You can see objects whose effective speed is greater than c _now_, but wasnt when the light was emitted. We can see objects with a redshift equal to that of an object travelling twice or more the speed of light. (Redshift of about 6 ish)
Isn't trespassing already illegal? If so, then a sign saying 'no trespassing' doesn't mean anything. It implicitly means that going on this road is trespassing, but does implicitly meaning something mean anything by law?
Are you trying to say that Picasa and Google Earth were created by Google Summer Of Code students, or that they were originally open source programs or something?
> The solution you've outlined for the birthday paradox is another case where statistics is not accurate in solving the problem at hand....because humans, in general, have certain times of the year when they are more likely to procreate.
You can always just factor that into the model. It's ignorant to say that statistics is not accurate for this problem.
Sometimes you need the more complicated parts of C++ - It would be a very bad idea to simplify c++ to the lowest common denominator.
For example, most people don't use the SSE stuff or even know about it. You can, for example, make a vector with 4 numbers in it and multiply it with another vector with 4 numbers in it. The result is that the four multiplications are done simulatanously. Most people won't use this functionality and thus don't even need to learn it, but when you need an algorithm to run fast, it is essential.
Is that particularly surprising? It seems to me that you either know of an exploit or you don't. You will either hack the machine in the first couple of minutes or you won't be able to for months.
We have higher energy collisions with our atmosphere all the time due to particles coming in from outside of our solar system and hitting us. If something bad was really going to happen at these energies, it would have done so by now.
I speak to a retired professor every week. He said that one of his biggest makes was trying to be a good teacher. He put a lot of time and effort into teaching and as a result he didn't manage to publish many papers. After almost losing his job because of this (cutbacks target those with the least number of papers first), he learnt that students come last.
The post that you are referring to talked about incandescent bulbs and the light bulb in the article. Both of those do operate at a temperature of several thousands of degrees, very close to the temperature color that it emits.
If we do just find the Higgs particle from the LHC, and nothing more, then that is pretty much the worst case situation. We know that there are problems with the standard model, but nobody knows for sure what part is wrong, and how it is wrong exactly. Everyone is hoping that the LHC will give results that aren't predicted by the standard model, to give us a better understanding in where and why it is wrong exactly.
Of those, which are named are people? Higgs boson is, but that almost certainly does exist. If it does, it's likely to be found by the LHC in a few months.
Possibly the Branon one is, but I've never heard of that. None of the others seem to be named after physicists.
> Another important asset of an RTOS is well defined task preemption: No task gets preempted by one with worse priority. Time slicing might be enabled so that a task gets preempted by one of the same priority, and better priority tasks always preempt if they are ready to go.
Any normal distro Linux kernel can do this particular part. Just set the scheduler to round robin. (You can do this in KDE4 btw. Press ctrl-esc to bring up the task manager, right click a process, change priority, and chose round robin.)
> Except in real life, they don't really invent a new particle too often, they just make one up and name it after something dumb like themselves and hope at some point it's proven that it's real, which the majority of the time it's not.
See the reply I pasted from the author of the article - he explains it in detail better than I can. (Quick summary - the 'mistake' came during editing.
Slashdot Mirror
You can see objects whose effective speed is greater than c _now_, but wasnt when the light was emitted. We can see objects with a redshift equal to that of an object travelling twice or more the speed of light. (Redshift of about 6 ish)
And yet most people here seem to be against government regulation. Something I've never quite understood.
Isn't trespassing already illegal? If so, then a sign saying 'no trespassing' doesn't mean anything. It implicitly means that going on this road is trespassing, but does implicitly meaning something mean anything by law?
you can admit that you think something.
If I think Microsoft will destroy linux, but I'm ashamed of that, then I could come out and admit that I think Microsoft will win..
As a fellow Qt developer, I have to say that Qt totally rocks :)
It should say at the top of every source code file.
Are you trying to say that Picasa and Google Earth were created by Google Summer Of Code students, or that they were originally open source programs or something?
> The solution you've outlined for the birthday paradox is another case where statistics is not accurate in solving the problem at hand....because humans, in general, have certain times of the year when they are more likely to procreate.
You can always just factor that into the model. It's ignorant to say that statistics is not accurate for this problem.
Sometimes you need the more complicated parts of C++ - It would be a very bad idea to simplify c++ to the lowest common denominator.
For example, most people don't use the SSE stuff or even know about it. You can, for example, make a vector with 4 numbers in it and multiply it with another vector with 4 numbers in it. The result is that the four multiplications are done simulatanously.
Most people won't use this functionality and thus don't even need to learn it, but when you need an algorithm to run fast, it is essential.
Out of interest, how many books do you sell?
Is that particularly surprising? It seems to me that you either know of an exploit or you don't. You will either hack the machine in the first couple of minutes or you won't be able to for months.
We have higher energy collisions with our atmosphere all the time due to particles coming in from outside of our solar system and hitting us. If something bad was really going to happen at these energies, it would have done so by now.
I speak to a retired professor every week. He said that one of his biggest makes was trying to be a good teacher. He put a lot of time and effort into teaching and as a result he didn't manage to publish many papers. After almost losing his job because of this (cutbacks target those with the least number of papers first), he learnt that students come last.
Don't most postgrads get paid? I did personally (12,000 pounds), but I don't know how typical that is.
The post that you are referring to talked about incandescent bulbs and the light bulb in the article. Both of those do operate at a temperature of several thousands of degrees, very close to the temperature color that it emits.
Also, to respond to the higgs thing...
If we do just find the Higgs particle from the LHC, and nothing more, then that is pretty much the worst case situation. We know that there are problems with the standard model, but nobody knows for sure what part is wrong, and how it is wrong exactly. Everyone is hoping that the LHC will give results that aren't predicted by the standard model, to give us a better understanding in where and why it is wrong exactly.
Well, duh. I bet you can't find a single physicist who says that we have a correct model currently. We know there are flaws in it.
Good grief.
Of those, which are named are people? Higgs boson is, but that almost certainly does exist. If it does, it's likely to be found by the LHC in a few months.
Possibly the Branon one is, but I've never heard of that. None of the others seem to be named after physicists.
Most scientists expect to find the Higgs particle. In fact it will be a great surprise if it's not found.
> Another important asset of an RTOS is well defined task preemption: No task gets preempted by one with worse priority. Time slicing might be enabled so that a task gets preempted by one of the same priority, and better priority tasks always preempt if they are ready to go.
Any normal distro Linux kernel can do this particular part. Just set the scheduler to round robin. (You can do this in KDE4 btw. Press ctrl-esc to bring up the task manager, right click a process, change priority, and chose round robin.)
Because we look back at Einstein and wonder how he could be so stupid to think quantum mechanics was wrong..
> Except in real life, they don't really invent a new particle too often, they just make one up and name it after something dumb like themselves and hope at some point it's proven that it's real, which the majority of the time it's not.
For example? Can you list some of these please?
It's written at the bottom of the article - Robert Naeye.
See the reply I pasted from the author of the article - he explains it in detail better than I can. (Quick summary - the 'mistake' came during editing.
I should have added 'and assuming the universe is not expanding' in that calculation.