Equations generally do a pretty poor job in explaining things. I'd much rather read an article containing "because acceleration is inversely proportional to mass" than one containing "because F=ma"
That's utter bullshit. When you file a patent, you describe in detail the technique you used. You can't file one if you don't. You're putting it into the public domain. It can't be exploited (assuming the patent holds), but it's still out there.
None of the software I write in C# crawls along like a dog. Notwithstanding the fact that.NET uses JIT (Just In Time Compilation), if you're doing something with a time constraint that's not met by.NET, you're either doing it wrong, using the wrong language or using the wrong hardware.
It's plenty fast enough for all kinds of applications.
Some massive twat marked my comment down from 1? Really? It's almost as if they're political activists who don't like any criticism whatsoever of their "post-modern" scientific methods.
This is sensationalist nonsense. You can't "cash out" your ISK into real money (without breaking the EULA), only cash it in to ISK from outside into the game. If you could, I'd have cleaned out my accounts years ago.
I don't change my personality suddenly when I go online and I try to avoid the kind of people that do, because I know that they haven't changed their personality at all. In my experience arseholes in games are arseholes out of them too.
Eve doesn't discriminate against arseholes. Think of it as a public service: Because all of the arseholes are playing Eve, they aren't in any of your other games pissing you off.
If you're talking "entities", I expect there were far more than that. Some players have drones out (up to 5 each, depending on their fit), some people fire missiles/bombs, which adds to the entity count, whenever a player dies he becomes a "pod" and leaves a wreck, so for each kill you transform two entities into one, etc, etc. A conservative guess would be around 10,000 entities.
Now, I've seen 100K particle simulations running at 60FPS on GPUs. I'm really not sure why CCP can't make the entire server a single core i5 2500K with an ATI 7970 and some clever DirectCompute shaders. In fact it's a complete mystery to me why nobody has tried it yet.
Surprisingly not well known in the literature amongst climate scientists. This is just another uncertainty to throw into the mix. This is all not withstanding the inability to accurately specify the start conditions, the model parameters and a whole host of other things. This is why model runs over the longer term diverge from reality. If they ever looked like they were accurate in the past, remember that they're "tuned" on past empirical data. That is to say, a curve fitting exercise is done backwards, and then the simulation is run forwards. So they always look like they were right, even if they can't take the state "today" and run it backwards and get an accurate yesterday.
Well, that's either an argument for it not being needed, or an argument that whatever we're doing right now (ECHELON/PRISM) is working pretty well. Don't forget that MI5/6, CIA, etc. don't give a press release every time they uncover a plot, or foil one, or recruit an agent. If such a thing were possible, we might take a different view of what they do.
That's funny. Retracted articles aren't usually left up on the website. The by-line is fantastic, "Flawed science costs us dearly". Couldn't have put it better myself.
Are you arguing that the Mail's article is wrong? Because it's an article about a report from the UK Met Office. Also, you don't have a problem with all of the alarmist press releases from that same organisation, do you? It seems to me that you only believe the bullshit the Met Office give out if it supports your already strongly held opinion, otherwise it's fine.
The meme changes. It was Global Warming and when it stopped warming it became Climate Change. Then when that didn't gain much traction it became Climate Disruption and finally, because none of the previous were silly enough, it's now Weather Weirding. It will eventually become something like activist scientists, rent seeking NGOs and scientific institutions. But we might have to wait until around 2020 for that to happen.
Yes, totally less relevant. Apart from large businesses, medium sized businesses, small businesses, government and home users, absolutely nobody needs to develop software for Windows.
His analysis is spot on. The "article extrapolates" [to absurdity] isn't unusual when it comes to these things, because absurd extrapolation generates grant funding from government.
If people like you ran the country the West would never have won the Cold War and you'd be sitting in a fucking gulag somewhere. You have absolutely no idea what these people have put on the line for your security and freedom over the decades. If you want to find out, get elected and sit in committee. Otherwise shut the fuck up.
Slashdot Mirror
^ This needs a hefty upward mod.
He wrote a book. How many people bought it? How many people read it? How many people understood it? How many people skipped the math?
That's utter bullshit. When you file a patent, you describe in detail the technique you used. You can't file one if you don't. You're putting it into the public domain. It can't be exploited (assuming the patent holds), but it's still out there.
Role playing an arsehole, mostly because it's harder to get away with in real life without losing your front teeth?
Sounds about right.
I'm pretty sure the winner would be a Russian.
None of the software I write in C# crawls along like a dog. Notwithstanding the fact that .NET uses JIT (Just In Time Compilation), if you're doing something with a time constraint that's not met by .NET, you're either doing it wrong, using the wrong language or using the wrong hardware.
It's plenty fast enough for all kinds of applications.
Some massive twat marked my comment down from 1? Really? It's almost as if they're political activists who don't like any criticism whatsoever of their "post-modern" scientific methods.
This is sensationalist nonsense. You can't "cash out" your ISK into real money (without breaking the EULA), only cash it in to ISK from outside into the game. If you could, I'd have cleaned out my accounts years ago.
Learn to do PvE in your PvP ship.
I don't change my personality suddenly when I go online and I try to avoid the kind of people that do, because I know that they haven't changed their personality at all. In my experience arseholes in games are arseholes out of them too.
Eve doesn't discriminate against arseholes. Think of it as a public service: Because all of the arseholes are playing Eve, they aren't in any of your other games pissing you off.
If you're talking "entities", I expect there were far more than that. Some players have drones out (up to 5 each, depending on their fit), some people fire missiles/bombs, which adds to the entity count, whenever a player dies he becomes a "pod" and leaves a wreck, so for each kill you transform two entities into one, etc, etc. A conservative guess would be around 10,000 entities.
Now, I've seen 100K particle simulations running at 60FPS on GPUs. I'm really not sure why CCP can't make the entire server a single core i5 2500K with an ATI 7970 and some clever DirectCompute shaders. In fact it's a complete mystery to me why nobody has tried it yet.
Surprisingly not well known in the literature amongst climate scientists. This is just another uncertainty to throw into the mix. This is all not withstanding the inability to accurately specify the start conditions, the model parameters and a whole host of other things. This is why model runs over the longer term diverge from reality. If they ever looked like they were accurate in the past, remember that they're "tuned" on past empirical data. That is to say, a curve fitting exercise is done backwards, and then the simulation is run forwards. So they always look like they were right, even if they can't take the state "today" and run it backwards and get an accurate yesterday.
Well, that's either an argument for it not being needed, or an argument that whatever we're doing right now (ECHELON/PRISM) is working pretty well. Don't forget that MI5/6, CIA, etc. don't give a press release every time they uncover a plot, or foil one, or recruit an agent. If such a thing were possible, we might take a different view of what they do.
When you say small amounts, you mean 32Gb.
Is this really a breakthrough? Hashing of invariant properties in images isn't new.
That's funny. Retracted articles aren't usually left up on the website. The by-line is fantastic, "Flawed science costs us dearly". Couldn't have put it better myself.
Are you arguing that the Mail's article is wrong? Because it's an article about a report from the UK Met Office. Also, you don't have a problem with all of the alarmist press releases from that same organisation, do you? It seems to me that you only believe the bullshit the Met Office give out if it supports your already strongly held opinion, otherwise it's fine.
I don't think so, no. At least not according to the UK Met Office.
The meme changes. It was Global Warming and when it stopped warming it became Climate Change. Then when that didn't gain much traction it became Climate Disruption and finally, because none of the previous were silly enough, it's now Weather Weirding. It will eventually become something like activist scientists, rent seeking NGOs and scientific institutions. But we might have to wait until around 2020 for that to happen.
Yes, totally less relevant. Apart from large businesses, medium sized businesses, small businesses, government and home users, absolutely nobody needs to develop software for Windows.
His analysis is spot on. The "article extrapolates" [to absurdity] isn't unusual when it comes to these things, because absurd extrapolation generates grant funding from government.
You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
If people like you ran the country the West would never have won the Cold War and you'd be sitting in a fucking gulag somewhere. You have absolutely no idea what these people have put on the line for your security and freedom over the decades. If you want to find out, get elected and sit in committee. Otherwise shut the fuck up.
I don't think he was trained by the CIA to destroy sky scrapers in US cities, no.