All of this is pretty indicative of the fact that we're not nearly as smart as we think we are.
At this point in our knowledge of chemistry and light we should be able to invent these processes from first principles rather than having to reverse-engineer them by ripping body parts off randomly evolved pests.
The canonical TSP also starts with a random set of cities to visit. The bee starts with a set that are already nearly sorted by the route on which they were discovered. I'd bet a CUDA-based program could solve most of these in a few milliseconds, while it could take a bee several trips.
When all I need is a notarization or a line-item update to my will, there's really no reason to have to get out of the car and go inside. Sign, stamp, and go. Brilliant.
Yep. Then users can put it in a directory off to the side instead of in/bin with all the other first-class programs that just show up for other users when new accounts are created.
Jobs didn't invent software bigotry, but he's going to catch heat for trying to get something out of it.
If there weren't a feudal hierarchy to decisionmaking that would never have happened.
And it's wrong, by the way. Which is why feudal hierarchies aren't any good at decisionmaking. Especially where the decision is what facts are true. Most especially then.
A few years ago, no one imagined that we'd have accomplished what we did here on Wikipedia.
Um, if you mean that it's gotten more words in it, but it's become no less fractious a society and no more accurate a source of information, then, yeah. Sure. If that was the goal, then you nailed it. But I'm pretty sure I imagined it that way.
Well, it's Google's fault to the extent that they didn't understand the capabilities of their electronic eavesdropping system, nor the extent of their legal rights to eavesdrop electronically.
It's the public's fault as well, for electing people who make laws without understanding the extent to which they are criminalizing non-criminal behavior.
But mostly, it's the media's fault for never understanding that when the law and rights abut, the courts sort it out, and pretending that someone is evil just because the system is in play is not impartial journalism, it's selfish hucksterism.
Normally the equations governing movement of electrons are independent of mass.
That's only because the mass of the electron (1/1900th the mass of a neutron or proton) is usually negligible in the dynamics you're calculating.
In superconductors, the equations really do eliminate the force of mass*acceleration from consideration, along with any other forces the electrons would normally be expected to react to (that would contribute to transfer of energy that would make the nuclei vibrate randomly in place; i.e., resistance heating).
Apparently all that's happening here is that he's predicting nanotubes not to have all of the properties that flat graphene sheets have. And he's saying it in a way that confuses most people, including many of those who could probably have derived it and described it in a much less confusing way.
People (i.e., mostly you) seem to blame kdawson, but really, he's just clicking the button when the post bubbles to the top of the Firehose, which happens because the Firehose is an idiocracy. People voting there are mostly ignorant, so anything that is above their understanding gets a positive nod, because most things that reach the front page are above their understanding, so they think that's the criterion.
Sometimes, not voting is better for you than voting is. Like, when you're too uninformed or misinformed to make a correct decision.
Slashdot Mirror
The franchise died shortly into the run of TNG. It's been a show about zombies ever since.
All of this is pretty indicative of the fact that we're not nearly as smart as we think we are.
At this point in our knowledge of chemistry and light we should be able to invent these processes from first principles rather than having to reverse-engineer them by ripping body parts off randomly evolved pests.
No, but I'm pretty sure it's related to
2B | (2B)' = ?
The "minimal interfloral apiarial traverse".
Oh, no. I reject Macs every time I try them without buying them.
No dollars for Steve.
That's a simple way of saying that evolution created a program in their brains that solves the TSP fairly efficiently under certain constraints.
The canonical TSP also starts with a random set of cities to visit. The bee starts with a set that are already nearly sorted by the route on which they were discovered. I'd bet a CUDA-based program could solve most of these in a few milliseconds, while it could take a bee several trips.
When all I need is a notarization or a line-item update to my will, there's really no reason to have to get out of the car and go inside. Sign, stamp, and go. Brilliant.
Where will you put the battery? Nerves don't have the current to light an LED.
My dollars. My rules.
I think I bought a discount iPod nano, once. It melted itself. And it was hard to copy music to. Enough of that.
No dollars for Steve.
Yep. Then users can put it in a directory off to the side instead of in /bin with all the other first-class programs that just show up for other users when new accounts are created.
Jobs didn't invent software bigotry, but he's going to catch heat for trying to get something out of it.
He's also conducting experiments cross-breeding humans with chimpanzees.
(beat)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4860483760049380308
I hate Apple more.
FTW.
After his graduation, Joseph Reagle has accepted a postdoctoral fellowship at Hogwarts to study unicorns.
If there weren't a feudal hierarchy to decisionmaking that would never have happened.
And it's wrong, by the way. Which is why feudal hierarchies aren't any good at decisionmaking. Especially where the decision is what facts are true. Most especially then.
A few years ago, no one imagined that we'd have accomplished what we did here on Wikipedia.
Um, if you mean that it's gotten more words in it, but it's become no less fractious a society and no more accurate a source of information, then, yeah. Sure. If that was the goal, then you nailed it. But I'm pretty sure I imagined it that way.
Like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Is it related to stiction, fahnestock, or spurtle?
Well, it's Google's fault to the extent that they didn't understand the capabilities of their electronic eavesdropping system, nor the extent of their legal rights to eavesdrop electronically.
It's the public's fault as well, for electing people who make laws without understanding the extent to which they are criminalizing non-criminal behavior.
But mostly, it's the media's fault for never understanding that when the law and rights abut, the courts sort it out, and pretending that someone is evil just because the system is in play is not impartial journalism, it's selfish hucksterism.
Darn.
I was going to wear that shirt today, too...
Normally the equations governing movement of electrons are independent of mass.
That's only because the mass of the electron (1/1900th the mass of a neutron or proton) is usually negligible in the dynamics you're calculating.
In superconductors, the equations really do eliminate the force of mass*acceleration from consideration, along with any other forces the electrons would normally be expected to react to (that would contribute to transfer of energy that would make the nuclei vibrate randomly in place; i.e., resistance heating).
Apparently all that's happening here is that he's predicting nanotubes not to have all of the properties that flat graphene sheets have. And he's saying it in a way that confuses most people, including many of those who could probably have derived it and described it in a much less confusing way.
Is it related to strategery, refudiation, and misunderestimating?
People (i.e., mostly you) seem to blame kdawson, but really, he's just clicking the button when the post bubbles to the top of the Firehose, which happens because the Firehose is an idiocracy. People voting there are mostly ignorant, so anything that is above their understanding gets a positive nod, because most things that reach the front page are above their understanding, so they think that's the criterion.
Sometimes, not voting is better for you than voting is. Like, when you're too uninformed or misinformed to make a correct decision.
So what you're saying is that he's saying that when you make nanotubes fom graphene you take away some of the magic that making the graphene gave you.
That makes a lot more sense.
Or
[X] He's a blithering crackpot.