What they teach is that plants turn CO2 into Oxygen, which we breathe, and Sugar, which we eat.
What they don't teach, because it's not anthropocentric, is that this is where the plant gets almost all of its non-water mass.
It seems obvious once you know it, but it's not obvious when all you've done is spend a semester drawing pictures of chemicals going around in circles, never once thinking of them as more than individual molecules, because that's not on the test.
That whooshing sound you hear is the bernoulli equation.
The point wasn't that math is not necessary. It's that the only things mathematical extrapolations will teach you is more math. Nature can be described by math, but predicting nature with math is a gamble. That's why "the scientific method" includes testing hypotheses. So that people don't do the math, come up with the next formula in the family (which can be 100% mathematically correct), and simply state that this is how the universe works. Though that's what you see a lot in "science" publications, when hypotheses are presented as likelihoods rather than SWAGs (I'm looking at you, String Theory).
Science is the part about figuring out how things actually work. Math is the part about figuring out what else you can do with the tools you used to do that.
How am I dead? I'm on the ground. The guys in the re-entering capsule already have all the information, and control of the vehicle. I'm sure as shit not going to try to steer it with an extra 500 ms of latency in the loop. By the time the data even gets through to me it's old. Doesn't matter if it's 500 ms old or 5 minutes old.
As for what the FFS said, the blackout is a short interval in the flight, and it's ballistic. You're not going to maneuver in that beyond attitude control, The ability to do so would require shielding more of the vehicle from heat and dynamic overpressure. Any retargeting can be done before you hit atmosphere or once the plasma subsides.
And I'm not saying it's impossible. I am saying it ain't worth it because the return is nothing practical. We do want supercavitating torpedoes; they're of some practical value. It was a mistake to say it wasn't possible. But we won the cold war without them, so we made the right decision not spending on making them possible, and the pinkos didn't.
If you do it your way then yes, they'd be able to tell you that plants get most of their mass from the atmosphere, but they still wouldn't understand it.
No, if you do it my way then they learn that plants get their mass from the air and how it happens, instead of just how it happens. They'll also learn how you go from an observed fact (plants aren't taking mass from the ground, where's it coming from? it must be the water or the air) and figure out how it works. That's science.
Nature doesn't give you intricate theories that you can turn into facts, it just gives you facts. If you want mathematics, that's down the hall.
But it is probably the ultimate way to make someone playing Guitar Hero sound even less like they're playing a guitar than a Guitar Hero controller does already.
It points out the real problem with science education: we're not teaching the big facts and then delving into the intricacies, we're teaching the intricacies and hoping the big facts are obvious.
It's nothing about "informal" or "principle-based" reasoning, it's just inadequate communication.
You need that for interstellar probes because you have no other choice. And you can accept that data rate because you have nothing but time. And it fits into your power budget besides.
But that's a much lower-noise situation.
This will be like trying to talk while standing in jet wash. The 1 in 10 words you can make out will not be enough information to be useful in the time during which you're still in the jet wash. Better to wait until you've stopped tumbling down the tarmac and the plane is gone and then ask "say again?"
No, it isn't. Noisy telemetry is balls. It will mislead you. And you can't make an error-correcting code to handle the number of bits that will be borked by this system (which is why I mentioned BER). Not that you'd waste your bandwidth on elaborate error-correcting codes anyway.
Best strategy: save up the data and read it later. There's not much you can do in real-time at that point anyway. It knows where to go, and you're not going to need to change that during that phase of its flight.
Well, you stabbed it, but I think you just made it angry.
Bufferbloat is existence of excessively large (bloated) buffers into systems, particularly network communication systems.
Either an adverb or a preposition is wrong in there. Whichever, the grammar of it is stabbing my brain.
Let me try: Bufferbloat is having buffers that are too big for your bandwidth.
And that reveals the real problem. Having big buffers would be okay if you had the bandwidth to empty them. The problem here isn't that the buffers are big, it's that you don't have the bandwidth needed for your traffic load, period. Having big buffers is one way to ameliorate spikes that would otherwise overflow your pipe. But at some point the average of all traffic is bigger than your pipe can handle, and buffer size no longer matters, because you can't empty them before they fill up. In a network with multiple paths you can spread traffic to avoid gridlock, and big buffers can help you with that, until the point at which your routing algorithm can't multiplex the data any better and again it's gridlocked simply because you have too much traffic and not enough bandwidth.
When the construction of the network is fractionated, when the infrastructure is built by different people trying to solve their small window of the problem (router, switch, client, server, etc.) the only solutions they can control are to increase the speed of their ports and/or the amount of data they can buffer. It's not designed from Joe Computer to Hulu server with one set of requirements and implementations that prevents all sources of bottlenecking; it's designed with meta-requirements that ensure compatibility and avoid dictating performance.
But having a network-design czar controlling provisioning of the existing infrastructure in that way is not necessary. What's necessary is to increase the bandwidth to handle the traffic. Something that many countries have accomplished, but this one (the U. S. of A.) has been unwilling to do, because we just don't do coordinated infrastructure development at all well any more, times 150 million when it involves dgging up the "last mile" to do the upgrades.
A lot of the "more crap" now comes in ridiculously small form factors.
Blue-ray players are about as thick as your thumb, and a roku box is the size of a wireless access point.
I'm not sure why satellite converters and DVRs are still 2U high. Probably just marketing psychology. Their guts are half an inch thick, less the power transformer, which itself can shrink as it has for notebook power adapters. Hell, my cell phone could do that job.
They're still making receivers and amps with big transformers and capacitors (and tubes) in them, but the media sources are vanishing, physically.
I can tell the difference between upconverted DVD and 720p HD, but it's slight. And on a 57-inch DLP (that renders 1080p in a crispness that scratches the bezel) at 13 feet it's almost indistinguishable.
First off, the Netflix streaming content is a fraction of its library, which is a fraction of the universe of movies.
Second, at some point all that black-market filesharing is going to be shut down, probably when IP goes away and a secure network with real source identification is deployed. Only then will literally everything go online.
Until then, not all content will be available in a ripped form, and what is available won't be something everyone will be willing to use.
The exotic derivatives that are traded up in the billionaire boys' club can easily result in the decimation of financial institutions on which the public depends for the solidity of all finance.
This last time it cost us $700 billion and we still took a doubling of unemployment, and 90% of Average Joes still don't have the first clue what a "credit-default swap" really is.
Make every trade as though it's humans doing business with humans. Then you'll have a fair market.
so their conversations are about technology rather than finance.
That's the problem.
They might as well be carpenters talking about nails and whether air-driven or powder-driven nail guns are better, while they're driving nails into the skulls of the public.
Oops. I started to change my comment about him to the past tense but hit Submit before I'd completed the mission.
As for his take on political jokes, he forgot that it's the job of a famous comedian to hold the society and its government up to ridicule, to make plain the truths about its hypocrisies (much of humor comes from unlocking a truth many subconsciously suspect everyone knows; laughing is a means of communicating your concurrence to the rest of the audience).
Just so you don't mistake me, I've always loved the guy, from his doobed-out hippie-dippie weatherman days to his post-substance-abuse ultra-curmudgeon-rant days to his rising from the dead days. But I disagree with him on a few things, particularly golf courses, the value proposition that is Vegas, and now political jokes. Doesn't mean I don't love him any more just because he's dead and sometimes wrong.
His conspiracy one is called front-running, and was one of the first things banned in the markets. But yes, if we can't see a trader's hands moving the shares and the dollars, we have no way to know whose trades he's prioritizing. Except that we do, because it's all logged and traceable to every hand in the chain from investor to specialist.
His conspiracy two is cute, but the truth is that there's no way the State Department could hide the general nature of foreign relations behind a cover sheet. It's the details that were the real secrets. And while it seems "barely embarassing" to a humorist, to a career diplomat it's shit-your-pants time for your counterparty in a nuclear negotiation to find out you think he smells like a donkey.
Slashdot Mirror
What they teach is that plants turn CO2 into Oxygen, which we breathe, and Sugar, which we eat.
What they don't teach, because it's not anthropocentric, is that this is where the plant gets almost all of its non-water mass.
It seems obvious once you know it, but it's not obvious when all you've done is spend a semester drawing pictures of chemicals going around in circles, never once thinking of them as more than individual molecules, because that's not on the test.
That whooshing sound you hear is the bernoulli equation.
The point wasn't that math is not necessary. It's that the only things mathematical extrapolations will teach you is more math. Nature can be described by math, but predicting nature with math is a gamble. That's why "the scientific method" includes testing hypotheses. So that people don't do the math, come up with the next formula in the family (which can be 100% mathematically correct), and simply state that this is how the universe works. Though that's what you see a lot in "science" publications, when hypotheses are presented as likelihoods rather than SWAGs (I'm looking at you, String Theory).
Science is the part about figuring out how things actually work. Math is the part about figuring out what else you can do with the tools you used to do that.
How about if you are dead by then?
How am I dead? I'm on the ground. The guys in the re-entering capsule already have all the information, and control of the vehicle. I'm sure as shit not going to try to steer it with an extra 500 ms of latency in the loop. By the time the data even gets through to me it's old. Doesn't matter if it's 500 ms old or 5 minutes old.
As for what the FFS said, the blackout is a short interval in the flight, and it's ballistic. You're not going to maneuver in that beyond attitude control, The ability to do so would require shielding more of the vehicle from heat and dynamic overpressure. Any retargeting can be done before you hit atmosphere or once the plasma subsides.
And I'm not saying it's impossible. I am saying it ain't worth it because the return is nothing practical. We do want supercavitating torpedoes; they're of some practical value. It was a mistake to say it wasn't possible. But we won the cold war without them, so we made the right decision not spending on making them possible, and the pinkos didn't.
If you do it your way then yes, they'd be able to tell you that plants get most of their mass from the atmosphere, but they still wouldn't understand it.
No, if you do it my way then they learn that plants get their mass from the air and how it happens, instead of just how it happens. They'll also learn how you go from an observed fact (plants aren't taking mass from the ground, where's it coming from? it must be the water or the air) and figure out how it works. That's science.
Nature doesn't give you intricate theories that you can turn into facts, it just gives you facts. If you want mathematics, that's down the hall.
But these 6 people used the internet. Just need to implement the sneakernet-based last-mile for the other 1,999,994.
Actually, in my experience, monster isn't all that useful, period, so it's no real loss
Then you get the gist of the irony of mentioning it in my post.
No.
But it is probably the ultimate way to make someone playing Guitar Hero sound even less like they're playing a guitar than a Guitar Hero controller does already.
Sounds like an opportunity.
1. Find 2,000,000 homeless people on the Internet
2. ???
3. Profit!
Speaking of that business model, is Monster.Com still in operation?
It points out the real problem with science education: we're not teaching the big facts and then delving into the intricacies, we're teaching the intricacies and hoping the big facts are obvious.
It's nothing about "informal" or "principle-based" reasoning, it's just inadequate communication.
You need that for interstellar probes because you have no other choice. And you can accept that data rate because you have nothing but time. And it fits into your power budget besides.
But that's a much lower-noise situation.
This will be like trying to talk while standing in jet wash. The 1 in 10 words you can make out will not be enough information to be useful in the time during which you're still in the jet wash. Better to wait until you've stopped tumbling down the tarmac and the plane is gone and then ask "say again?"
No, it isn't. Noisy telemetry is balls. It will mislead you. And you can't make an error-correcting code to handle the number of bits that will be borked by this system (which is why I mentioned BER). Not that you'd waste your bandwidth on elaborate error-correcting codes anyway.
Best strategy: save up the data and read it later. There's not much you can do in real-time at that point anyway. It knows where to go, and you're not going to need to change that during that phase of its flight.
I’ll take a stab at a formal definition:
Well, you stabbed it, but I think you just made it angry.
Bufferbloat is existence of excessively large (bloated) buffers into systems, particularly network communication systems.
Either an adverb or a preposition is wrong in there. Whichever, the grammar of it is stabbing my brain.
Let me try: Bufferbloat is having buffers that are too big for your bandwidth.
And that reveals the real problem. Having big buffers would be okay if you had the bandwidth to empty them. The problem here isn't that the buffers are big, it's that you don't have the bandwidth needed for your traffic load, period. Having big buffers is one way to ameliorate spikes that would otherwise overflow your pipe. But at some point the average of all traffic is bigger than your pipe can handle, and buffer size no longer matters, because you can't empty them before they fill up. In a network with multiple paths you can spread traffic to avoid gridlock, and big buffers can help you with that, until the point at which your routing algorithm can't multiplex the data any better and again it's gridlocked simply because you have too much traffic and not enough bandwidth.
When the construction of the network is fractionated, when the infrastructure is built by different people trying to solve their small window of the problem (router, switch, client, server, etc.) the only solutions they can control are to increase the speed of their ports and/or the amount of data they can buffer. It's not designed from Joe Computer to Hulu server with one set of requirements and implementations that prevents all sources of bottlenecking; it's designed with meta-requirements that ensure compatibility and avoid dictating performance.
But having a network-design czar controlling provisioning of the existing infrastructure in that way is not necessary. What's necessary is to increase the bandwidth to handle the traffic. Something that many countries have accomplished, but this one (the U. S. of A.) has been unwilling to do, because we just don't do coordinated infrastructure development at all well any more, times 150 million when it involves dgging up the "last mile" to do the upgrades.
The SNR and BER of that scheme are going to suck.
I was expecting 5-10X the revs and double the margin given the extrapolation from Goldman's price.
Facebook is worth $10B market cap, tops.
How are you VHS copies compared to DVD?
Blissfully lacking in producer interference.
Did you realize that on your 105th or 106th viewing of Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope in the theater?
A lot of the "more crap" now comes in ridiculously small form factors.
Blue-ray players are about as thick as your thumb, and a roku box is the size of a wireless access point.
I'm not sure why satellite converters and DVRs are still 2U high. Probably just marketing psychology. Their guts are half an inch thick, less the power transformer, which itself can shrink as it has for notebook power adapters. Hell, my cell phone could do that job.
They're still making receivers and amps with big transformers and capacitors (and tubes) in them, but the media sources are vanishing, physically.
If the original light isn't there, it's because the conversion to DVD was borked, not because of the up-conversion to BD.
Those comparison images aren't the same frame, by the way.
You have a shitty upconverter.
I can tell the difference between upconverted DVD and 720p HD, but it's slight. And on a 57-inch DLP (that renders 1080p in a crispness that scratches the bezel) at 13 feet it's almost indistinguishable.
It's not quite dead yet.
First off, the Netflix streaming content is a fraction of its library, which is a fraction of the universe of movies.
Second, at some point all that black-market filesharing is going to be shut down, probably when IP goes away and a secure network with real source identification is deployed. Only then will literally everything go online.
Until then, not all content will be available in a ripped form, and what is available won't be something everyone will be willing to use.
There is a very noticeable difference between a blu-ray and upconverted DVD.
There's a very noticeable difference between a blu-ray and a 70-mm print projected on a 90-foot curscreen, too.
The blu-ray is going to be an order of magnitude sharper and clearer.
But since it includes scenes that aren't actually part of the movie, it's going to suck balls.
I'd go with the DVDs of the originals. I'd pay ten times as much for them. Which is to say I wouldn't give you two bucks for the broken versions.
I have a bad feeling about this.
Don't limit it to Average Joe trading vehicles.
The exotic derivatives that are traded up in the billionaire boys' club can easily result in the decimation of financial institutions on which the public depends for the solidity of all finance.
This last time it cost us $700 billion and we still took a doubling of unemployment, and 90% of Average Joes still don't have the first clue what a "credit-default swap" really is.
Make every trade as though it's humans doing business with humans. Then you'll have a fair market.
so their conversations are about technology rather than finance.
That's the problem.
They might as well be carpenters talking about nails and whether air-driven or powder-driven nail guns are better, while they're driving nails into the skulls of the public.
Oops. I started to change my comment about him to the past tense but hit Submit before I'd completed the mission.
As for his take on political jokes, he forgot that it's the job of a famous comedian to hold the society and its government up to ridicule, to make plain the truths about its hypocrisies (much of humor comes from unlocking a truth many subconsciously suspect everyone knows; laughing is a means of communicating your concurrence to the rest of the audience).
Just so you don't mistake me, I've always loved the guy, from his doobed-out hippie-dippie weatherman days to his post-substance-abuse ultra-curmudgeon-rant days to his rising from the dead days. But I disagree with him on a few things, particularly golf courses, the value proposition that is Vegas, and now political jokes. Doesn't mean I don't love him any more just because he's dead and sometimes wrong.
His conspiracy one is called front-running, and was one of the first things banned in the markets. But yes, if we can't see a trader's hands moving the shares and the dollars, we have no way to know whose trades he's prioritizing. Except that we do, because it's all logged and traceable to every hand in the chain from investor to specialist.
His conspiracy two is cute, but the truth is that there's no way the State Department could hide the general nature of foreign relations behind a cover sheet. It's the details that were the real secrets. And while it seems "barely embarassing" to a humorist, to a career diplomat it's shit-your-pants time for your counterparty in a nuclear negotiation to find out you think he smells like a donkey.