If you throw gravel at several hundred meters per second so as to get the doppler signature required for the system to act, it had better dodge your gravel.
Of course, that won't be very efficient; the gravel would probably disintegrate.
Hmm, maybe if you make metal gravel? And make it aerodynamic? Hmm...
The amount of mass a black hole could carry, at most, is predicted quite definitively by the mass of the original particles plus their kinetic energy (E=M*C^2). C being a large number, the black hole will not, repeat *not* be of any measurable size; it will most definitely be way smaller than a quark.
No, actually, the black hole is so very minuscule (10^-27 meters) that it could fall straight through a nucleus without absorbing anything.
For comparison, a proton is ~10^-16 meters. Or was that a quark? I'm not off by more than two or three orders of magnitude, anyway, which scarcely matters for this.
It wouldn't, except for possible radiation effects from the accretion disk while that lasts.
Outside the current radius of mars, the gravity field would look exactly the same as it does now; it's just that inside what is now the surface of mars, the gravity would keep increasing instead of falling off as it does now.
It doesn't. That theory sets the planck scale (effectively.. well, it's not really planck anymore, but still) to 10^-16 meters (huh? That's almost the size of an electron), which does.. well, I'm not quite sure what, since electrons seem to work fine, but I doubt it'd allow black holes at 10^-27 meters.
Basically, it would be quite impossible to pack matter densely enough to form a black hole of that size. (Pauli exclusion principle and all.. I'm not sure that says it's *entirely* impossible, but it'd get a lot, lot harder.)
Due to the loudness war, I've been basically unable to listen to anything released over the last fifteen-twenty years. Fortunately we have a large cache of older records.
If the labels died, there'd be an increase in dud records, but right now almost *all* of them are duds to me. There'd also be an increase in records I can actually listen to.
IANAEE, but IIRC, so long as the temperatures don't actually destroy the capacitors - eg. if they contain liquids - the discharge curve should be basically independent of temperature. There is some change, but it's likely closer to 0% than 10%.
..and about the manned mission to Titan that fails catastrophically because someone tried to cheat their way in, killing the crew and stopping deep-space travel for decades after.
3. With data parallel haskell, the system can decide at runtime how much of an algorithm to parallelize, and where, vastly decreasing the mental effort of parallelization.
With a purely functional language like Haskell (well, when not using stateful monads), all the shared data is read-only; cache coherency is then not an issue, as it only activates when you modify data.
There are of course modifiable parts of memory, but in haskell those are per-thread - the stack and the nursery. No coherency issues there.
Haskell mixes greenthreads with OS threads to make this a lot less expensive (for N cores, N+1 OS threads, any number of greenthreads), but it's still a lot more costly than a simple function call. To a zeroth approximation, fifty times more expensive or so, maybe.
Still, that does mean you can use CSP instead of state machines at no extra cost (kinda have to; haskell does not expose select/poll. You won't need it.), you just can't parallelize *every* possible call. And data-parallel haskell (still experimental) is making the rather tiny cost of annotating algorithms like that even smaller, essentially letting you mark everything that can be parallelized and letting the runtime system decide whether it should be.
It's a good thing Haskell allows you to mix impure algorithms that do in-place modifications with your pure ones, then, or even add mutation "under the hood" via laziness.
Of course there's tradeoff for either approach - parallelization becomes harder, or the algorithm gets harder to understand - but it's certainly *possible*, and I've written in-place quicksort on arrays both ways.
The halting problem also applies to humans. The domain of functions we *can* detect as halting is simply larger than what the computer manages, so far.
Also, the problem's prescription for making a program we can't prove halts would, in this case, amount to writing an AI. Yeah, sure - I wouldn't be able to prove it halts. That's true for much simpler programs, too.
The problems we face are global, and must be solved globally; there's no way for any single country to solve global warming, to mention just one. I, personally, don't want to go back to the days when what one country did rarely affected another.. it wasn't a nice time to live.
Slashdot Mirror
If you throw gravel at several hundred meters per second so as to get the doppler signature required for the system to act, it had better dodge your gravel.
Of course, that won't be very efficient; the gravel would probably disintegrate.
Hmm, maybe if you make metal gravel? And make it aerodynamic? Hmm...
So, anything posted to this thread is automatically modded up to +5, funny?
That's funny.
It's just a bloody mosquito.
You get stung dozens of times every year, I'm sure.
These mosquitoes were probably more or less known to be disease-free, which is a distinct improvement on the normal ones. Get over it.
Hang on, what were you afraid they might do with it?
I can see that the upside is somewhat marginal, but where's the actual downside to donating?
Oh, you can take it for granted that they use anything you can come up with in half an hour.
They probably do lots more complex stuff, too. ;)
The amount of mass a black hole could carry, at most, is predicted quite definitively by the mass of the original particles plus their kinetic energy (E=M*C^2). C being a large number, the black hole will not, repeat *not* be of any measurable size; it will most definitely be way smaller than a quark.
No, actually, the black hole is so very minuscule (10^-27 meters) that it could fall straight through a nucleus without absorbing anything.
For comparison, a proton is ~10^-16 meters. Or was that a quark? I'm not off by more than two or three orders of magnitude, anyway, which scarcely matters for this.
It wouldn't, except for possible radiation effects from the accretion disk while that lasts.
Outside the current radius of mars, the gravity field would look exactly the same as it does now; it's just that inside what is now the surface of mars, the gravity would keep increasing instead of falling off as it does now.
It doesn't. That theory sets the planck scale (effectively.. well, it's not really planck anymore, but still) to 10^-16 meters (huh? That's almost the size of an electron), which does.. well, I'm not quite sure what, since electrons seem to work fine, but I doubt it'd allow black holes at 10^-27 meters.
Basically, it would be quite impossible to pack matter densely enough to form a black hole of that size. (Pauli exclusion principle and all.. I'm not sure that says it's *entirely* impossible, but it'd get a lot, lot harder.)
It has. AHCI, NCQ, all those nifty new buzzwords actually mean something.
But it *is* the case with this technology, as the glasses go black half the time, for 60 cycles per second.
Know their craft, do they?
Due to the loudness war, I've been basically unable to listen to anything released over the last fifteen-twenty years. Fortunately we have a large cache of older records.
If the labels died, there'd be an increase in dud records, but right now almost *all* of them are duds to me. There'd also be an increase in records I can actually listen to.
IANAEE, but IIRC, so long as the temperatures don't actually destroy the capacitors - eg. if they contain liquids - the discharge curve should be basically independent of temperature. There is some change, but it's likely closer to 0% than 10%.
Only short-term. It'd adapt, and we'd all be better off for it.
..and about the manned mission to Titan that fails catastrophically because someone tried to cheat their way in, killing the crew and stopping deep-space travel for decades after.
3. With data parallel haskell, the system can decide at runtime how much of an algorithm to parallelize, and where, vastly decreasing the mental effort of parallelization.
With a purely functional language like Haskell (well, when not using stateful monads), all the shared data is read-only; cache coherency is then not an issue, as it only activates when you modify data.
There are of course modifiable parts of memory, but in haskell those are per-thread - the stack and the nursery. No coherency issues there.
Haskell mixes greenthreads with OS threads to make this a lot less expensive (for N cores, N+1 OS threads, any number of greenthreads), but it's still a lot more costly than a simple function call. To a zeroth approximation, fifty times more expensive or so, maybe.
Still, that does mean you can use CSP instead of state machines at no extra cost (kinda have to; haskell does not expose select/poll. You won't need it.), you just can't parallelize *every* possible call. And data-parallel haskell (still experimental) is making the rather tiny cost of annotating algorithms like that even smaller, essentially letting you mark everything that can be parallelized and letting the runtime system decide whether it should be.
It's a good thing Haskell allows you to mix impure algorithms that do in-place modifications with your pure ones, then, or even add mutation "under the hood" via laziness.
Of course there's tradeoff for either approach - parallelization becomes harder, or the algorithm gets harder to understand - but it's certainly *possible*, and I've written in-place quicksort on arrays both ways.
This is, I believe, what -v is for.
Really, what's with all the strawmen today?
Given that it created the world as we know it, it seems only right that it should go on to destroy it.
The halting problem also applies to humans. The domain of functions we *can* detect as halting is simply larger than what the computer manages, so far.
Also, the problem's prescription for making a program we can't prove halts would, in this case, amount to writing an AI. Yeah, sure - I wouldn't be able to prove it halts. That's true for much simpler programs, too.
Speaking as a moderately-annoyed owner of a macbook pro, those are in fact held together with screws. Opening them up is pretty easy.
I should know, I've opened it up about five times to replace fans.
But these days, such an assumption is naive.
The problems we face are global, and must be solved globally; there's no way for any single country to solve global warming, to mention just one. I, personally, don't want to go back to the days when what one country did rarely affected another.. it wasn't a nice time to live.
No, we aren't. We're cautiously optimistic at best.
It'll take a lot of time and non-horribleness to undo the damage Bush did to your reputation.