Yeah, apologies for the tin-hat stuff. I'm sure his algorithm shows great promis, and will no doubt put him in the upper echelon of search programmers.
Yesssss. He's wearing sunglasses. He is from Israel. And he has 'developed' a searching algorithm.
Riiiiiight.
Somewhere in the dim recesses of my brain is a faint memory of a huge searchable database available to "certain Israelis" cough.. moss*% cough, long before anyone had ever heard of a Google.
There's an old joke (which should probably be brought up to date), which goes something like this.
"The Chinese are the world's smartest people, because by four years of age they can all speak Chinese."
Language learning is unusual in that it is the only thing that cannot be learned the way an adult learns things.
"But how else is there to learn things?", I hear you ask. Well, one can also learn things as a child learns them, but that would require changing your learning strategy dramatically, something which many adults have great difficulty doing, especially college professors:)
You see, children have a method of learning that is outcome directed. It is a natural method of learning that the School system spends 12 years unlearning them in, and replacing it with a method of learning that is comparitive directed. To illustrate, here is an example.
Let's say a child is hungry. The outcome is to obtain food. In an outcome directed learning method, as long as food is obtained, then the learning is considered successfull. Or in other words, no matter what the child says, or how they pronounce what they say, if food is obtained (the outcome), then they have succeeded at the learning task. (NB: This method of learning has been studied in some detail and is elegantly described by the TOTE model (Test Operate Test Exit))
Comparitive directed learning, on the other hand, requires that the correct words are spoken in the correct order with the correct pronounciation. To determine "correctness", a comparison is made between the learner (or student) and the baseline model (eg. a native adult speaker). In the comparitive method, success is judged not on the outcome of the communication (obtained food), but on the relative difference between the learner and the model.
Because language aquisition does not lend itself to comparitive directed learning, those who use this method are setting themselves up for failure. However those who are use outcome directed learning in their language aquisition will enjoy much greater success, much less frustration and even less "failure" for their efforts.
All of which is a long way of saying that college professors are the last people from which to obtain advice on how or whether to learn Japanese, and that when embarking on a programme of language aquisition, begin with the end in mind.
(*It is understood that the culture that is exported has little or no resemblence to the actual culture within the country. I suspect this is pretty much the case with any country, though)
God I hope so. Given what we in "foreign countries" see of that which has been exported from the USoA makes us think you are all stupid assholes.
1. Turbines in a jet engine are located after compression and combustion occur.
You are right of course. The compression is usually achieved by turbo-fans on the inlet side.
The reason hydrogen is used as fuel for the scramjet is because the pressure tolerances for the engine are extremely small.
Pressure tolerance of say... a detonation of fuel?
The reason they're comparing a Scramjet to a rocket engine is because having a Scramjet would dramatically reduce the weight of orbital flight by not having to carry its own oxidizer.
I fail to see how the scramjet will work when it is out of the atmosphere. Sure, getting the "rocket" to the upper boundary of the atmosphere will not require LOX, but exiting the atmosphere surely will? My understanding of orbital flight could be wrong of course...
However the feasibility of using a Scramjet engine for a single stage to orbit vehicle poses problems of its own
As a single stage, yes. But as a first stage in a two stage rocket, (strictly a second stage in a three stage rocket as the first stage needs to get the rocket to supersonic) it may be worth pursuing as the fuel load requirements are much lower for the scramjet stage.
Scramjet (supersonic combustion ramjet) engines have no moving parts and take all of the oxygen they need (to burn hydrogen fuel) from the air, allowing for larger loads than rockets which must carry oxygen for fuel.
All jet engines take the oxygen they need from the air. Only rocket engines leaving the atmosphere require an onboard source of oxygen. Even the U2, which flew at > 40,000ft got it's oxygen from the surrounding air.
And the Scramjet is a jet engine, not a rocket engine. The difference you were looking for is that scramjet engines do not require a turbine to compress the surrounding air. This allows the engine to move at a much faster speed because turbine engines have an upper speed limit before the stresses pull them apart.
Also, theoretically if the compression was high enough the scramjet could burn jet fuel (kerosene) but there is probably technical difficulties with injection (ie. avoiding hot spots and detonation).
For the most part we keep hearing that the 9/11 attacks were the work of a "small handful of extremists"
That's true. What isn't true is that they were Muslims.
but we're seeing now that this group isn't so small and what we were told was the extreme may in fact be the norm.
No, the group is small, but yes they are very extreme. Fundamental extremists in fact. However, they are pulling are great number of people to their extremist views, as so clearly evidenced by your imbecilic dribblings.
But really, PETA nuts aside, even the lowest examples of my own animal species trump all other creatures on Earth.
As much as the extinction of the common house cat would fill me with wonderous joy, I cannot bring myself to encourage it so that members of our species can continue to propogate.
Let's put this chestnut to bed here and now: These so-called IOU's are US Federal Bonds. The single most secure savings instrument on the planet.
[thump] (sound of jaw hitting ground)
US federal bonds are securities issued by the US federal government. Which means that the US federal government borrowed money from itself to by bonds issued by itself, to receive interest from itself.
What part of this equation escapes you? Or were you attempting sarcastic humour and the written word did not convey it?
Quite probably, blogs will take over a lot of that, until somebody gets smart and moves towards converging that into a truely new source of info;
I think that the evolution of the blog is the multi-blog. Which will be somewhat like your vision of the pure virtual paper. There would be X (say 10) bloggers, each with their own column, organised into articles. Kind of like slashdot!
Google doesn't pay for linking to them and uses advertising to subsidize their non-payments.
You're not a very accomplished liar are you? Show me one advertisement on news.google.com and you might have a point.
Since when have you ever paid for an AP or Reuters news story online. The news sites posting them pay for them, and use advertising to subsidize.
Yes, and they create almost no news of their own. In other words, what Google is showing is that all of these so called 'NewsPapers' are nothing more than distribution channels for syndicated news. Or to put it another way, there is no reason to buy one newpaper as opposed to any other.
I think the real issue here is that the concept of the 'Newspaper' is dying. With the Internet, news is obiquitous, instantaneous and democratic. One can invision a future where consumers will subscribe to a single news service and then filter by region, topic etc. All journalists will then be working for the syndication companies.
This turns the whole news business model upside down. Currently, "The New York Times" is a brand that is used to sell advertising space to corporate advertisers. There is a huge vested interest in sustaining this model for a number of reasons. 1) Advertisers influence the type of news that is printed. In other words, the flow of information is influenced, nay corrupted, by the corporate world. 2) Huge amounts of money have been invested into these news 'brands'. Changing the model dilutes the value of the brand,effectively causing a capital loss. 3) Following on from (1), information flow influences political thought. If the newpaper influences political thinking, and advertisers influence the newspaper, then the advertisers (corporations) indirectly influence political thought. This is a powerfull lever that nobody would want to give up.
Slashdot Mirror
I found my girlfriend through Slashdot
That's nice.
Where did you lose her?
So I can copy GPL'ed code and just ignore the license? Sweet deal.
... yes, you can. You just can't distribute a binary made from GPL'ed code without making the source available.
Er
Or do have another meaning for 'copy'?
Yeah, apologies for the tin-hat stuff. I'm sure his algorithm shows great promis, and will no doubt put him in the upper echelon of search programmers.
You can go on correcting some people until the cows come home to roost - and they just never learn
You can lead those cows to water but you can't make them cross their "i"s or dot their "t"s.
Yesssss. He's wearing sunglasses. He is from Israel. And he has 'developed' a searching algorithm.
.. moss*% cough, long before anyone had ever heard of a Google.
Riiiiiight.
Somewhere in the dim recesses of my brain is a faint memory of a huge searchable database available to "certain Israelis" cough
There's an old joke (which should probably be brought up to date), which goes something like this.
"The Chinese are the world's smartest people, because by four years of age they can all speak Chinese."
Language learning is unusual in that it is the only thing that cannot be learned the way an adult learns things.
"But how else is there to learn things?", I hear you ask. Well, one can also learn things as a child learns them, but that would require changing your learning strategy dramatically, something which many adults have great difficulty doing, especially college professors
You see, children have a method of learning that is outcome directed. It is a natural method of learning that the School system spends 12 years unlearning them in, and replacing it with a method of learning that is comparitive directed. To illustrate, here is an example.
Let's say a child is hungry. The outcome is to obtain food. In an outcome directed learning method, as long as food is obtained, then the learning is considered successfull. Or in other words, no matter what the child says, or how they pronounce what they say, if food is obtained (the outcome), then they have succeeded at the learning task. (NB: This method of learning has been studied in some detail and is elegantly described by the TOTE model (Test Operate Test Exit))
Comparitive directed learning, on the other hand, requires that the correct words are spoken in the correct order with the correct pronounciation. To determine "correctness", a comparison is made between the learner (or student) and the baseline model (eg. a native adult speaker). In the comparitive method, success is judged not on the outcome of the communication (obtained food), but on the relative difference between the learner and the model.
Because language aquisition does not lend itself to comparitive directed learning, those who use this method are setting themselves up for failure. However those who are use outcome directed learning in their language aquisition will enjoy much greater success, much less frustration and even less "failure" for their efforts.
All of which is a long way of saying that college professors are the last people from which to obtain advice on how or whether to learn Japanese, and that when embarking on a programme of language aquisition, begin with the end in mind.
(*It is understood that the culture that is exported has little or no resemblence to the actual culture within the country. I suspect this is pretty much the case with any country, though)
God I hope so. Given what we in "foreign countries" see of that which has been exported from the USoA makes us think you are all stupid assholes.
But we know that's not the case... I think.
You want to clean up well. But you don't want to pretent you're something you're not.
What you wear is not what you are.
Hot spots and detonation on a turbine engine?
Repeat after me: Piston Engines != Turbine Engines.
The scramjet is not a turbine engine.
Repeat.
The scramjet is not a turbine engine.
Try greater than 60,000 with a ceiling somewhere in the 70s.
I knew that, but I couldn't find a good web reference at the time of the post. And technically, 60,000ft is > 40,000ft.
I'm not even sure where to start with this one...
:)
... a detonation of fuel?
...
Looks like you found your way
1. Turbines in a jet engine are located after compression and combustion occur.
You are right of course. The compression is usually achieved by turbo-fans on the inlet side.
The reason hydrogen is used as fuel for the scramjet is because the pressure tolerances for the engine are extremely small.
Pressure tolerance of say
The reason they're comparing a Scramjet to a rocket engine is because having a Scramjet would dramatically reduce the weight of orbital flight by not having to carry its own oxidizer.
I fail to see how the scramjet will work when it is out of the atmosphere. Sure, getting the "rocket" to the upper boundary of the atmosphere will not require LOX, but exiting the atmosphere surely will? My understanding of orbital flight could be wrong of course
However the feasibility of using a Scramjet engine for a single stage to orbit vehicle poses problems of its own
As a single stage, yes. But as a first stage in a two stage rocket, (strictly a second stage in a three stage rocket as the first stage needs to get the rocket to supersonic) it may be worth pursuing as the fuel load requirements are much lower for the scramjet stage.
Scramjet (supersonic combustion ramjet) engines have no moving parts and take all of the oxygen they need (to burn hydrogen fuel) from the air, allowing for larger loads than rockets which must carry oxygen for fuel.
All jet engines take the oxygen they need from the air. Only rocket engines leaving the atmosphere require an onboard source of oxygen. Even the U2, which flew at > 40,000ft got it's oxygen from the surrounding air.
And the Scramjet is a jet engine, not a rocket engine. The difference you were looking for is that scramjet engines do not require a turbine to compress the surrounding air. This allows the engine to move at a much faster speed because turbine engines have an upper speed limit before the stresses pull them apart.
Also, theoretically if the compression was high enough the scramjet could burn jet fuel (kerosene) but there is probably technical difficulties with injection (ie. avoiding hot spots and detonation).
Wouldn't it be nice to have a page limit too? I mean, who is going to read through a 300+ page document and agree/disagree with the whole thing?
Well hopefully the elected officials, it is after all, just their FUCKING JOB for crying out loud.
I mean they are corrupt,child-raping,murdering assholes but their fucking laziness is what really rubs.
I never said they were
#>plonk troll "east coast(590680)"
Done.
Shouldn't you people congratulate us for finally recognizing at least ONE of our past mistakes and taking steps to correct it?
We would if the cure was any better than the disease.
For the most part we keep hearing that the 9/11 attacks were the work of a "small handful of extremists"
That's true. What isn't true is that they were Muslims.
but we're seeing now that this group isn't so small and what we were told was the extreme may in fact be the norm.
No, the group is small, but yes they are very extreme. Fundamental extremists in fact. However, they are pulling are great number of people to their extremist views, as so clearly evidenced by your imbecilic dribblings.
So you're saying that if it's us or the cats, you vote for the cats?
Can I vote for neither?
But really, PETA nuts aside, even the lowest examples of my own animal species trump all other creatures on Earth.
As much as the extinction of the common house cat would fill me with wonderous joy, I cannot bring myself to encourage it so that members of our species can continue to propogate.
You'd never hear a US Journalist saying "Pull the other one Mr President"...
Yes, the tendency of the modern world is to be yellow-bellied kowtowing idolators.
I'm sure that I'll kick myself for this, but what are we going to be using lead for so much?
The same thing we are going to be using depleted uranium for.
Let's put this chestnut to bed here and now: These so-called IOU's are US Federal Bonds. The single most secure savings instrument on the planet.
[thump] (sound of jaw hitting ground)
US federal bonds are securities issued by the US federal government. Which means that the US federal government borrowed money from itself to by bonds issued by itself, to receive interest from itself.
What part of this equation escapes you? Or were you attempting sarcastic humour and the written word did not convey it?
It's going to be the result of a concerted effort of something like an organized drug cartel.
You mispelled CIA.
Well then you need this software. Or maybe even this slightly cheaper one.
Quite probably, blogs will take over a lot of that, until somebody gets smart and moves towards converging that into a truely new source of info;
I think that the evolution of the blog is the multi-blog. Which will be somewhat like your vision of the pure virtual paper. There would be X (say 10) bloggers, each with their own column, organised into articles. Kind of like slashdot!
Google doesn't pay for linking to them and uses advertising to subsidize their non-payments.
You're not a very accomplished liar are you? Show me one advertisement on news.google.com and you might have a point.
Since when have you ever paid for an AP or Reuters news story online. The news sites posting them pay for them, and use advertising to subsidize.
Yes, and they create almost no news of their own. In other words, what Google is showing is that all of these so called 'NewsPapers' are nothing more than distribution channels for syndicated news. Or to put it another way, there is no reason to buy one newpaper as opposed to any other.
I think the real issue here is that the concept of the 'Newspaper' is dying. With the Internet, news is obiquitous, instantaneous and democratic. One can invision a future where consumers will subscribe to a single news service and then filter by region, topic etc. All journalists will then be working for the syndication companies.
This turns the whole news business model upside down. Currently, "The New York Times" is a brand that is used to sell advertising space to corporate advertisers. There is a huge vested interest in sustaining this model for a number of reasons.
1) Advertisers influence the type of news that is printed. In other words, the flow of information is influenced, nay corrupted, by the corporate world.
2) Huge amounts of money have been invested into these news 'brands'. Changing the model dilutes the value of the brand,effectively causing a capital loss.
3) Following on from (1), information flow influences political thought. If the newpaper influences political thinking, and advertisers influence the newspaper, then the advertisers (corporations) indirectly influence political thought. This is a powerfull lever that nobody would want to give up.
YMMV