessel that produces the light is actually quite small. There is an internal tube (made of quartz, I think) that holds the sodium. For the first few minutes, the bulb appears blue because you are seeing an arc in the center of it. After the sodium boils and then turns into a plasma, it is in a higher energy state and starts throwing off photons.
The only difference in this bulb is they are eliminating the electrodes and using a different plasma. They use a high frequency RF that's tuned to the resonate frequency of the gas. Sort of like a microwave does for water, but this is more focused. The gas resonates and becomes a plasma. Then it starts throwing off photons. Your efficiency is limited by how efficiently you can make your RF circuit and amplifier and how focused you can place the RF. I imagine they are quoting the theoretical efficiency but they probably haven't achieved it yet.
The problem is most people don't finish college, therefore the politicians are doing what the masses want. The problem isn't the politicians--it's the masses.
What if they can build a long one with a carbon nanotube lattice around the outside, which self-compresses when streched (sort of like one of those Chinese finger-traps). Then you could have a material which becomes superconducting when you stretch it, say between two telephone poles or something.
"Time's never wasted when you're wasted all the time." --Winston Churchill OR "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Benjamin Franklin
Not that either of them is a formally published scientist.
The dollar is down. The Fed keeps printing more dollars and lowering interest rates even more. So, naturally you can't purchase the same amount of wheat for the same price any more. Of course, SOME of this is a result of high demand for wheat globally and low inventories, but 90% of the price is the Dollar Economics, not the Wheat Economics. So, while the wheat farmer "cleans up" this year by selling his wheat for $10 instead of $5, next year he'll have to buy gas for $6.00/gallon.. Agriculture is a classic bubble market. Food demand is fairly inelastic, but prices can wildly vary. Couple that with the relatively unsophisticated (economically) producers and you have a market ripe for a bubble. The farmers will just go and blow all that money on new overpriced Ford Pickups, mostly Chineese tractors and the rest they'll invest in stocks, just in time for the Wall Street people to finally cash out. The economists like them to suffer because they #1 will always have enough food (won't starve) and they have a place to stay (won't freeze) and if they get behind on the mortgage, Con-agra or Monsanto is there to buy them out and turn them into sharecroppers.
In light of the Spitzer debacle, I recommend anyone "watching the watchers" to make sure you don't have anything to hide. Of course nowadays heresay is enough to get you locked in a military jail.
"Superstars" (which is the fluffiest word I've heard in a long time) are attracted to two things you didn't mention:
Number one, extremely dedicated and intelligent people are looking for more than money. They want to change the world. They are driven. If they are after money, they want to be a part of the project, financially. That means stock. That means board positions. That means respect.
Number two, they want to know that you are a good person to work for. What is the company's goal, mission, vision, idea, et al? What career prospects are there? What can a "superstar" programmer expect to be doing in 10 years at your company? Hopefully not still programming.
You are referring to things that aren't necessarily associated with programmers, but with CEOs, CIOs, etc. Attention to detail, actually caring, etc. Well, ask yourself, why should anyone care about your company? Also, and lastly, these skills (pride in one's work, strong desire to learn and teach others, etc.) seem to be the type of skills taught in church (or synagouge)......
Forgot code tags.. note the IP address google uses. By not using DNS, they can tightly control the exact server location your next clicks go to. Before that, it's fairly simple to determine a searcher's physical location using GeoIP stuff.
I think they also associate sites with a locality, just like they can target ads by locality. Then, as they crawl the web they can actually store the search results for a locality in a local data center, nearby where the people most likely to need it are. Thus making the majority of the search immune from major/minor network outages. These big data centers are where the main copies of everything are stored, as well as the non-bandwidth non-time-critical web crawls and mailboxes and other stuff like that. After they get processed, they get divvyed out using a fairly simple system using GFS. Where the real magic occurs is that your search is automatically sent to the closest (in network space) search handler, which then handles the subsequent actions after the initial search. That means next page queries, cache queries, etc. You can see for yourself:
Note the IP address used here for the cached link on the first response when searching for "Tacos". This is local to my.
And most of those "Farmers" getting the cheap water and power while being paid not to grow much are large agriculture corporations, such as Monsanto and Con Agra.
Well, behind all the used-car salesmen and small-town accident attorneys is a fairly capable and educated bureaucracy. The fact is that if the people doing the driving are incompetent enough to only do what's most popular, you are getting the will of the people. The problem is that the PEOPLE are stupid. So, in times when the political institution is particularly weak, the bureaucracy takes over (such as after 9/11), and they have all sorts of plans to control the media, and vicariously the politicians (since they only do what's most popular).
Proof of this is readily available when you look at documentation of the CIA's activities in the early 60's. That is what happens when you give a bureaucracy carte blanc and no oversight. They invaded a country. Of course, 9/11 had some of the same effects as nuclear cold war--it instilled fear in the public, which means they are apt to press their politicians to give up power in favor of the bureaucracy. Thus we have wiretapping, prison camps, torture, etc, all existing outside of the normal decision-making process. The worst part is that the bureaucracy is run by the president. He's the chief executive and the president of all the departments and sub-departments of the bureaucracy. Congress can only make the laws that govern this body, and the judicial can only rule when a suit is brought. Thus, they have unlimited power until they get caught.
Heady stuff, no wonder people want to be president so badly.
I agree, however, that having some intelligence in the Congress would provide some leadership to the people who need it most. The problem is, all the stupid people wouldn't like him and he'd be voted out. People seem to prefer people who think at their own level, apparently.
The problem with the system is not that it's lacking transparency and a review process. The legal system is a fairly fine review process. The problem is there's too much law for the number of people. It's caving in on itself. That's why the framers favored a SMALL federal government. There's just too many special cases, regional differences, etc. for federal laws to be made and not adjusted hundreds of times.
That's why the STATES are supposed to be the test environment. If the law sucks, people will move away. So the states have a tendency to enact laws which the people want. Unlike the state environment, you can't just "move away" from your country without a lot of hardship. So there's no checks on the government enacting all kinds of laws. Sure they eventually get edited, but the problem is the interim time (which is growing constantly because the system is so bogged down).
The process (in the constitution) goes something like this: The states try to adopt regulations general enough for the entire state's population to accept. This means city AND rural folks. If a city or county needs stricter laws (say gun use in city limits), they enact at that level. The states are all in competition with one another to make the best laws. Good laws mean people stick around, pay taxes, have jobs, and are generally happy.
Over time, a state enacts a good law, people love it. Other states rush to enact the same law. After a certain time period, people all over the country realize this law is so good, it should probably be in the constitution, so the other countries in the world can read it and see what we're all about. In this sense, the states themselves have a vote, in what's called the Senate. They really elect 2 people to vote for them but that's what a senator really is--a vote.
So, that's the constitution; basically the set of laws all the states agree on.
Then you have the United States Code, which is basically the law of the government. This doesn't apply to you and me at the state and local level. The reason is it is not in the constitution, and therefore the individual states have to make the laws, according to the constitution. Unfortunately, the government doesn't follow the constitution. This is due to fear.
You see, one of the first federal laws that really went against the will of the people was prohibition. It was enacted at the federal level with no help from the states. What happened after was a drastic rise in crime. Thus came the need for a federal police force to fight this crime against the federal government. Yes, it happened in that order. The government created the crime, then created a police force to fight it. Since then, there was the depression, which happened because the government shut down all of the businesses. Then they decided they would work FOR the businesses to prevent another depression. Well, then they came up with a great business idea for America! What if we CREATE A WAR and then create a military to fight it. So that's what they did. First, we supplied both sides in the war, just long enough until they were both weakened enough that we could come to the rescue. Oh, and political demands because we had been bombed by the Nipponese. So we fought the war, and it got worse, and we started losing more and more men so we dropped the bomb. Then we decided, hey, let's keep increasing our power, let's make everyone fear this nuclear bomb thing and we can create an even bigger military, and underground bunkers and spies and shit! So they did that. And then it turned out that this fear was not based in reality. The Russians could care less about America. Why would they attack us? For LAND? They have way more land than us. So, anyway, we went on for a few years of bliss, with a quick oil war in Iraq and then they came up with the idea of a new enemy, Terrorists. They didn't come up with the idea actually, it's been popular in literature for a long time. But it makes sense. Make a war, create the industry to fight it,
Slashdot Mirror
There is one, and he's the guy who convinced them that shipping the goods would be "too much of a hassle".
This might be more useful on Semantic Web pages. I mean, the hardest part is to figure out what the question is trying to ask for. Then it's a simple lookup of the web (or wikipedia) to pull up that item. The problem they are talking about (and don't appear to solve) is to translate your question into the best way to ask for what you're looking for. The problem is, there's no structure to a standard one line search. Maybe they could have you enter some more information as helpful hints. Say you're looking for a book, you remember a phrase from it, "I'll never forget that bottle of cherry fizz, not as long as I live" and you vaguely remember the book is orange, or yellow or maybe red. You could give it that as hints without specifying. The problem is that once you get past that point, the only thing that matters is raw indexed pages. If you have 10B pages you are more likely to have the "right page" than someone with 10M pages. Of course, what do you deem to be a successful search? If you are a creationist, you want to search for evolution and have it return the evidence AGAINST evolution. If you're a nazi, you probably want only those pages that deny the holocaust. Still others might want the true facts. So really, the next search doesn't just need to figure out the best facts, they need to figure out what you are thinking, and provide you with exactly the picture of the world you are looking for.
Hello! It appears as though your heart has stopped!
Would you like to:
1) Restart your heart, and languish in a coma, fed with a feeding tube while your family stuggles to pay your mounting hospital bills
2) Die here on the street. (By the way, you're missing out on an incredible canoli just 2 blocks to the North).
*1*
Please wait while the system restarts....
Hello! It appears you have just woken up from a coma!
Since you are groggy, now is the perfect time to sign up for Microsoft Live Email service!
First they came...
First they came for the hackers.
But I never did anything illegal with my computer,
so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the pornographers.
But I thought there was too much smut on the Internet anyway,
so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the anonymous remailers.
But a lot of nasty stuff gets sent from anon.penet.fi,
so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the encryption users.
But I could never figure out how to work PGP anyway,
so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for me.
And by that time there was no one left to speak up.
-- Alara Rogers
Or the original:
In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me -
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
Because escalators don't break... they just become stairs.
"Sorry for the convenience."
I heard the Optimus Rubix is one of the better weapons available in the upcoming "Duke Nukem Forever".
I thought you were going to say Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A B A Select Start
Yeah, it just seems so much simpler to just throw a war and BURN the money.
Well, we haven't got pills for intelligence ...
Uh, what about nootropics, drugs that improve human cognitive abilities? Check out the Wikipedia, it lists hundreds of compounds...
6000K? Who cares? The thing is, this bulb is generating about 10 times the lumens per watt of input power as a standard incandescent. That means that it is dissipating more energy in the form of light and less in the form of heat. Regardless of the internal temperature of the plasma, how "hot" the bulb gets is really a function of the actual dissipated energy. For instance, a spark of static electricity has an extremely high "temperature" but it doesn't burn you. Granted, some of that energy might be occuring in the infra-red range, but I doubt it will be any hotter than a normal bulb.
Also, if you look at HPS (high-pressure sodium vapor) lamps, the orange ones they use for street lights, the vessel that produces the light is actually quite small. There is an internal tube (made of quartz, I think) that holds the sodium. For the first few minutes, the bulb appears blue because you are seeing an arc in the center of it. After the sodium boils and then turns into a plasma, it is in a higher energy state and starts throwing off photons.
The only difference in this bulb is they are eliminating the electrodes and using a different plasma. They use a high frequency RF that's tuned to the resonate frequency of the gas. Sort of like a microwave does for water, but this is more focused. The gas resonates and becomes a plasma. Then it starts throwing off photons. Your efficiency is limited by how efficiently you can make your RF circuit and amplifier and how focused you can place the RF. I imagine they are quoting the theoretical efficiency but they probably haven't achieved it yet.
The problem is most people don't finish college, therefore the politicians are doing what the masses want. The problem isn't the politicians--it's the masses.
What if they can build a long one with a carbon nanotube lattice around the outside, which self-compresses when streched (sort of like one of those Chinese finger-traps). Then you could have a material which becomes superconducting when you stretch it, say between two telephone poles or something.
An inertial reference frame is not a thing but it IS a concept.
"Time's never wasted when you're wasted all the time." --Winston Churchill
OR
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Benjamin Franklin
Not that either of them is a formally published scientist.
The dollar is down. The Fed keeps printing more dollars and lowering interest rates even more. So, naturally you can't purchase the same amount of wheat for the same price any more. Of course, SOME of this is a result of high demand for wheat globally and low inventories, but 90% of the price is the Dollar Economics, not the Wheat Economics. So, while the wheat farmer "cleans up" this year by selling his wheat for $10 instead of $5, next year he'll have to buy gas for $6.00/gallon.. Agriculture is a classic bubble market. Food demand is fairly inelastic, but prices can wildly vary. Couple that with the relatively unsophisticated (economically) producers and you have a market ripe for a bubble. The farmers will just go and blow all that money on new overpriced Ford Pickups, mostly Chineese tractors and the rest they'll invest in stocks, just in time for the Wall Street people to finally cash out. The economists like them to suffer because they #1 will always have enough food (won't starve) and they have a place to stay (won't freeze) and if they get behind on the mortgage, Con-agra or Monsanto is there to buy them out and turn them into sharecroppers.
In light of the Spitzer debacle, I recommend anyone "watching the watchers" to make sure you don't have anything to hide. Of course nowadays heresay is enough to get you locked in a military jail.
1. Whistle into the phone at Jack Thompson
2. ????
3. Profit?
"Superstars" (which is the fluffiest word I've heard in a long time) are attracted to two things you didn't mention:
Number one, extremely dedicated and intelligent people are looking for more than money. They want to change the world. They are driven. If they are after money, they want to be a part of the project, financially. That means stock. That means board positions. That means respect.
Number two, they want to know that you are a good person to work for. What is the company's goal, mission, vision, idea, et al? What career prospects are there? What can a "superstar" programmer expect to be doing in 10 years at your company? Hopefully not still programming.
You are referring to things that aren't necessarily associated with programmers, but with CEOs, CIOs, etc. Attention to detail, actually caring, etc. Well, ask yourself, why should anyone care about your company? Also, and lastly, these skills (pride in one's work, strong desire to learn and teach others, etc.) seem to be the type of skills taught in church (or synagouge)......
JourneyEd.com has Dreamspark and you can verify with any school.
I think they also associate sites with a locality, just like they can target ads by locality. Then, as they crawl the web they can actually store the search results for a locality in a local data center, nearby where the people most likely to need it are. Thus making the majority of the search immune from major/minor network outages. These big data centers are where the main copies of everything are stored, as well as the non-bandwidth non-time-critical web crawls and mailboxes and other stuff like that. After they get processed, they get divvyed out using a fairly simple system using GFS. Where the real magic occurs is that your search is automatically sent to the closest (in network space) search handler, which then handles the subsequent actions after the initial search. That means next page queries, cache queries, etc. You can see for yourself:
Note the IP address used here for the cached link on the first response when searching for "Tacos". This is local to my.
And most of those "Farmers" getting the cheap water and power while being paid not to grow much are large agriculture corporations, such as Monsanto and Con Agra.
Well, behind all the used-car salesmen and small-town accident attorneys is a fairly capable and educated bureaucracy. The fact is that if the people doing the driving are incompetent enough to only do what's most popular, you are getting the will of the people. The problem is that the PEOPLE are stupid. So, in times when the political institution is particularly weak, the bureaucracy takes over (such as after 9/11), and they have all sorts of plans to control the media, and vicariously the politicians (since they only do what's most popular).
Proof of this is readily available when you look at documentation of the CIA's activities in the early 60's. That is what happens when you give a bureaucracy carte blanc and no oversight. They invaded a country. Of course, 9/11 had some of the same effects as nuclear cold war--it instilled fear in the public, which means they are apt to press their politicians to give up power in favor of the bureaucracy. Thus we have wiretapping, prison camps, torture, etc, all existing outside of the normal decision-making process. The worst part is that the bureaucracy is run by the president. He's the chief executive and the president of all the departments and sub-departments of the bureaucracy. Congress can only make the laws that govern this body, and the judicial can only rule when a suit is brought. Thus, they have unlimited power until they get caught.
Heady stuff, no wonder people want to be president so badly.
I agree, however, that having some intelligence in the Congress would provide some leadership to the people who need it most. The problem is, all the stupid people wouldn't like him and he'd be voted out. People seem to prefer people who think at their own level, apparently.
See The Lone Gunmen, S01E01 for more reasons.
The problem with the system is not that it's lacking transparency and a review process. The legal system is a fairly fine review process. The problem is there's too much law for the number of people. It's caving in on itself. That's why the framers favored a SMALL federal government. There's just too many special cases, regional differences, etc. for federal laws to be made and not adjusted hundreds of times.
That's why the STATES are supposed to be the test environment. If the law sucks, people will move away. So the states have a tendency to enact laws which the people want. Unlike the state environment, you can't just "move away" from your country without a lot of hardship. So there's no checks on the government enacting all kinds of laws. Sure they eventually get edited, but the problem is the interim time (which is growing constantly because the system is so bogged down).
The process (in the constitution) goes something like this: The states try to adopt regulations general enough for the entire state's population to accept. This means city AND rural folks. If a city or county needs stricter laws (say gun use in city limits), they enact at that level. The states are all in competition with one another to make the best laws. Good laws mean people stick around, pay taxes, have jobs, and are generally happy.
Over time, a state enacts a good law, people love it. Other states rush to enact the same law. After a certain time period, people all over the country realize this law is so good, it should probably be in the constitution, so the other countries in the world can read it and see what we're all about. In this sense, the states themselves have a vote, in what's called the Senate. They really elect 2 people to vote for them but that's what a senator really is--a vote.
So, that's the constitution; basically the set of laws all the states agree on.
Then you have the United States Code, which is basically the law of the government. This doesn't apply to you and me at the state and local level. The reason is it is not in the constitution, and therefore the individual states have to make the laws, according to the constitution. Unfortunately, the government doesn't follow the constitution. This is due to fear.
You see, one of the first federal laws that really went against the will of the people was prohibition. It was enacted at the federal level with no help from the states. What happened after was a drastic rise in crime. Thus came the need for a federal police force to fight this crime against the federal government. Yes, it happened in that order. The government created the crime, then created a police force to fight it. Since then, there was the depression, which happened because the government shut down all of the businesses. Then they decided they would work FOR the businesses to prevent another depression. Well, then they came up with a great business idea for America! What if we CREATE A WAR and then create a military to fight it. So that's what they did. First, we supplied both sides in the war, just long enough until they were both weakened enough that we could come to the rescue. Oh, and political demands because we had been bombed by the Nipponese. So we fought the war, and it got worse, and we started losing more and more men so we dropped the bomb. Then we decided, hey, let's keep increasing our power, let's make everyone fear this nuclear bomb thing and we can create an even bigger military, and underground bunkers and spies and shit! So they did that. And then it turned out that this fear was not based in reality. The Russians could care less about America. Why would they attack us? For LAND? They have way more land than us. So, anyway, we went on for a few years of bliss, with a quick oil war in Iraq and then they came up with the idea of a new enemy, Terrorists. They didn't come up with the idea actually, it's been popular in literature for a long time. But it makes sense. Make a war, create the industry to fight it,