Standard Temperature and Pressure?
273.15 K (or 0 C) and 1 atmosphere (or 101.325 Pa, or 760 mmHg)
Except that, as others have noted, one of the terms used to define "pressure" is mass. You must be able to substitute the formula for a kilogram in place of the kg term in any equation. A kg defined in terms of a kg then becomes recursive...
In basketball, a player can train and improve his performance over time.
True, but that only serves to change the hit/miss ratio baseline. The baseline is what you start with. The point is (first) that streaks are not periods of unusual skill, but clusters of success with normal skill. If you remove the streaks (both good and bad), the remaining "scattered" data points still conform to the baseline. Further, the frequency of streaks is no different than what's found in a similar random sequence.
What you're forgetting is that making a basketball shot is not just a matter of probability. When a player is feeling confident in their shot, as they will when they're on a roll, they worry less about things that could go wrong, and thus muscle memory plays a greater part in their shooting motion, leading to more consistant results and a continued streak. Obviously statistical clustering plays a part, but it's not entirely random.
Contrast this to events such as rolling dice, where (barring cheating) players don't have any predictable control over the results. Players will also feel like they're on a roll (no pun intended) when playing dice, but unlike basketball their mental confidence or lack thereof plays no part in the results of the next throw, and thus the streak is purely a statistical phenomenon.
But the entire point demonstrated by research into "hot hand" theory is that once you establish a player's baseline proficiency (e.g. historically has shown a 30% chance of making any given basket), you see exactly the same clustering behavior you see with any other random series, including dice rolls, wherein you divide all possible outcomes into two categories with 30% and 70% probabilities. There IS no contrast between the two. Players may "feel like" they're in some sort of "zone", but feelings are entirely subjective. Statistics are not.
Wrong again. He's considering an array with elements in row-major order. That means that all of the values in one row are contiguous in memory. In a modern environment, memory reads are cached, or "read ahead." The system sees you reading one value and makes a reasonable assumption that you'll be reading the values that follow it pretty soon, so it caches them. When you process rows together instead of columns together, this works to your benefit because you're working out of cache for the entire row. If you process columns together, you're essentially skipping around in memory and, given a large enough array, the system won't have cached the entire column together.
What do you mean "wrong again"? You described exactly the same thing I described.
Me: "the system can cache perhaps a horizontal line's worth of info at a time"
You:"He's considering an array with elements in row-major order. That means that all of the values in one row are contiguous in memory."
Me:"a routine that scans horizontally across one line at a time will be faster... "
You:"When you process rows together instead of columns together, this works to your benefit because you're working out of cache for the entire row."
Me:"...will be faster than one that tries to scan vertically."
You:"If you process columns together, you're essentially skipping around in memory and, given a large enough array, the system won't have cached the entire column together."
Your description is more verbose, and describes it in generic terms rather than giving a common example, but it's the same goddamn thing. My only error perhaps was not making it entirely clear that my description was an example of what one might find inside the inner loop.
How will one run 50 times faster than the other? All you did was swap the variable names around.
He didn't fully describe the situation. I think he probably means that the inside loop calls some sort of pixel lookup function that takes x and y as input. The presumption is that, for a large image, the system can cache perhaps a horizontal line's worth of info at a time, and subsequently a routine that scans horizontally across one line at a time will be faster than one that tries to scan vertically.
I searched for Benjamin Franklin and Karl Marx on Amazon to see how many matches it produced:
Benjamin Franklin: 1521
Karl Marx: 2339
These numbers are fairly anecdotal (the Amazon.com listing will pick the words anywhere out of the subject, is heavily biased towards English-language works, ignores many works out of print, doesn't differentiate scholarly works from children's literature, etc). But, should you expect the library to have about 1.5x as many books on Marx as on Franklin?
I think that's the point the OP was making. Marx vs. Franklin might show 3 books on Karl for every 2 on Ben, but then the library carries 16 shelves of Marx vs. less than one for Franklin. Personally, I think it may have something to do with Marx (and Marxists) having a tendency to run off at the mouth, while Franklin was a more of a simple and to-the-point type guy. Subsequently you find scads of overwrought discussions of Marxism presented in thick tomes which weigh heavily on the shelves and demand yards and yards of shelf space...
You'd still have to step it down to 12V at 144A to actually charge the battery. 144 amp conductors are slightly huge.:)
Heh. Yeah, like 4 inches diameter huge. I can't imagine we'll be seeing any laptop AC adaptors with any of these on the end of the cord. Not to mention the size of cord (cable?) you'd need...
There is no such thing as a "defective" fuse that lets way too much current through.
You haven't been on this planet long have you?
Cite me an instance of a fuse labelled (say) 3A, but having a 15A thickness of fusible material inside, and making it past QA at the fuse factory. Honestly, mis-rated fuses are like triangular tires. They really don't happen by accident. I don't know what planet you think we're on.
What if someone puts a small nail across the fuze to keep it going to get just that bit more out of it?
I smell lawsuit.
I smell a dumbass. You really thing they'd use a glass cartridge snap-in fuse on a Li-ion battery cell? Get a clue. It'll likely be a self-resetting current limiting device built into each individual cell. There will be no place to put a nail across it, bridge it with a piece of coathanger, or screw a penny in behind the burned out one.
But what if the fuse doesn't work? Then you're still left with an exploding battery. Then what?
WTF are you talking about? A "fuse [that] doesn't work" is one that's already burned out. There is no such thing as a "defective" fuse that lets way too much current through. Fuses are safety devices. Fuse manufacturers are very careful for reasons of liability. Your "what if" is as irrelevant as "what if tires were TRIANGULAR?"
What if there is a short circuit within the battery instead?
I suspect each individual cell will be built with a current-limiting device in such a way as to make such a short impossible so long as the cell physically unmolested. From an engineering standpoint, this is trivial.
i suppose if somebody actually came to you and could give you 1 Panchrome hex 2 the correct base "media" 3 a useable volume you would drop dead in fright?
Nah, I'd ask him how many days in a week first. If they answer "seven" I'd then drop dead in shock, because no professional painter has enough brain cells working correctly to remember that. They can talk your ear off about the merits of oxhair vs. synthetic, but some of those guys can't even walk a straight line anymore. Scary shit.
The new Duramax diesel engine was a joint venture between Isuzu and GM. I forget where they are produced.
The GMI plant is in Ohio somewhere. Production of the engine is a joint venture, but as I understand it the design is the latest iteration from a LONG line of diesel engines from Isuzu.
Is it just me, or is anyone else annoyed by people who use the words "toner" and "ink" interchangeably? Of course this is nothing new. As anyone who's ever worked in a paint store can tell you, there are always people who come in looking for "brown paint" when they really want stain...
"...it's not like they have a big vault like Scrooge McDuck where they pour all their US dollars and hoard them. Profits go out to shareholders (in hundreds of different countries) or into capital investments (like factories)..."
Unfortunately, our system does kind of work like a big vault....over 86 percent of the value of all stocks and mutual funds, including pensions, was held by the top 10 percent of households. In 1998, the top 1 percent of Americans owned 47.7 percent of all stock, while the bottom 80 percent owned 4.1 percent.
Purchasing stock is exactly the opposite of hoarding money in a vault. Anyway, I don't dispute your stats, I just wonder why you brought them up in the first place. The discussion was about Japan based multinational corps vs. US based multinational corps and how buying from one is no different than buying from the other. Rich conglomerates vs. The Rest of Us is a separate issue.
Wow there, poor little liberal got a little riled up eh?
Liberal? Not a chance! I'm a gun-toting, tax-evading, small "L" libertarian Gulf War vet.
My "oh so patriotic flag waving redneck Chevy Suburban" is a '97 Honda Civic DX with a tape deck and manual windows. And my motorcycle is a Suzuki GSX-R600.
(shrug) I own a 94 Honda Civic, a 90 Volkswagen Vanagon, and a 67 Dodge Dart. The "patriotic/flag/redneck" thing was just to illustrate that "made by a US corp" isn't automatically a good thing.
None the less, buying Japanese vehicles sends the money back to Japan where the Japanese company can dictate where it gets reinvested and all profits from such reinvestments go where? Back to Japan.
But what are they reinvesting the money in? My point is, GM is investing money in factories in MEXICO, and Toyota is investing in factories in KENTUCKY. GM at one point purchased a 37.5% stake in Isuzu. That's hardly "investing at home". I don't understand why you assume that corporations only reinvest in their home countries. They're all global now. they spend money all over the dang place.
Where the factories are is only a bonus, as it means employment to that area. But what's more important are the taxes levied against the money made from sales of the product, in when the money is going back to another country, our government isn't getting as much tax money.
Completely untrue. Toyota Motors North America (while owned by Toyota Motor Corp, Japan) pays corporate income tax here in the US just like GM does.
In return, our social welfare programs (education, etc) get less money.
Wow there, poor little liberal worried about his precious government funded brainwashing factory?
He didn't say low density and large area were impossible, only that low density and small area made it easier. Sweden is only an obvious counter-example if you somehow show that installing the infrastructure wasn't harder.
But the real issue at stake is that the money from your car was sent back to another country, and not kept in the country.
Hogwash. That's practically a non-issue. The nature of multinational corporations is such that the "home country" is merely the location of a few office buildings full of suits. Those few hundred suits are largely irrelevant to the local economy, and it's not like they have a big vault like Scrooge McDuck where they pour all their US dollars and hoard them. Profits go out to shareholders (in hundreds of different countries) or into capital investments (like factories). What matters is where the factories are. That's where the money is really going. Honestly, nationalist protectionism only works if you don't let foreign companies start building factories in Kentucky. At this point there's no reason to judge based on a corp's original country of incorporation beyond dimwitted adherance to outdated early 80's UAW rhetoric. Your oh-so-patriotic flag-waving redneck Chevy Suburban is built in Mexico and your dirty back-stabbing jap Toyota Camry is built in fuckin' Kentucky.
I'm aware of Isuzu selling the S10 (Chevy compact pickup) as an Isuzu "pup" but not aware of Chevy selling an Isuzu. Suzuki and Toyota, sure, but not Isuzu.
No, the Isuzu Hombre is a Chevy S10 with different sheet metal. The Chevy Luv pickup was a rebadged Isuzu P'up. GM has sold a number of Isuzu vehicles rebadged as Chevys. This should not come as a surprise. GM holds a 37.5% stake in Isuzu.
Somehow I doubt your story...since Isuzu is not a GM company. Can you provide the model and proof that the Chevy was in fact rebranded?
Cripes man, do a simple Google search. The Chevy Spectrum and Isuzu I-Mark were the same car. The Geo/Chevy Storm was built by Isuzu, branded the Impulse when sold under the Isuzu name. The Chevy Luv and Isuzu P'up pickups were the same, built by Isuzu. GM and Isuzu have collaberated for years-- not surprising, as GM holds a 37.5% stake in Isuzu. GM plans to use nothing but Isuzu built engines in its diesel powered trucks.
The four elements was quite correct...it just wasn't talking about the physical world, but about reactions to it.
Be that as it may, my point still stands. "Four elements" is about as accurate with regard to actual physics as "five senses" is accurate with regard to actual human biology. The philosophical implications are a separate issue.
The concept "Five Senses" is present not just in Greek philosophy. The enumerative school of the Indian philosophy (Sankhya) in particular, talks about the five senses of knowledge and five senses of action - ten senses - but the five fundamental senses of knowledge are the same as in Greek philosophy.
This is true. I think, though, that the longevity of the notion of "the five senses" here in the west stems mainly from the teaching of Aristotlean philosophy as the basis for the scientific method. The principle of the method is sound, but not so much the sense count. Perhaps the senses were limited to the ones he felt were "trustworthy".
That one comes under touch, it's detecting the subtle change in air pressure. You can sense a hand above your face far easier than a pencil point since the hand has a greater effect on the local pressure.
How about sensing infra-red radiation from a heat source? The skin perceives it, but it sure ain't tactile.
Slashdot Mirror
Hack Jandy needs to stop trying to use words he has only heard spoken aloud. Pursue
Except that, as others have noted, one of the terms used to define "pressure" is mass. You must be able to substitute the formula for a kilogram in place of the kg term in any equation. A kg defined in terms of a kg then becomes recursive...
True, but that only serves to change the hit/miss ratio baseline. The baseline is what you start with. The point is (first) that streaks are not periods of unusual skill, but clusters of success with normal skill. If you remove the streaks (both good and bad), the remaining "scattered" data points still conform to the baseline. Further, the frequency of streaks is no different than what's found in a similar random sequence.
Contrast this to events such as rolling dice, where (barring cheating) players don't have any predictable control over the results. Players will also feel like they're on a roll (no pun intended) when playing dice, but unlike basketball their mental confidence or lack thereof plays no part in the results of the next throw, and thus the streak is purely a statistical phenomenon.
But the entire point demonstrated by research into "hot hand" theory is that once you establish a player's baseline proficiency (e.g. historically has shown a 30% chance of making any given basket), you see exactly the same clustering behavior you see with any other random series, including dice rolls, wherein you divide all possible outcomes into two categories with 30% and 70% probabilities. There IS no contrast between the two. Players may "feel like" they're in some sort of "zone", but feelings are entirely subjective. Statistics are not.
What do you mean "wrong again"? You described exactly the same thing I described.
Me: "the system can cache perhaps a horizontal line's worth of info at a time"
You:"He's considering an array with elements in row-major order. That means that all of the values in one row are contiguous in memory."
Me:"a routine that scans horizontally across one line at a time will be faster... "
You:"When you process rows together instead of columns together, this works to your benefit because you're working out of cache for the entire row."
Me:"...will be faster than one that tries to scan vertically."
You:"If you process columns together, you're essentially skipping around in memory and, given a large enough array, the system won't have cached the entire column together."
Your description is more verbose, and describes it in generic terms rather than giving a common example, but it's the same goddamn thing. My only error perhaps was not making it entirely clear that my description was an example of what one might find inside the inner loop.
else _false=!true;
if(!true==_false) _true==true;
else _true=!_true;
If it was difficult to write, it should be difficult to read!
He didn't fully describe the situation. I think he probably means that the inside loop calls some sort of pixel lookup function that takes x and y as input. The presumption is that, for a large image, the system can cache perhaps a horizontal line's worth of info at a time, and subsequently a routine that scans horizontally across one line at a time will be faster than one that tries to scan vertically.
Benjamin Franklin: 1521
Karl Marx: 2339
These numbers are fairly anecdotal (the Amazon.com listing will pick the words anywhere out of the subject, is heavily biased towards English-language works, ignores many works out of print, doesn't differentiate scholarly works from children's literature, etc). But, should you expect the library to have about 1.5x as many books on Marx as on Franklin?
I think that's the point the OP was making. Marx vs. Franklin might show 3 books on Karl for every 2 on Ben, but then the library carries 16 shelves of Marx vs. less than one for Franklin. Personally, I think it may have something to do with Marx (and Marxists) having a tendency to run off at the mouth, while Franklin was a more of a simple and to-the-point type guy. Subsequently you find scads of overwrought discussions of Marxism presented in thick tomes which weigh heavily on the shelves and demand yards and yards of shelf space...
Heh. Yeah, like 4 inches diameter huge. I can't imagine we'll be seeing any laptop AC adaptors with any of these on the end of the cord. Not to mention the size of cord (cable?) you'd need...
You haven't been on this planet long have you?
Cite me an instance of a fuse labelled (say) 3A, but having a 15A thickness of fusible material inside, and making it past QA at the fuse factory. Honestly, mis-rated fuses are like triangular tires. They really don't happen by accident. I don't know what planet you think we're on.
I smell a dumbass. You really thing they'd use a glass cartridge snap-in fuse on a Li-ion battery cell? Get a clue. It'll likely be a self-resetting current limiting device built into each individual cell. There will be no place to put a nail across it, bridge it with a piece of coathanger, or screw a penny in behind the burned out one.
WTF are you talking about? A "fuse [that] doesn't work" is one that's already burned out. There is no such thing as a "defective" fuse that lets way too much current through. Fuses are safety devices. Fuse manufacturers are very careful for reasons of liability. Your "what if" is as irrelevant as "what if tires were TRIANGULAR?"
I suspect each individual cell will be built with a current-limiting device in such a way as to make such a short impossible so long as the cell physically unmolested. From an engineering standpoint, this is trivial.
Nah, I'd ask him how many days in a week first. If they answer "seven" I'd then drop dead in shock, because no professional painter has enough brain cells working correctly to remember that. They can talk your ear off about the merits of oxhair vs. synthetic, but some of those guys can't even walk a straight line anymore. Scary shit.
The GMI plant is in Ohio somewhere. Production of the engine is a joint venture, but as I understand it the design is the latest iteration from a LONG line of diesel engines from Isuzu.
Is it just me, or is anyone else annoyed by people who use the words "toner" and "ink" interchangeably? Of course this is nothing new. As anyone who's ever worked in a paint store can tell you, there are always people who come in looking for "brown paint" when they really want stain...
Unfortunately, our system does kind of work like a big vault. ...over 86 percent of the value of all stocks and mutual funds, including pensions, was held by the top 10 percent of households. In 1998, the top 1 percent of Americans owned 47.7 percent of all stock, while the bottom 80 percent owned 4.1 percent.
Purchasing stock is exactly the opposite of hoarding money in a vault. Anyway, I don't dispute your stats, I just wonder why you brought them up in the first place. The discussion was about Japan based multinational corps vs. US based multinational corps and how buying from one is no different than buying from the other. Rich conglomerates vs. The Rest of Us is a separate issue.
Liberal? Not a chance! I'm a gun-toting, tax-evading, small "L" libertarian Gulf War vet.
My "oh so patriotic flag waving redneck Chevy Suburban" is a '97 Honda Civic DX with a tape deck and manual windows. And my motorcycle is a Suzuki GSX-R600.
(shrug) I own a 94 Honda Civic, a 90 Volkswagen Vanagon, and a 67 Dodge Dart. The "patriotic/flag/redneck" thing was just to illustrate that "made by a US corp" isn't automatically a good thing.
None the less, buying Japanese vehicles sends the money back to Japan where the Japanese company can dictate where it gets reinvested and all profits from such reinvestments go where? Back to Japan.
But what are they reinvesting the money in? My point is, GM is investing money in factories in MEXICO, and Toyota is investing in factories in KENTUCKY. GM at one point purchased a 37.5% stake in Isuzu. That's hardly "investing at home". I don't understand why you assume that corporations only reinvest in their home countries. They're all global now. they spend money all over the dang place.
Where the factories are is only a bonus, as it means employment to that area. But what's more important are the taxes levied against the money made from sales of the product, in when the money is going back to another country, our government isn't getting as much tax money.
Completely untrue. Toyota Motors North America (while owned by Toyota Motor Corp, Japan) pays corporate income tax here in the US just like GM does.
In return, our social welfare programs (education, etc) get less money.
Wow there, poor little liberal worried about his precious government funded brainwashing factory?
He didn't say low density and large area were impossible, only that low density and small area made it easier. Sweden is only an obvious counter-example if you somehow show that installing the infrastructure wasn't harder.
Hogwash. That's practically a non-issue. The nature of multinational corporations is such that the "home country" is merely the location of a few office buildings full of suits. Those few hundred suits are largely irrelevant to the local economy, and it's not like they have a big vault like Scrooge McDuck where they pour all their US dollars and hoard them. Profits go out to shareholders (in hundreds of different countries) or into capital investments (like factories). What matters is where the factories are. That's where the money is really going. Honestly, nationalist protectionism only works if you don't let foreign companies start building factories in Kentucky. At this point there's no reason to judge based on a corp's original country of incorporation beyond dimwitted adherance to outdated early 80's UAW rhetoric. Your oh-so-patriotic flag-waving redneck Chevy Suburban is built in Mexico and your dirty back-stabbing jap Toyota Camry is built in fuckin' Kentucky.
No, the Isuzu Hombre is a Chevy S10 with different sheet metal. The Chevy Luv pickup was a rebadged Isuzu P'up. GM has sold a number of Isuzu vehicles rebadged as Chevys. This should not come as a surprise. GM holds a 37.5% stake in Isuzu.
Cripes man, do a simple Google search. The Chevy Spectrum and Isuzu I-Mark were the same car. The Geo/Chevy Storm was built by Isuzu, branded the Impulse when sold under the Isuzu name. The Chevy Luv and Isuzu P'up pickups were the same, built by Isuzu. GM and Isuzu have collaberated for years-- not surprising, as GM holds a 37.5% stake in Isuzu. GM plans to use nothing but Isuzu built engines in its diesel powered trucks.
Be that as it may, my point still stands. "Four elements" is about as accurate with regard to actual physics as "five senses" is accurate with regard to actual human biology. The philosophical implications are a separate issue.
This is true. I think, though, that the longevity of the notion of "the five senses" here in the west stems mainly from the teaching of Aristotlean philosophy as the basis for the scientific method. The principle of the method is sound, but not so much the sense count. Perhaps the senses were limited to the ones he felt were "trustworthy".
How about sensing infra-red radiation from a heat source? The skin perceives it, but it sure ain't tactile.