The motorized churn and dasher turned at a consistent speed throughout the process, while the hand-cranked churn turned more and more slowly as the ice cream thickened and it got more difficult to handle.
Sounds to me like your application requires a constant torque control instead of a constant speed control. You just need to change the appropriate setting in your VFD.
If technology doesn't solve the problem, then you aren't using enough.
Attempted murder is a crime because some legislature passed a law criminalizing it. "attempted copyright infringement" is not a crime, because it does not violate any current law. Just because it seems wrong to somebody does not make it a crime. Crimes are defined by laws, not your feelings.
You didn't read the article. A major part of their argument is that when the authorized agents of the copyright holders downloaded the material as part of the investigation that this did not violate the Copyright Act.
The article is unclear about how much space these really require. If you can get 1000 of these at each power plant then it seems quite achievable to make all the coal power plants in the US carbon-neutral.
Some things can not be proven at the moment, because we lack the necessary resources or because the theory has not yet progressed to the point of making a testable prediction.
Some things are inherently unprovable. That is a large distinction.
I might have some theory that makes a prediction of the behavior of matter at extremely high temperatures. Maybe I can't test it right now because there is no way (yet) to generate that temperature, but it is still testable in principal.
If I speculate about the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient entity that regularly alters reality without leaving behind any evidence then this will always be untestable. No experiment will every be able to conclude: "the result was X, therefore god doesn't exist", because the answer to that will always be, "your result X happened that way because god wanted it to happen that way"
Ooops. Too late. That cycle started quite some time ago, and I don't think there's any stopping it at this point...
Our culture at one point had an answer to that:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
But now, quoting Thomas Jefferson is likely to get you put on a suspected terrorist no-fly list.
Look at Bush. He thinks that he takes orders from an invisible sky wizard.
Maybe. He might just say that to appease the type of voters who elected him. Either way, the political power of religious fanatics in this country is excessive.
While I am sympathetic to the idea, exporting secularism sounds suspiciously like exporting islam or exporting christianity.
Democracy isn't necessary for liberty, it just seems to easier that way. It is conceivable to have liberty with democracy, and obviously you can have democracy without liberty.
My point was the meaning of the words "unsafe" isn't the same between an objective outside observer and people working inside the system.
If you are in any critical job like flying an airliner, or operating a nuclear reactor, or driving a warship then you might overract to these "unsafe" events to help keep people focused and fight complaciency. As long as you don't confuse the two perspectives everything works out.
This goes back to the basic definition of AI. Actually, the basic definition of intelligence, neither of which is defined all that well. I say that if the computer can anticipate the user's desires and respond to them preemptively then that is good enough. Maybe intelligence doesn't require a super-sentient quantum neural network after all.
In reality, yes it's great that the safety systems work
As a practical matter, the best way to keep people performing to standards is to treat every successful operation of the safety system as a failure of the human operators. It isn't objectively correct, more a psychological trick that reduces the tendency towards complacency.
There is no reason that AI shouldn't be integrated into the OS, but "invisibly". Here's an example:
Joe User gets a lot of email. He tends to be organized, so he likes to sort his mail into different folders. He could use procmail or his client's filtering capabilities, but why should he have to? OSS has good solutions to the text classifying problem
If only the email client (or imap server) paid attention, he's already supplying all the input necessary for a text classifier to sort all his mail for him without any additional action on his part.
When Joe (manually) moves an email from his inbox to a new folder, this is a training event. If Joe notices that an email is in an incorrect folder and moves it (manually) to the right one, this is a retraining event.
This concept could be expanded to other applications: how about a window manager that remembers where you tend to arrange your applications and starts putting them in the right place to begin with? The ability do manually set placement rules like with KDE doesn't count. That's just a workaround for not using the information the user is already providing.
Two-way conversations. I don't speak spanish, but I like to talk to someone who doesn't speak english. I normally open three brower tabs: google spanish-to-english, google english-to-spanish, and a spanish-english dictionary.
I started off having google translate what I want to say into spanish, then use the other tab to translate it back to english. That provides a basic sanity check.
Before the change, I learned how to mangle my english to get a better result out of the translator. I knew what to write in english to get what I wanted in spanish.
Now this has all gone out the window. Google will translate a phrase one way today and another way tomorrow. It is much more difficult to control now. Fortunately by now I can understand about 75% of the conversation without needing to translate and vice-versa. I've also learned enough spanish that I can normally tell if the translation is wrong without consulting google again, but it's still annoying.
Slashdot Mirror
If technology doesn't solve the problem, then you aren't using enough.
Attempted murder is a crime because some legislature passed a law criminalizing it.
"attempted copyright infringement" is not a crime, because it does not violate any current law.
Just because it seems wrong to somebody does not make it a crime. Crimes are defined by laws, not your feelings.
Your mother must be very proud.
You're already falling into a fallacy when you equate "infringing vs non-infringing" with "right vs wrong"
Peak copper
If this works as advertised, It would be a *perfect replacement for turbines in power plants.
*as long as you want DC power
Now that you mention it, a certain new class of nuclear submarine was designed with an entirely DC electrical distribution system...
No, it's not Microsoft's fault. It's the vendor's fault for adding extra complexity to a system that needs to be more reliable than your MP3 player.
Some things can not be proven at the moment, because we lack the necessary resources or because the theory has not yet progressed to the point of making a testable prediction.
Some things are inherently unprovable. That is a large distinction.
I might have some theory that makes a prediction of the behavior of matter at extremely high temperatures. Maybe I can't test it right now because there is no way (yet) to generate that temperature, but it is still testable in principal.
If I speculate about the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient entity that regularly alters reality without leaving behind any evidence then this will always be untestable. No experiment will every be able to conclude: "the result was X, therefore god doesn't exist", because the answer to that will always be, "your result X happened that way because god wanted it to happen that way"
What is he thinking?
Doesn't he know that Slashdot is only for armchair experts, not actual ones?
Our culture at one point had an answer to that:But now, quoting Thomas Jefferson is likely to get you put on a suspected terrorist no-fly list.
While I am sympathetic to the idea, exporting secularism sounds suspiciously like exporting islam or exporting christianity.
Democracy isn't necessary for liberty, it just seems to easier that way. It is conceivable to have liberty with democracy, and obviously you can have democracy without liberty.
Who said anything about bringing liberty to anyone? The only thing I heard GW talk about was exporting democracy.
I'd be much happier if the US was really in the business of exporting liberty.
According to wikipedia, generation X is anyone born in the '60s or '70s. Generation Y is anyone born 1981-1995. I was born in 1980. WTF?
My point was the meaning of the words "unsafe" isn't the same between an objective outside observer and people working inside the system.
If you are in any critical job like flying an airliner, or operating a nuclear reactor, or driving a warship then you might overract to these "unsafe" events to help keep people focused and fight complaciency. As long as you don't confuse the two perspectives everything works out.
This goes back to the basic definition of AI. Actually, the basic definition of intelligence, neither of which is defined all that well. I say that if the computer can anticipate the user's desires and respond to them preemptively then that is good enough. Maybe intelligence doesn't require a super-sentient quantum neural network after all.
In reality, yes it's great that the safety systems work
As a practical matter, the best way to keep people performing to standards is to treat every successful operation of the safety system as a failure of the human operators. It isn't objectively correct, more a psychological trick that reduces the tendency towards complacency.
There is no reason that AI shouldn't be integrated into the OS, but "invisibly". Here's an example:
Joe User gets a lot of email. He tends to be organized, so he likes to sort his mail into different folders. He could use procmail or his client's filtering capabilities, but why should he have to? OSS has good solutions to the text classifying problem
If only the email client (or imap server) paid attention, he's already supplying all the input necessary for a text classifier to sort all his mail for him without any additional action on his part.
When Joe (manually) moves an email from his inbox to a new folder, this is a training event.
If Joe notices that an email is in an incorrect folder and moves it (manually) to the right one, this is a retraining event.
This concept could be expanded to other applications: how about a window manager that remembers where you tend to arrange your applications and starts putting them in the right place to begin with? The ability do manually set placement rules like with KDE doesn't count. That's just a workaround for not using the information the user is already providing.
I've never understood the appeal of beer. If FOSS started coming with beer then I'd switch back to microsoft.
Two-way conversations. I don't speak spanish, but I like to talk to someone who doesn't speak english. I normally open three brower tabs: google spanish-to-english, google english-to-spanish, and a spanish-english dictionary.
I started off having google translate what I want to say into spanish, then use the other tab to translate it back to english. That provides a basic sanity check.
Before the change, I learned how to mangle my english to get a better result out of the translator. I knew what to write in english to get what I wanted in spanish.
Now this has all gone out the window. Google will translate a phrase one way today and another way tomorrow. It is much more difficult to control now. Fortunately by now I can understand about 75% of the conversation without needing to translate and vice-versa. I've also learned enough spanish that I can normally tell if the translation is wrong without consulting google again, but it's still annoying.