The important distinction is that resonance requires some oscillating energy input whereas flutter doesn't. Resonance doesn't directly depend on wind speed whereas flutter does.
To be fair, the article does a surprisingly bad job of explaining it, hence the confusion.
It's different. A resonant system has a particular frequency at which it 'likes' to oscillate; this frequency will have the lowest rate of energy dissipation, and so even a small amount of energy input at this frequency will tend to get stored and amplified over time. But in this bridge (FTA):
"When the bridge bounced up and down, as it did for months and earlier in the morning of November 7th, it's thought that the vortex street was causing forced harmonic motion on the bridge. But observations and calculations made by Farquharson about the speed of the wind and the motion of the bridge before it began to twist concluded that as the bridge approached collapse, the vortices were not being shed at the bridge's resonant frequency."
Our military interventions are not really about obtaining oil, or at least not directly. They are about keeping oil resources - and the huge influx of power and cash that comes with those resources - out of the hands of unfriendly actors like Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi.
That's what sometimes confuses people. Our wars in the ME are about oil, but not about _taking_ the oil. That part has to do with an entirely different dimension of our ME activity - our relationship with Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia provides a steady, reliable flux of oil into the world markets in return for the USA looking the other way when they commit heinous acts of human rights violations and terrorist support (including virtually open support for Al Qaeda and, up till recently, ISIS itself).
As long as Saudi Arabia remains friendly, we don't need anyone else's oil reserves in the ME because their reserves are pitifully small compared to Saudi Arabia's Ghawar field anyway.
> You are confusing natural gas production (which provides a significant amount of North American electrical generation and home utility) with light sweet crude oil production, which is what goes into the cars people drive to work, the tractor trailers that haul their consumer goods, and the airplanes they fly in. Middle Eastern oil prices have a HUGE impact on the American economy.
Uhm no I'm not. The USA gets 90% of its crude oil from either itself or non-OPEC countries. And of OPEC countries, the biggest contributor is Saudi Arabia, which still only supplies 8.1% of US oil. Less than one percent of oil imports come from Iraq. If they wanted to stop playing nice the US could easily make up for OPEC's entire contribution by ramping up domestic production. It's a myth that the USA is dependent on the ME for oil.
> I think there are many family members of the victims of the Bali nightclub bombings, 9/11 attacks, Charlie Hebdo slaughter, London Underground bombing, Paris 2015 attacks, and others who think that being dead is a "legitimate threat."
About 4000 people die of accidental fire-related incidents each year. Let's bomb fire.
You know, that's actually a pretty good analogy...
The problem is that you are suffering from two-bit thinking - literally. For you it's either a choice between leaving them alone or engaging in hot war, because your mind is incapable of understanding subtlety, adaptivity, and planning ahead. Bullshit analogies with France serve to further cloud your judgement. Your analogy with Germany is bullshit because we HAVE been intervening in the middle east militarily for about three decades now, and it's always under the guise of "let's keep more bad things from happening." Something which uniformly backfires.
You correctly acknowledge that our miserably dumb policies were instrumental in creating the problem, but fail to see that it's precisely your type of thinking that enabled those miserably dumb policies.
Iraq would not be in the situation it is today if we hadn't deposed Saddam.
Having deposed Saddam, Iraq would still not be in the situation it is today if the streets of Iraq were properly policed and order was maintained.
Having descended into chaos, Iraq would still not be in the situation it is today if the advice of all the analysts and experts were listened to, rather than appointing military yes men who would do Cheney and Rumsfeld's bidding without question.
And given all of the above, Iraq would STILL not be in the situation it is today if we didn't play an active role in destabilizing Syria.
At any part of the process from the late 1980's to the present, simply doing nothing would have been far better than doing the stupid things we did.
Does it? As far as I can tell, the decision to stay away from the war was a wise one. Pearl Harbor was bad but it would have been much worse to come in direct conflict with Hitler in 1938.
> What if ISIS takes over the whole Middle East and decides that oil should be sold at $250/barrel for any non-Sharia buyer?
What if my wife gives birth to a unicorn?
We can debate hypotheticals till the cows come home.
ISIS isn't Nazi Germany. It's foremost an ideology, and secondarily a pseudo-state that lays claim to some pathetic scrap of territory, in the midst of several well-armed modern militaries. Can ISIS take over all of the ME? Sure... but the only way is for it to take over ideologically. And the quickest way for that to happen is for us to wage an apocalyptic grand war against it.
> What happens when the US economy spins into massive inflation because the cost of trucking every box of Mac 'n Cheese to a grocery store goes up 200%, or an airline ticket across the country costs $1100, or it now costs every driver 3x as much to drive to work and their disposable income goes down commensurately?
The only way for me to reconcile this train of thought of yours with reality is to assume that you're on drugs. Hey, not judging, I like drugs too.
The US has not been dependent on ME oil for quite some time. Domestic production and Canada provide most of the US' needs. People have been worried about ME oil volatility for quite some time - correctly so - and taken steps to insulate the US from it.
> What if Iran takes over the Middle East and decides to reinstate a nuclear program that sets up a missile program capable of reaching Europe?
What if leprechauns exist?
Have you ever travelled to Iran? I have.
> (will you sleep well when women are stoned to death for not wearing hijabs, if you could have done something about it?).
If ISIS or any muslim group ever poses a legitimate threat to the Western way of life I will be the first in line to bust a cap in their asses, yo. You think I like Sharia law?
> we will always get involved because we have direct/indirect economic, political or (vaguely) humanitarian interests
Of course what happens in the ME has an effect on us. It's such a globalized world that it's impossible to fart without affecting someone. And that's why the best way to deal with ISIS is to get the fuck out.
I just don't understand your train of thought. ISIS is bad? Sure. I don't see how that leads to BOMB THE EVER LIVING SHIT OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST FOR NOW AND ETERNITY
I am pointing out how destructive and barbaric real war is. It's interesting how your response to this is "YEAH, WE NEED REAL WAR!!"
As for ISIS, the solution is easy: Get the fuck out of the middle east. They thrive on attention and adversity. They want a huge apocalyptic East-West war. It's their entire philosophy. http://www.theatlantic.com/mag...
The world would be much better off without people like you. Kindly collect with your like-minded ISIS maniacs in a remote region of the planet and bomb each other to death.
There's an overproduction of PhDs in all areas of science. I have a PhD myself. There's nothing special about physics in that regard. Yet, on average, PhD unemployment is around 4% or so (and most of that is, I would guess, voluntary unemployment e.g. burnout). So that's really no excuse.
I'm sure there are plenty of talented scientists in fundamental physics. But are the MOST talented scientists there? I doubt it. In the 90's and 2000's they were sucked away by Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and various academic research fields (biology, neuroscience, etc.) that offered both more exciting research and more stable careers.
To be fair to them, it's a very tough time for fundamental physics right now. Progress is insanely expensive, funding is all but non-existent, it's hard to find talented scientists who actually want to study it, and the general public just isn't interested anymore.
They didn't complicate the math unnecessarily. In fact at first string theory was pretty simple and elegant. The math became complicated by necessity. As time went on, each new 'solution' opened up a hundred new problems, with more and more math piled on in an attempt to fix those problems. Each time string theory seemed to be coming close to reaching the answer, there was a several-years-long flurry of activity with optimistic predictions that the "theory of everything" was near at hand, only for people to realize that string theory came *just* short of providing a theory of everything and still had fundamental and serious problems. This happened with Witten's superstring revolution, it happened when M-theory was conjectured, and it happened with AdS/CFT. By now string theory has become so insanely complicated that very very few people on the planet have both the will and the means to understand it. Probably less than 1000 people. Probably only 100 of those are contributing in any meaningful way. Within a generation or two, all interest in string theory is going to peter out and it's going to become just another set of dusty tomes filled with arcane symbols that people in the future will muse at.
I love how you morons paint criticism as "shutting down discussion", when you blatantly and obviously try to shut down any rational discussion by using terms like "SJW" and "douchebag scale" and trying to make a bullshit political point out of every situation.
But then again, projection is a mistake often committed by those who lack self-awareness. So I'm thinking it's time to respond in kind.
Your interpretation of ShanghaiBill's comment just isn't true; where did he say "constructive criticism"??
Anyway, the way I see it, Zuckerberg's actions are mostly for selfish reasons (as anyone with any knowledge about how charities and philanthropic organizations work would instantly be able to see) but I don't hate him for it. I have no feelings towards that guy. But it's definitely fair game to criticize Zuckerberg for what is obviously a PR move. If you can't handle it, tough.
"Just because we brutally murdered your wife and kids doesn't mean you have any reason to hate us. It's for your own good! Now get the fuck out of our faces and build a pro-western democracy or we'll bomb and torture everyone else you know."
Nonsense analogies are like running on one leg to make bread rise.
Seriously though, AI has made tons of progress, despite what some old nerds who are bitter that they don't have Lt. Cmdr. Data yet like to believe. We know how intelligence works, in a rough way - by observing the world, finding patterns, building models, using the models to evaluate actions, and picking the actions that will lead to maximizing some set of goals. Given enough computational resources, we could build superintelligent AIs right now. Really, the only complexity here is how to implement intelligence *efficiently*, so that hardware available currently or in the near-term future would suffice. And that's what people active in machine learning have been doing.
Like all scientific endeavours, we have no way to know how much more work is going to be needed, because that would mean knowing something before knowing it. So it's entirely possible that it is going to take a long time for the effort to reach human-level general intelligence. But based on what I know, I wouldn't say MUCH more time is needed. In fact I'd be more worried about stumbling upon AI accidentally - with *disastrous* consequences.
There are a lot of misconceptions about prostitution in Amsterdam. It only became legal fairly recently (2000). Since then, the human trafficking industry there - which was huge and substantial - has been in decline.
An example of a country where prostitution was legal before it became such a huge problem is Australia.
I'm a dyed-in-the-wool left-wing liberal through and through, I love socialism and I want equal opportunity for men and women. But I groan every time I see a woman being celebrated for being a software 'engineer' or somesuch when there is never such praise for men. And it always seems to be from people who are looking to push an agenda. No hard feelings on Ms. Bennet. I'm sure she's a wonderful young lady.
Slashdot Mirror
> The bridge was torquing at it's center span's natural frequency x 2 (IIRC).
Link?
Nope, this isn't resonance, it's aeroelastic flutter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The important distinction is that resonance requires some oscillating energy input whereas flutter doesn't. Resonance doesn't directly depend on wind speed whereas flutter does.
To be fair, the article does a surprisingly bad job of explaining it, hence the confusion.
It's different. A resonant system has a particular frequency at which it 'likes' to oscillate; this frequency will have the lowest rate of energy dissipation, and so even a small amount of energy input at this frequency will tend to get stored and amplified over time. But in this bridge (FTA):
"When the bridge bounced up and down, as it did for months and earlier in the morning of November 7th, it's thought that the vortex street was causing forced harmonic motion on the bridge. But observations and calculations made by Farquharson about the speed of the wind and the motion of the bridge before it began to twist concluded that as the bridge approached collapse, the vortices were not being shed at the bridge's resonant frequency."
Our military interventions are not really about obtaining oil, or at least not directly. They are about keeping oil resources - and the huge influx of power and cash that comes with those resources - out of the hands of unfriendly actors like Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi.
That's what sometimes confuses people. Our wars in the ME are about oil, but not about _taking_ the oil. That part has to do with an entirely different dimension of our ME activity - our relationship with Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia provides a steady, reliable flux of oil into the world markets in return for the USA looking the other way when they commit heinous acts of human rights violations and terrorist support (including virtually open support for Al Qaeda and, up till recently, ISIS itself).
As long as Saudi Arabia remains friendly, we don't need anyone else's oil reserves in the ME because their reserves are pitifully small compared to Saudi Arabia's Ghawar field anyway.
> You are confusing natural gas production (which provides a significant amount of North American electrical generation and home utility) with light sweet crude oil production, which is what goes into the cars people drive to work, the tractor trailers that haul their consumer goods, and the airplanes they fly in. Middle Eastern oil prices have a HUGE impact on the American economy.
Uhm no I'm not. The USA gets 90% of its crude oil from either itself or non-OPEC countries. And of OPEC countries, the biggest contributor is Saudi Arabia, which still only supplies 8.1% of US oil. Less than one percent of oil imports come from Iraq. If they wanted to stop playing nice the US could easily make up for OPEC's entire contribution by ramping up domestic production. It's a myth that the USA is dependent on the ME for oil.
> I think there are many family members of the victims of the Bali nightclub bombings, 9/11 attacks, Charlie Hebdo slaughter, London Underground bombing, Paris 2015 attacks, and others who think that being dead is a "legitimate threat."
About 4000 people die of accidental fire-related incidents each year. Let's bomb fire.
You know, that's actually a pretty good analogy...
The problem is that you are suffering from two-bit thinking - literally. For you it's either a choice between leaving them alone or engaging in hot war, because your mind is incapable of understanding subtlety, adaptivity, and planning ahead. Bullshit analogies with France serve to further cloud your judgement. Your analogy with Germany is bullshit because we HAVE been intervening in the middle east militarily for about three decades now, and it's always under the guise of "let's keep more bad things from happening." Something which uniformly backfires.
You correctly acknowledge that our miserably dumb policies were instrumental in creating the problem, but fail to see that it's precisely your type of thinking that enabled those miserably dumb policies.
Iraq would not be in the situation it is today if we hadn't deposed Saddam.
Having deposed Saddam, Iraq would still not be in the situation it is today if the streets of Iraq were properly policed and order was maintained.
Having descended into chaos, Iraq would still not be in the situation it is today if the advice of all the analysts and experts were listened to, rather than appointing military yes men who would do Cheney and Rumsfeld's bidding without question.
And given all of the above, Iraq would STILL not be in the situation it is today if we didn't play an active role in destabilizing Syria.
At any part of the process from the late 1980's to the present, simply doing nothing would have been far better than doing the stupid things we did.
> And, even if history disagrees with them
Does it? As far as I can tell, the decision to stay away from the war was a wise one. Pearl Harbor was bad but it would have been much worse to come in direct conflict with Hitler in 1938.
> What if ISIS takes over the whole Middle East and decides that oil should be sold at $250/barrel for any non-Sharia buyer?
What if my wife gives birth to a unicorn?
We can debate hypotheticals till the cows come home.
ISIS isn't Nazi Germany. It's foremost an ideology, and secondarily a pseudo-state that lays claim to some pathetic scrap of territory, in the midst of several well-armed modern militaries. Can ISIS take over all of the ME? Sure... but the only way is for it to take over ideologically. And the quickest way for that to happen is for us to wage an apocalyptic grand war against it.
> What happens when the US economy spins into massive inflation because the cost of trucking every box of Mac 'n Cheese to a grocery store goes up 200%, or an airline ticket across the country costs $1100, or it now costs every driver 3x as much to drive to work and their disposable income goes down commensurately?
The only way for me to reconcile this train of thought of yours with reality is to assume that you're on drugs. Hey, not judging, I like drugs too.
The US has not been dependent on ME oil for quite some time. Domestic production and Canada provide most of the US' needs. People have been worried about ME oil volatility for quite some time - correctly so - and taken steps to insulate the US from it.
> What if Iran takes over the Middle East and decides to reinstate a nuclear program that sets up a missile program capable of reaching Europe?
What if leprechauns exist?
Have you ever travelled to Iran? I have.
> (will you sleep well when women are stoned to death for not wearing hijabs, if you could have done something about it?).
If ISIS or any muslim group ever poses a legitimate threat to the Western way of life I will be the first in line to bust a cap in their asses, yo. You think I like Sharia law?
> we will always get involved because we have direct/indirect economic, political or (vaguely) humanitarian interests
Of course what happens in the ME has an effect on us. It's such a globalized world that it's impossible to fart without affecting someone. And that's why the best way to deal with ISIS is to get the fuck out.
I just don't understand your train of thought. ISIS is bad? Sure. I don't see how that leads to BOMB THE EVER LIVING SHIT OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST FOR NOW AND ETERNITY
I am pointing out how destructive and barbaric real war is. It's interesting how your response to this is "YEAH, WE NEED REAL WAR!!"
As for ISIS, the solution is easy: Get the fuck out of the middle east. They thrive on attention and adversity. They want a huge apocalyptic East-West war. It's their entire philosophy. http://www.theatlantic.com/mag...
The world would be much better off without people like you. Kindly collect with your like-minded ISIS maniacs in a remote region of the planet and bomb each other to death.
People have largely forgotten how dangerous war really is.
Today, war is like a video game. A guy presses a button and a bunch of bad guys disappear. It's almost cute.
Back then, war was terrifying mushroom clouds and entire cities in flames.
We've forgotten how fast the former could lead to the latter.
There's an overproduction of PhDs in all areas of science. I have a PhD myself. There's nothing special about physics in that regard. Yet, on average, PhD unemployment is around 4% or so (and most of that is, I would guess, voluntary unemployment e.g. burnout). So that's really no excuse.
I'm sure there are plenty of talented scientists in fundamental physics. But are the MOST talented scientists there? I doubt it. In the 90's and 2000's they were sucked away by Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and various academic research fields (biology, neuroscience, etc.) that offered both more exciting research and more stable careers.
To be fair to them, it's a very tough time for fundamental physics right now. Progress is insanely expensive, funding is all but non-existent, it's hard to find talented scientists who actually want to study it, and the general public just isn't interested anymore.
They didn't complicate the math unnecessarily. In fact at first string theory was pretty simple and elegant. The math became complicated by necessity. As time went on, each new 'solution' opened up a hundred new problems, with more and more math piled on in an attempt to fix those problems. Each time string theory seemed to be coming close to reaching the answer, there was a several-years-long flurry of activity with optimistic predictions that the "theory of everything" was near at hand, only for people to realize that string theory came *just* short of providing a theory of everything and still had fundamental and serious problems. This happened with Witten's superstring revolution, it happened when M-theory was conjectured, and it happened with AdS/CFT. By now string theory has become so insanely complicated that very very few people on the planet have both the will and the means to understand it. Probably less than 1000 people. Probably only 100 of those are contributing in any meaningful way. Within a generation or two, all interest in string theory is going to peter out and it's going to become just another set of dusty tomes filled with arcane symbols that people in the future will muse at.
Well thought-out opinions by anonymous cowards...
I love how you morons paint criticism as "shutting down discussion", when you blatantly and obviously try to shut down any rational discussion by using terms like "SJW" and "douchebag scale" and trying to make a bullshit political point out of every situation.
But then again, projection is a mistake often committed by those who lack self-awareness. So I'm thinking it's time to respond in kind.
Your interpretation of ShanghaiBill's comment just isn't true; where did he say "constructive criticism"??
Anyway, the way I see it, Zuckerberg's actions are mostly for selfish reasons (as anyone with any knowledge about how charities and philanthropic organizations work would instantly be able to see) but I don't hate him for it. I have no feelings towards that guy. But it's definitely fair game to criticize Zuckerberg for what is obviously a PR move. If you can't handle it, tough.
"Just because we brutally murdered your wife and kids doesn't mean you have any reason to hate us. It's for your own good! Now get the fuck out of our faces and build a pro-western democracy or we'll bomb and torture everyone else you know."
That's what you're saying, not what AC was saying.
Also, you're right, criticism is bad, no one should ever be critical of anyone else.
So you're saying that when Microsoft releases open source code it is ENTIRELY altruistic? Right...
I'd say 10% likelihood of within 10 years and 90% likelihood of within 90 years :)
If you program it to make mankind happy, it might wind up injecting everyone with a steady dose of heroin and then castrating everyone.
Nonsense analogies are like running on one leg to make bread rise.
Seriously though, AI has made tons of progress, despite what some old nerds who are bitter that they don't have Lt. Cmdr. Data yet like to believe. We know how intelligence works, in a rough way - by observing the world, finding patterns, building models, using the models to evaluate actions, and picking the actions that will lead to maximizing some set of goals. Given enough computational resources, we could build superintelligent AIs right now. Really, the only complexity here is how to implement intelligence *efficiently*, so that hardware available currently or in the near-term future would suffice. And that's what people active in machine learning have been doing.
Like all scientific endeavours, we have no way to know how much more work is going to be needed, because that would mean knowing something before knowing it. So it's entirely possible that it is going to take a long time for the effort to reach human-level general intelligence. But based on what I know, I wouldn't say MUCH more time is needed. In fact I'd be more worried about stumbling upon AI accidentally - with *disastrous* consequences.
There are a lot of misconceptions about prostitution in Amsterdam. It only became legal fairly recently (2000). Since then, the human trafficking industry there - which was huge and substantial - has been in decline.
An example of a country where prostitution was legal before it became such a huge problem is Australia.
I'm a dyed-in-the-wool left-wing liberal through and through, I love socialism and I want equal opportunity for men and women. But I groan every time I see a woman being celebrated for being a software 'engineer' or somesuch when there is never such praise for men. And it always seems to be from people who are looking to push an agenda. No hard feelings on Ms. Bennet. I'm sure she's a wonderful young lady.
In virtually all developed countries in which prostitution has been legalized, human trafficking issues have decreased.
I meant closest living RELATIVES. Just caught my error now, sorry.
But anyway, what other part of my post is wrong?