The particles that are smashed together are going very fast (not as fast as cosmic rays but close) but 2 counter rotating beams of particles are used so that the reference frame for the collisions and so the resulting particles is stationary.
The resulting particles are not going nearly as fast as the particles that result from a cosmic ray collision.
for i in myarray:
** Do some stuf here, use spaces to delimit. Note we are already inside a function or class. That is, we are not at the first indent level
print "Hello world"//Note this line is tab delimited. It looks likes its at the right indent level but its not.
Now you expect the code to print hello world a load of times but it will actually do it only once.
Its easy to extrabolate this to less trival problems
I understand that the network layer is not separated in the DS as you would expect. So the GP is correct, WPA will not work with older games *unless* Nintendo do some very fancy tricks to fool the game.
This has been a critism of the system by developers from the start.
Fair dues to you if you can see anything wrong in this video.
I've watched the high quality version twice and I can't spot any issues. Maybe frame by frame you can catch something but I think this is pretty spectacular.
How in the name of Jebus is a personal attack based on profession moderated insightful.
Both posts agree robocars will happen. The disagreement of the GP seems to be he thinks it will take "generations" and not the 2 generations the GP believes.
Your making the assumption that the $10,000 dollar car is only being replaced becase of the development of whiz-bang robocars.
Those cars would be replaced anyway. If the robocar cost the same as standard car the cost of roll out would be zero.
There is justification for thinking the cost per car would be very low - development of the AI spread over just one year of car sales in europe and america would be in the range of 1-10 dollars. that gives you a budget of $1b and I am being gentle I should at least spread it over 5 years.
The remaining cost per car is 1 pc, who's cost can be made arbiteraly low using moores law and waiting a year and several CCDs (worth on the order of $100 each).
Real cost of the robo car it self? So close to zero it does not make sense to waste any more time thinking about it.
I don't see DARPA making infrastructial upgrades to the desert so I won't assume an increased cost of maintance for our roads.
So balance the computer and camera cost against on against the even a tiny fraction of the number of people killed on the roads for each and every year the car is in service and tell me this is not benefitial.
The class action lawsuit is a problem but this will be well anticipated. How will you make the car makers libel when the law says they are not allowed to make cars with out the AI? Your only course will be to sue the government. If we are all lucky the government will lose and improve the basic requirements and regulation for the AIs.
The Gaussian distribution is completely unnecessary. The only necessity for the law of increasing averages to hold is that the distribution is centered on the average.
I am afraid that we have to say goodbye to one of the great memes of physics, namely, "black holes don't have hair." This statement, we are sure now, is simply incorrect. A black hole is defined by far more that spin, charge and mass.
Mondern Thermodynamics, Information Theory and after a bitter battle event Quantium Mechanics and GR have admited that black holes indeed do have hair. Even Hawkins has given up this battle and admitted he was wrong. (sidenote: It is an interesting story how Hawkins would say he he proved this point in a recent paper. Many physicsts dispute his version of events as it was already obvious which way the wind was blowing and regard Hawkins paper as a refolumation of the results from the work of others in the above sciences - and not even the most useful formulation at that).
As the artical says what goes in to the black hole will eventually escape or to put it in another more correct way, the information concerning the state of the matter and light that once *fell* in to the BH will become available to the universe again at some, possible distant, point in the future.
I have a feeling the meme "black holes don't have hair" is so atractive and addictive we will be living with and debunking it on slashdot for many years to come but lets be very clear, black holes do have hair.
Any word on when ESPN will start broadcasting these "games" live? Throw in a few hot cheer leaders and I'd watch. Actually, anybody know where I can get tickets?
I wish I had mod points to give you, this is the post I wanted to make. Forget the arguments that you think RTRT will never happen, its a mathematical certain that it will.
I don't know what universe you're living in but mine is 3D!
Seriously though, our brains are evolved for more than moving pseudo-2D object (your account of us) around your equally pseudo-2D world. We don't live in flatland.
Our brains know how to deal with objects we handle with our uniquely agile hands, this not only happens in 3D but also uses all degrees of freedom just like descent does. Where your descent argument has merit is that our heads do not handle all degrees of freedom well. That's true and a 3D model for a GUI must take this into account.
Regarding moving our heads around in all degree of freedom I would like to put you on notice that I was killer at descent and never once to my memory suffered dizziness. I would remind you that not long ago the brains of our forefathers were swinging around trees in all their 3D glory. I submit some of us may well be closer to these relatives than others.
I humbly disagree with you. Our brains have clearly evolved for a 3D world. I believe the reason you believe 2D is more efficent is 3D has a very long history of not being done right. There's a good reason why that is. 3D is far more computationaly expensive than 2D and lacks a true 3D display and interaction device.
I offer as evidance the spring and plastic ball models of modules, and the skelitons in the doctors offices.
2D clearly has its place, but I expect 3D to start elbowing in on it as soon as the display\interaction and computational difficults are met.
To be honest with you I was really thinking about AFM for much of the post. I am sure you know, AFM is in many ways identical to STM in reference to the scanning techniques used. Many systems we had converted from AFM to STM mode with just a tip and holder change.
Anyway, we got those AFMs up to very high speeds in some cases several scans a second with little lost resolution. This was typical on a 2x2um area with patterns on the order of 5-10nm.
I remember reading a paper about a modified tapping mode AFM that imaged a 256x256 pixel image at 256Hz and did so clearly enough to show nano-particles wandering around, in realtime, a stepped sample at low T. Actually for all I know now AFM at Khz image rates is common:)
All this was possible with AFM because you didn't have to amplify and read a thiny electrical signal. The technique used here is really very simple and clever, I can't believe it wasn't considered before.
I know Sergay published on his method fro making tips, a knew him 10 years ago but I think he was doing it long before then. I really hope it was him, a nicer guy you'd never meet.
The speed a piezo stack responds is related to the speed of sound but not in the way you think.
Each active element of the piezo receives the electrical signal to expand\contract at the speed of electricity through the material. This is usually very close to the speed of light. So the entire stack basically gets the signal move in parallel.
At that point we require a mechanical movement but since we are typically asking it to change by about 1nm/s this doesn't take a long time to do.
One day the response time of the material will become the limiting factor but right now its collecting the electrical signal.
On a separate note, we built STMs all the time in uni. We had a Russian genius who could do amazing things with no budget. He had a technique for making STM tips just by cutting a wire. We got better results from those tips than any of the commercial tips or the techniques published at the time (KOH, drawing etc.).
Think of a peaceful protest group using, an admittedly far superior, form of this to camera swarm the police. The perpetrator of any action, a policeman clubbing an innocent citizen for instance, might question their actions if they knew they were surrounded by this swarm.
But the default position shouldn't be to take down any work just because a lawer says it infringes. If Viacom prove in court that it's infringing or at least convince a judge that it should be removed pending a case then fine.
Why am I responding to a troll? Because its friday and I'm waiting for a train.
We love our Wii. Myself and my girlfriend play it every other night. When people come over they figit until we turn it on. We do need games I'll give you that but they will come. Its the DS all over again.
I'm probabily waisting my time posting so late but I can't help myself. CFD mathiods and LBM's have been an obsession of mine for 10+ years now. I only recently discovered that Blender now has a LBM solver built in that's capable of some pretty fast and acurate results. These are real fuid systems not just blobs and particle emmiters. Its very nice to play.
However while digging into the author of the Blender code I discovered his website. He has already developed real time methiods for interactive fluids. For some reason I don't understand he hasn't released his application but he has some very fine videos showing what it can do. Check out his home page.
These accelerometers are so sensitive, Mr. Vigna said, because electrons -- those subatomic particles that whirl around the nucleus of atoms like a video game in the making -- can sense the subtle atomic-level movement of the silicon structures. Even for/. that's a messed up analogy. How is an electron like a video game in the making? Or is it the whirling around the nucleus that resembles the video game creation process?
Piracy costs U.S. industry about $2.3 billion a year in revenues for films, music and digital goods, U.S. officials have said. Anybody have any numbers who much Piracy is worth to the pirates. I'd love to know if they could soak up the cost of producing a blockbuster and still turn a profit.
Slashdot Mirror
You own him a fiver.
The particles that are smashed together are going very fast (not as fast as cosmic rays but close) but 2 counter rotating beams of particles are used so that the reference frame for the collisions and so the resulting particles is stationary.
The resulting particles are not going nearly as fast as the particles that result from a cosmic ray collision.
This is easy to demonstrate
for i in myarray:
** Do some stuf here, use spaces to delimit. Note we are already inside a function or class. That is, we are not at the first indent level
print "Hello world" //Note this line is tab delimited. It looks likes its at the right indent level but its not.
Now you expect the code to print hello world a load of times but it will actually do it only once.
Its easy to extrabolate this to less trival problems
I understand that the network layer is not separated in the DS as you would expect. So the GP is correct, WPA will not work with older games *unless* Nintendo do some very fancy tricks to fool the game.
This has been a critism of the system by developers from the start.
Fair dues to you if you can see anything wrong in this video.
I've watched the high quality version twice and I can't spot any issues. Maybe frame by frame you can catch something but I think this is pretty spectacular.
How in the name of Jebus is a personal attack based on profession moderated insightful.
Both posts agree robocars will happen. The disagreement of the GP seems to be he thinks it will take "generations" and not the 2 generations the GP believes.
Your making the assumption that the $10,000 dollar car is only being replaced becase of the development of whiz-bang robocars.
Those cars would be replaced anyway. If the robocar cost the same as standard car the cost of roll out would be zero.
There is justification for thinking the cost per car would be very low - development of the AI spread over just one year of car sales in europe and america would be in the range of 1-10 dollars. that gives you a budget of $1b and I am being gentle I should at least spread it over 5 years.
The remaining cost per car is 1 pc, who's cost can be made arbiteraly low using moores law and waiting a year and several CCDs (worth on the order of $100 each).
Real cost of the robo car it self? So close to zero it does not make sense to waste any more time thinking about it.
I don't see DARPA making infrastructial upgrades to the desert so I won't assume an increased cost of maintance for our roads.
So balance the computer and camera cost against on against the even a tiny fraction of the number of people killed on the roads for each and every year the car is in service and tell me this is not benefitial.
The class action lawsuit is a problem but this will be well anticipated. How will you make the car makers libel when the law says they are not allowed to make cars with out the AI? Your only course will be to sue the government. If we are all lucky the government will lose and improve the basic requirements and regulation for the AIs.
The Gaussian distribution is completely unnecessary. The only necessity for the law of increasing averages to hold is that the distribution is centered on the average.
That wasn't the biggest mistake in your post :)
I am afraid that we have to say goodbye to one of the great memes of physics, namely, "black holes don't have hair." This statement, we are sure now, is simply incorrect. A black hole is defined by far more that spin, charge and mass.
Mondern Thermodynamics, Information Theory and after a bitter battle event Quantium Mechanics and GR have admited that black holes indeed do have hair. Even Hawkins has given up this battle and admitted he was wrong. (sidenote: It is an interesting story how Hawkins would say he he proved this point in a recent paper. Many physicsts dispute his version of events as it was already obvious which way the wind was blowing and regard Hawkins paper as a refolumation of the results from the work of others in the above sciences - and not even the most useful formulation at that).
As the artical says what goes in to the black hole will eventually escape or to put it in another more correct way, the information concerning the state of the matter and light that once *fell* in to the BH will become available to the universe again at some, possible distant, point in the future.
I have a feeling the meme "black holes don't have hair" is so atractive and addictive we will be living with and debunking it on slashdot for many years to come but lets be very clear, black holes do have hair.
Any word on when ESPN will start broadcasting these "games" live? Throw in a few hot cheer leaders and I'd watch. Actually, anybody know where I can get tickets?
TPB says he was "involved" to the point of running the entire investigation.
Both tallies are out by 1 count. Could it be the one is counting from zero and the other from one?
:)
On the bright side at least the error will vanish as the number of votes approaches infinity
I wish I had mod points to give you, this is the post I wanted to make. Forget the arguments that you think RTRT will never happen, its a mathematical certain that it will.
I don't know what universe you're living in but mine is 3D!
Seriously though, our brains are evolved for more than moving pseudo-2D object (your account of us) around your equally pseudo-2D world. We don't live in flatland.
Our brains know how to deal with objects we handle with our uniquely agile hands, this not only happens in 3D but also uses all degrees of freedom just like descent does. Where your descent argument has merit is that our heads do not handle all degrees of freedom well. That's true and a 3D model for a GUI must take this into account.
Regarding moving our heads around in all degree of freedom I would like to put you on notice that I was killer at descent and never once to my memory suffered dizziness. I would remind you that not long ago the brains of our forefathers were swinging around trees in all their 3D glory. I submit some of us may well be closer to these relatives than others.
I humbly disagree with you. Our brains have clearly evolved for a 3D world. I believe the reason you believe 2D is more efficent is 3D has a very long history of not being done right. There's a good reason why that is. 3D is far more computationaly expensive than 2D and lacks a true 3D display and interaction device.
I offer as evidance the spring and plastic ball models of modules, and the skelitons in the doctors offices.
2D clearly has its place, but I expect 3D to start elbowing in on it as soon as the display\interaction and computational difficults are met.
To be honest with you I was really thinking about AFM for much of the post. I am sure you know, AFM is in many ways identical to STM in reference to the scanning techniques used. Many systems we had converted from AFM to STM mode with just a tip and holder change.
:)
Anyway, we got those AFMs up to very high speeds in some cases several scans a second with little lost resolution. This was typical on a 2x2um area with patterns on the order of 5-10nm.
I remember reading a paper about a modified tapping mode AFM that imaged a 256x256 pixel image at 256Hz and did so clearly enough to show nano-particles wandering around, in realtime, a stepped sample at low T. Actually for all I know now AFM at Khz image rates is common
All this was possible with AFM because you didn't have to amplify and read a thiny electrical signal. The technique used here is really very simple and clever, I can't believe it wasn't considered before.
I know Sergay published on his method fro making tips, a knew him 10 years ago but I think he was doing it long before then. I really hope it was him, a nicer guy you'd never meet.
The speed a piezo stack responds is related to the speed of sound but not in the way you think.
Each active element of the piezo receives the electrical signal to expand\contract at the speed of electricity through the material. This is usually very close to the speed of light. So the entire stack basically gets the signal move in parallel.
At that point we require a mechanical movement but since we are typically asking it to change by about 1nm/s this doesn't take a long time to do.
One day the response time of the material will become the limiting factor but right now its collecting the electrical signal.
On a separate note, we built STMs all the time in uni. We had a Russian genius who could do amazing things with no budget. He had a technique for making STM tips just by cutting a wire. We got better results from those tips than any of the commercial tips or the techniques published at the time (KOH, drawing etc.).
Maybe the glass is half full.
Think of a peaceful protest group using, an admittedly far superior, form of this to camera swarm the police. The perpetrator of any action, a policeman clubbing an innocent citizen for instance, might question their actions if they knew they were surrounded by this swarm.
OK, now when will the T-Shirts be up on ThinkGeek?
But the default position shouldn't be to take down any work just because a lawer says it infringes. If Viacom prove in court that it's infringing or at least convince a judge that it should be removed pending a case then fine.
Why am I responding to a troll? Because its friday and I'm waiting for a train.
We love our Wii. Myself and my girlfriend play it every other night. When people come over they figit until we turn it on. We do need games I'll give you that but they will come. Its the DS all over again.
I'm probabily waisting my time posting so late but I can't help myself. CFD mathiods and LBM's have been an obsession of mine for 10+ years now. I only recently discovered that Blender now has a LBM solver built in that's capable of some pretty fast and acurate results. These are real fuid systems not just blobs and particle emmiters. Its very nice to play.
However while digging into the author of the Blender code I discovered his website. He has already developed real time methiods for interactive fluids. For some reason I don't understand he hasn't released his application but he has some very fine videos showing what it can do. Check out his home page.
http://www.ntoken.com/p_fluid.html
I'm tired of hearing this repeated. What part of the answer are they? 1%? I hope only 1% of our research funding is going to this crack pot idea.
I see wind being useful in the countryside for self generation on a small scale. Large scale developemnts will eat out coastline and our birds.
I agree we need an answer, that's why we need focused, data driven research and less blue skies PR stunts.