Logical or not, the number line is equivalent to a finite list of axioms (field axioms, look 'em up, maybe with some stuff I forget atm). When we accept the truth of those axioms, all at once, then we begin studying 'the number line'.
Personally, studying unintuitive concepts via the language of mathematics interests me. That's how mathematics allows you to expand the list of things that you find intuitive. First, only the abstract language of mathematics describes some logical object. The logical object itself may or may not be 'intuitive' from the outset. Eventually, after studying a logical concept via math for a time, I can eventually gain some intuition concerning the object. I've done this with the real and complex number systems (separately), partial and ordinary differential equations, vector/inner product spaces, mathematical knots, and etc.
PS If you're looking for a way to study calculus or the real numbers in a "more intuitive sense", I suggest you look up the hyperreal number system.
'eh The complex numbers are (one) logical extension of the real number system (aka 'number line'). Can't have a complex plane without two real number lines.
Young mathematicians that died young, in the past, made some of the most surprising and stunning discoveries. So, the unwritten joke goes "as a mathematician, if you live past 40 then you've contributed nothing amazing." (But, that's not actually taken seriously.)
Examples include Ramanujan and Galois (crap, can't think of any others).
I skimmed through the points, and I'm not impressed. Probably the most interesting area is how Writer offers more control over exporting to PDF. You can specify image compression levels, what page gets displayed on a 'preview', and other parts of the exported PDF. (It didn't say that you could create/modify the PDF's Table of Contents, and I bet you can't. That would have been a big bonus.)
The rest of the points sounded like comments someone who doesn't actually use Word would make.
-Can't modify styles by some hierarchy. --I'm still unclear what they mean by that. I can easily modify styles in Word and have them reflected throughout the document.
-Some comment about how Word relies on a standardized "Normal" template. They mention Writer maintains a standard template, too, but somehow they liked Writer's implementation better. (Not a good enough explanation for that.)
-They mention Writer has "true WYSIWYG header/footers"...which Word does, too.
For someone with experience using Word in a professional/academic setting, their points were under developed and just not all that good. The one area they had me really interested, PDF exports, they didn't go into enough detail on. If Writer can actually output decently useful PDFs, then that's a major selling point! Move that point up to Num1 instead of Num 11 or wherever it was.
I think GP was making a joke. "so on and so forth" is kind of an indicator.
Bingo! I meant that as half sarcastic and half serious. My understanding is that "some people" took some theoretical concepts and applied them to overly optimistic data. (Amongst all the other problems, and simplified terribly.) This isn't a nerds/business people thing...if you use data that thinks real estate can only go up then how is it ever going to tell you real estate otherwise?
Ya, good thing it wasn't experienced financiers making financial decisions regarding mortgage derivatives that caused a huge housing bubble and subsequent destruction of the economy a few years ago.
It wasn't, it was "financial engineers" or "quants" (people with engineering/science backgrounds that were crossed over to finance positions) that created/engineered mortgaged derivatives that caused a huge housing bubble and so on and so forth XD
Yep, not going to work in a "low humidity" desert (which is probably more in need of water).
I'm not a chemist, but I think it's output is linearly related to the average amount of humidity in the air. In all the deserts I've lived in the humidity averages well below 20%. My guess is there isn't enough water in the air to make the difference.
This reminds me of my philosophy of science class. A scientific hypothesis must: -be concise -make *single* predictions given one set of inputs
For instance, consider a hypothesis of how gravity works as "any object that is thrown up into the air will either: fly up continuously, fall down eventually, fly to the left, or fly to the right" This isn't a scientific hypothesis since (almost) every possible outcome from "throwing an object in the air" is predicted. There's no way for that hypothesis to be proven wrong.
The internet acts, in a more general way, similarly to the above example. It's possible to find some website on the internet backing just about any claim, and every side of an issue. Don't think global warming is possible? There's a website out there that agrees with you and says you're right in thinking global warming is "wrong". Think global warming might/is caused by human activity? There's a website out there for *that*, too.
My solution has been to create a personal "white list" of sources that I trust. Math topics are generally covered well by mathworld.wolfram.com or reputable.edu sites, for instance. I'm skeptical about any math related mumbo jumbo outside of mathworld or a reputable.edu site. I've also got a math background and all of my course textbooks to cross reference.
Hey, google, do us a favor and actually do something ground breaking with your OS. Take some cues from Plan9 that were never implemented on a desktop. Maybe make it more like a network OS than a hardware OS?
It sounds like it's going to be little more than a bootable interface to the web, I know. But google does employ people that were part of the Plan9 project, so it's not like they can't do something NEW.
Also, let me not be the first to say...I hope they realize they have to respect their users' privacy on their actual hardware...(I suspect they wont.)
Just one little point...getting a permanent job isn't easy. I don't care what the field is in! Landing a career was difficult 50 years ago and it's much more so now. Why single science out as a special case when it's clearly not?
My advice is to be a good student, and start talking to your professors as soon as you can while in college. They'll help you understand the material, of course, but they'll eventually be who helps you find work or take the next educational step. Try to get internships in whatever field you're studying. If those don't exist, try to get hired as a grader for classes or offer your services as a tutor to HS or the lower college classes.
You need to be a good student *and* social enough that the people who matter (professors) know who you are. (With the caveat that you shouldn't annoy your professors by showering them with compliments or anything unseemly.)
They say that evloution can't be true because the bible says it. And that global warming must be wrong because they like driving an SUV, and because they know they are nice people they cannot be impacting the environment.
Bingo! Unfortunately, slashdot isn't immune to the loud, uninformed internet minions. That's the problem with anything on the internet. If you have a question and an answer in mind, then someone's already written up that answer somewhere on the internet with which ever opinion you have of it. So don't rely on internet sources.
Rely on the scientific method and peer-reviewed journals or sources (aka published professors/fellow students).
And *please* don't let anybody but yourself decide what makes you happy. Of people on slashdot or you, only YOU will know when you've found work that makes you happy.
I haven't checked my sources (which are EBSCO...), but the article does mention the primary researcher is a doctoral student. Maybe this is some new or somewhat "outdated" process that hasn't been researched at all or recently. I got the impression the research was still "in process" and not completed/published, as well.
I'm not an engineer, so get out your salt-lick before reading...but, they've developed a "proof of concept" device. I don't know if it's even appropriate to discuss "practical" uses of this device, yet. It's possibly a very expensive way to produce hydrogen and may not be meant to see much light of day outside academic circles.
One interesting feature of the reactor is that, in theory, the zinc oxide byproduct created during the reaction will be re-usable, making the project self-sustaining.
“This is probably the most complex device built by a graduate student in the history of our department,” added Prasad. “If he is successful, one day, we can imagine a huge array of mirrors out in the desert concentrating sunlight up into a large central tower containing a larger version of Erik’s reactor and making hydrogen on an industrial scale.”
So there's "hope", but is currently experimental:
We [they] will measure the temperature and the production of oxygen inside the reactor in real time, which will tell us how much solar fuel or zinc we are actually producing,” Koepf explained.
As someone who's tried to locate data before, I wish them all the luck in the world.
I know this is the internet, so UFOs carry aliens, we never actually landed on the moon, and I'll be trolled for saying this...But, we've never had the modern day's archival abilities before. I'm glad to hear someone's attempting to put it to good use.
The assertion from the article that success requires computer skills doesn't rule out success also requiring other things.
That's a very good point. Necessary conditions are different from sufficient conditions. It's necessary to be female to give birth to a live child, but being a female doesn't guarantee birth of a live child.
And so the USA. The Marshall Plan after WWI ruined all the third world economies and industries in the thir world countries not involved in the WWII, and force them to produce commodities only until today, followed by a sad series of dictatorship after dictatorship
From wikipedia:
The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was the large-scale American program to aid Europe where the United States gave monetary support to help rebuild European economies after the end of World War II in order to combat the spread of Soviet communism.[1] The plan was in operation for four years beginning in April 1948. The goals of the United States were to rebuild a war-devastated region, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, and make Europe prosperous again. The initiative was named after Secretary of State George Marshall. The plan had bipartisan support in Washington, where the Republicans controlled Congress and the Democrats controlled the White House. The Plan was largely the creation of State Department officials, especially William L. Clayton and George F. Kennan. Marshall spoke of urgent need to help the European recovery in his address at Harvard University in June 1947.[
I'm all for placing tariffs on all Chinese imports. Yes, that raises prices on our end with respect to imports from China. China has a history of dumping (look up the term). The US needs to place tariffs on Chinese products to reduce the impact of its dumping procedures.
Tariffs on solar panels from China are not inconsistent with subsidies on solar panels. Why? Because while subsidies (artificially) increase demand in a good; tariffs (artificially) decrease demand in a good. The combined affect gently nudges people to purchase solar panels not produced in China.
And that, my friends, is how tariffs and subsidies can apply to the same market.
I dig how the title for this article, at least, sounds as though researchers stumbled across a working hypothesis...as though scientific hypotheses are hit upon like a rock in the road.
I predict the billion year "planet" phase of the great space moth is nearing completion. In another million years, the beautiful space moth will spread its wings and fly away.
As somebody who is a self taught programmer (15+ years working as a programmer, 7 different programming languages, 50+ orielly/programming books) I can tell you that having a degree in anything doesn't mean you understand how to use that knowledge.
I agree, you've still got things to prove *after* you have a degree *in the field of interest*. 15 years of work in the field counts as proof...
The rest of your point is, pretty much, "devise ways to get verifiable work experience". It's general practice to assume a one-for-one equivalence between years of work experience and years in education, FWIW. (It's the sort of thing economists do in their datasets and managers do in their thought processes.)
Slashdot Mirror
Logical or not, the number line is equivalent to a finite list of axioms (field axioms, look 'em up, maybe with some stuff I forget atm). When we accept the truth of those axioms, all at once, then we begin studying 'the number line'.
Personally, studying unintuitive concepts via the language of mathematics interests me. That's how mathematics allows you to expand the list of things that you find intuitive. First, only the abstract language of mathematics describes some logical object. The logical object itself may or may not be 'intuitive' from the outset. Eventually, after studying a logical concept via math for a time, I can eventually gain some intuition concerning the object. I've done this with the real and complex number systems (separately), partial and ordinary differential equations, vector/inner product spaces, mathematical knots, and etc.
PS If you're looking for a way to study calculus or the real numbers in a "more intuitive sense", I suggest you look up the hyperreal number system.
'eh The complex numbers are (one) logical extension of the real number system (aka 'number line'). Can't have a complex plane without two real number lines.
Young mathematicians that died young, in the past, made some of the most surprising and stunning discoveries. So, the unwritten joke goes "as a mathematician, if you live past 40 then you've contributed nothing amazing." (But, that's not actually taken seriously.)
Examples include Ramanujan and Galois (crap, can't think of any others).
I skimmed through the points, and I'm not impressed. Probably the most interesting area is how Writer offers more control over exporting to PDF. You can specify image compression levels, what page gets displayed on a 'preview', and other parts of the exported PDF. (It didn't say that you could create/modify the PDF's Table of Contents, and I bet you can't. That would have been a big bonus.)
The rest of the points sounded like comments someone who doesn't actually use Word would make.
-Can't modify styles by some hierarchy.
--I'm still unclear what they mean by that. I can easily modify styles in Word and have them reflected throughout the document.
-Some comment about how Word relies on a standardized "Normal" template. They mention Writer maintains a standard template, too, but somehow they liked Writer's implementation better. (Not a good enough explanation for that.)
-They mention Writer has "true WYSIWYG header/footers"...which Word does, too.
For someone with experience using Word in a professional/academic setting, their points were under developed and just not all that good. The one area they had me really interested, PDF exports, they didn't go into enough detail on. If Writer can actually output decently useful PDFs, then that's a major selling point! Move that point up to Num1 instead of Num 11 or wherever it was.
Since it's the season for Presidential runs.
I think GP was making a joke. "so on and so forth" is kind of an indicator.
Bingo! I meant that as half sarcastic and half serious. My understanding is that "some people" took some theoretical concepts and applied them to overly optimistic data. (Amongst all the other problems, and simplified terribly.) This isn't a nerds/business people thing...if you use data that thinks real estate can only go up then how is it ever going to tell you real estate otherwise?
Ya, good thing it wasn't experienced financiers making financial decisions regarding mortgage derivatives that caused a huge housing bubble and subsequent destruction of the economy a few years ago.
It wasn't, it was "financial engineers" or "quants" (people with engineering/science backgrounds that were crossed over to finance positions) that created/engineered mortgaged derivatives that caused a huge housing bubble and so on and so forth XD
Yep, not going to work in a "low humidity" desert (which is probably more in need of water).
I'm not a chemist, but I think it's output is linearly related to the average amount of humidity in the air. In all the deserts I've lived in the humidity averages well below 20%. My guess is there isn't enough water in the air to make the difference.
Umm...the book is about information overload and not food overload.
This reminds me of my philosophy of science class. A scientific hypothesis must:
-be concise
-make *single* predictions given one set of inputs
For instance, consider a hypothesis of how gravity works as "any object that is thrown up into the air will either: fly up continuously, fall down eventually, fly to the left, or fly to the right" This isn't a scientific hypothesis since (almost) every possible outcome from "throwing an object in the air" is predicted. There's no way for that hypothesis to be proven wrong.
The internet acts, in a more general way, similarly to the above example. It's possible to find some website on the internet backing just about any claim, and every side of an issue. Don't think global warming is possible? There's a website out there that agrees with you and says you're right in thinking global warming is "wrong". Think global warming might/is caused by human activity? There's a website out there for *that*, too.
My solution has been to create a personal "white list" of sources that I trust. Math topics are generally covered well by mathworld.wolfram.com or reputable .edu sites, for instance. I'm skeptical about any math related mumbo jumbo outside of mathworld or a reputable .edu site. I've also got a math background and all of my course textbooks to cross reference.
Uhhh... you know... Chrome OS has existed for three years now. This is just a UI update.
Yeah, I know it's existed. I just wish they'd do something other than a webos...something original, new, useful, interesting.
Hey, google, do us a favor and actually do something ground breaking with your OS. Take some cues from Plan9 that were never implemented on a desktop. Maybe make it more like a network OS than a hardware OS?
It sounds like it's going to be little more than a bootable interface to the web, I know. But google does employ people that were part of the Plan9 project, so it's not like they can't do something NEW.
Also, let me not be the first to say...I hope they realize they have to respect their users' privacy on their actual hardware...(I suspect they wont.)
Just one little point...getting a permanent job isn't easy. I don't care what the field is in! Landing a career was difficult 50 years ago and it's much more so now. Why single science out as a special case when it's clearly not?
My advice is to be a good student, and start talking to your professors as soon as you can while in college. They'll help you understand the material, of course, but they'll eventually be who helps you find work or take the next educational step. Try to get internships in whatever field you're studying. If those don't exist, try to get hired as a grader for classes or offer your services as a tutor to HS or the lower college classes.
You need to be a good student *and* social enough that the people who matter (professors) know who you are. (With the caveat that you shouldn't annoy your professors by showering them with compliments or anything unseemly.)
They say that evloution can't be true because the bible says it. And that global warming must be wrong because they like driving an SUV, and because they know they are nice people they cannot be impacting the environment.
Bingo! Unfortunately, slashdot isn't immune to the loud, uninformed internet minions. That's the problem with anything on the internet. If you have a question and an answer in mind, then someone's already written up that answer somewhere on the internet with which ever opinion you have of it. So don't rely on internet sources.
Rely on the scientific method and peer-reviewed journals or sources (aka published professors/fellow students).
And *please* don't let anybody but yourself decide what makes you happy. Of people on slashdot or you, only YOU will know when you've found work that makes you happy.
I'm pretty sure "cake slicing" is analogous to efficiently sharing any finite resource. (And what resource isn't finite?)
I haven't checked my sources (which are EBSCO...), but the article does mention the primary researcher is a doctoral student. Maybe this is some new or somewhat "outdated" process that hasn't been researched at all or recently. I got the impression the research was still "in process" and not completed/published, as well.
I'm not an engineer, so get out your salt-lick before reading...but, they've developed a "proof of concept" device. I don't know if it's even appropriate to discuss "practical" uses of this device, yet. It's possibly a very expensive way to produce hydrogen and may not be meant to see much light of day outside academic circles.
One interesting feature of the reactor is that, in theory, the zinc oxide byproduct created during the reaction will be re-usable, making the project self-sustaining.
“This is probably the most complex device built by a graduate student in the history of our department,” added Prasad. “If he is successful, one day, we can imagine a huge array of mirrors out in the desert concentrating sunlight up into a large central tower containing a larger version of Erik’s reactor and making hydrogen on an industrial scale.”
So there's "hope", but is currently experimental:
We [they] will measure the temperature and the production of oxygen inside the reactor in real time, which will tell us how much solar fuel or zinc we are actually producing,” Koepf explained.
All of the above from TFA.
As someone who's tried to locate data before, I wish them all the luck in the world.
I know this is the internet, so UFOs carry aliens, we never actually landed on the moon, and I'll be trolled for saying this...But, we've never had the modern day's archival abilities before. I'm glad to hear someone's attempting to put it to good use.
The assertion from the article that success requires computer skills doesn't rule out success also requiring other things.
That's a very good point. Necessary conditions are different from sufficient conditions. It's necessary to be female to give birth to a live child, but being a female doesn't guarantee birth of a live child.
And so the USA. The Marshall Plan after WWI ruined all the third world economies and industries in the thir world countries not involved in the WWII, and force them to produce commodities only until today, followed by a sad series of dictatorship after dictatorship
From wikipedia:
The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was the large-scale American program to aid Europe where the United States gave monetary support to help rebuild European economies after the end of World War II in order to combat the spread of Soviet communism.[1] The plan was in operation for four years beginning in April 1948. The goals of the United States were to rebuild a war-devastated region, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, and make Europe prosperous again. The initiative was named after Secretary of State George Marshall. The plan had bipartisan support in Washington, where the Republicans controlled Congress and the Democrats controlled the White House. The Plan was largely the creation of State Department officials, especially William L. Clayton and George F. Kennan. Marshall spoke of urgent need to help the European recovery in his address at Harvard University in June 1947.[
I don't see where your statement stems from.
I'm all for placing tariffs on all Chinese imports. Yes, that raises prices on our end with respect to imports from China. China has a history of dumping (look up the term). The US needs to place tariffs on Chinese products to reduce the impact of its dumping procedures.
Tariffs on solar panels from China are not inconsistent with subsidies on solar panels. Why? Because while subsidies (artificially) increase demand in a good; tariffs (artificially) decrease demand in a good. The combined affect gently nudges people to purchase solar panels not produced in China.
And that, my friends, is how tariffs and subsidies can apply to the same market.
I dig how the title for this article, at least, sounds as though researchers stumbled across a working hypothesis...as though scientific hypotheses are hit upon like a rock in the road.
I predict the billion year "planet" phase of the great space moth is nearing completion. In another million years, the beautiful space moth will spread its wings and fly away.
I look forward to hearing from actual users how well these drivers work.
As somebody who is a self taught programmer (15+ years working as a programmer, 7 different programming languages, 50+ orielly/programming books) I can tell you that having a degree in anything doesn't mean you understand how to use that knowledge.
I agree, you've still got things to prove *after* you have a degree *in the field of interest*. 15 years of work in the field counts as proof...
The rest of your point is, pretty much, "devise ways to get verifiable work experience". It's general practice to assume a one-for-one equivalence between years of work experience and years in education, FWIW. (It's the sort of thing economists do in their datasets and managers do in their thought processes.)