The problem with degrees is that they are out of date, or that they are focussed on academic directions. In the end, when we hire new coders, we look for practical experience, not work-experience; and we look for coders, not academics. This is why we use tests - a degree will get you a long way - but in the end it's being able to refactor a complex logic structure without causing side-effects, and knowing how to write a set of unit tests which will demonstrate robustness. All of our key programmers can deliver a good 1,000 SLOC of C++ (I'm only attempting to give you an idea of the order of magnitude here - I know that SLOC is no good measure) in a day without breaking into a sweat; and all of them got to be like that because they love to write code; even working in it, many of us still program in our own time.
When we started using tests for positions, we saw the number of applicants drop from about a thousand per seat to about twenty per seat. Of those twenty, typically four are worth a FIRST interview. So we skip the first interview and spend a few hours working with the candidates instead.
What I have noticed from graduates is that the quality of knowledge had declined over the last decade. In our last recruitment test we had a simple logic refactoring question, and not one candidate was able to achieve the optimal answer.
So, we don't necessarily ask for any qualifications any more. But we expect skill and interest and determination. A recent markup engineer was 19 years old and knew more about markup than every other candidate put together.
The other thing is, some candidates actually like the tests - the tests indicate what the job will be about, and if the work is interesting to the candidate, (and after all, they will be 'tested' with real work just like it every day of their working life) then it's not such a burden.
We test for every position in the technical department. We tried doing tests for the design and business departments, but it didn't work nearly as well.
One of the difficulties is that measuring superiority with submarines is not as easy as you may think. For instance, every US combat submarine is nuclear - and what that means is that they cannot be silent. Diesel-electric submarines can be 100% silent - and as you probably know, being a submariner, that means that they are 100% undetectable unless you are bump into to them. Nuclear generators need to be regulated all the time - so they cannot shut down, and they have a much louder sonic signature than diesel-electric running silent or even on electric.
So the US got rid of Blueback in 1990 and lost an essential strategic vehicle in the process - short voyage and coastal work, and close work is done better with small diesel-electric submarines. As you know, one of the most important tasks is surveillance and for that you typically get very close to shore.
IMO, the primary purpose of the US submarine fleet over the last few decades was moved away from surveillance and towards providing an undetectable nuclear launch platform - as was seen necessary for the cold war.
Anyways - it's not so hard to identify 'superiority' out of a specific context.
Microsoft Outlook supports iCalendar, though there are some known problems with its support (many of which can be fixed by installing patches); in particular, Outlook 2000 users cannot process iCalendar files created by Outlook 2002 without patching because Outlook 2000 has an error in its iCalendar implementation. Users of Outlook must configure their mail program to use open Internet standards instead of Microsoft's proprietary specifications. Users of Microsoft Outlook 2003 can install RemoteCalendars. in order to subscribe, delete and reload a generic iCalendar through the web.
Outlook 2007 is now fully compatible with iCalendar. Users can add calendars under Account Options and set how often they should be updated. Individual calendars are shown as a list of checkboxes so you can view or hide a calendar without unsubscribing and they can be viewed as separate tabs or overlaid into a single calendar.
iCalendar support includes support for VTODO, VJOURNAL, etc. and Outlook 2007 still cannot import these objects.
Windows Calendar, found in the newly released Windows Vista also supports iCalendar.
The question you should be asking is - which shared calendar protocol should we choose? Then you don't need to worry about choosing a package, as long as it can manage the correct protocol. The decision will depend upon your environment, budget and beliefs; but as a general rule, going for an open standard isn't such a bad idea. RFC 2445 (aka iCalendar - based on the earlier vCalendar standard) should be a safe bet. You will be able to engineer solutions - not just for desktops, but also for some handhelds.
RFC 2445 is implemented/supported by a large number of products, including 30 Boxes, Apple's iCal application, Darwin Calendar Server, Contactizer and iPod, Chandler, Drupal with its event module, Citadel, Facebook, FirstClass, Google Calendar, Jalios JCMS, KOrganizer, Lotus Notes, Microsoft Entourage, Mozilla Calendar (including Mozilla Sunbird), Mulberry, Novell Evolution, Novell GroupWise, Nuvvo, Simple Groupware, Upcoming.org, Windows Calendar, Webical, Zimbra Collaboration Suite, and Microsoft Outlook (see below). Notably missing from this list is the Palm Desktop and Palm (PDA). Blackberry, Internet edition, does not recognize iCalendar, although in concert with the Blackberry Server, iCalendar invites can be sent and received.
Our company chose this route for a similar issue, using a WebDav server as a backend.
So.. unless you have wild environment, budget or beliefs - there isn't much choice!
The only reason I have Windows (well except for testing production websites in IE) is for games. We use Mac OS X for our workstations (lower support cost, higher productivity) and Linux for our Servers. For me, gaming is moving onto handhelds, consoles and cardboard. Vista? Maybe sometime in a year or two.
It amazes me that there are coders - even managers - who have posted here and do not use xhtml in utf-8.
Moreover, it amazes me even more that an xml signature in front of validating xhtml sticks MSIE into quirks mode.
We've been writing valid xhtml utf-8 sites for years now. The advantages are many. xml coding turns content into an asset beyond mere presentation - and data miners and other intelligent agents can make use of xml with ease.
I guess that many people just never bother to learn how to code properly, or don't see the long term benefit to their sites, or to the sites commissioned by their clients.
Re:Nanotech bounding forth with no safety concerns
on
Nanotech Gone Awry?
·
· Score: 1
"life does a reasonable job of exhausting chemical based energy sources" - literally. One of the best chemical-based energy sources on this planet is oxygen, all of which is what was originally toxic 'exhaust' excreted by the early phases of life on this planet. Life adapts, and turned this toxin into a great energy-source, especially tied to sunlight.
The raw materials for our kind of life are pretty simple- Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, and power (normally the sun). If (I know, it's a huge if) nanoreplicators were able to decompose molecules constructed of these three elements, and recompose themselves using those three with maybe the odd bit of other stuff, then grey goo is a possibility. It would pretty quickly strip life as we know it off the surface of the planet.
Of course, one would need to develop a general purpose organic molecule decomposition department for the self-replicator, which is some pretty neat kit. Of course, biology doesn't bother - there's enough specialised 'food' for survival around - you can't move for energy sources as a bacteria, and adaptation has managed to stay one step ahead of supply, otherwise we would be extinct.
So, I disagree that 'grey goo' falls apart with the parent's argument: Nanotech can find plenty of raw materials that would devastate life - if those materials are primarily O/H/C - implementing oxygen as a secondary (chemical) energy source, just as most life does right now. Nanotech replicators may not have the same limitations as bacteria or virii; I'm not saying it's easy, but I'm certainly not going to state it as impossible or that it's never going to happen. Life as we know it hangs by a thread.
Of course, anyone who walks in fear of the impending grey goo should re-evaluate their own mental health. One may as well walk in fear of accidental teleportation accidents.
Have you attempted to create any myths of your own?
There is a myth that myths/new words can be created and propagated very easily, such as the famous myth relating to the Dublin origins of the word "Quiz" - similar to memes such as "All your Base" -though you tend to prefer big explosion myths (and I know why!)
So - why not see if you can create a myth (that involves explosions, and bust your own myth, and then confirm the myth of being able to create myths?!
Taking a generous estimate of the radius of the solar system to be 100AU (1 AU is the distance from the earth to the sun), using a simple spherical model for the shape of the solar system, and if we have a Japanese rice writer (called Takahiro), who can write zeros at 0.01mm on very thin paper 0.01mm thick, we can work out just how many zeros Takahiro can fit into the universe. (To be clear, we are stating that Takahiro can write a zero on a piece of paper 0.01mm x 0.01mm x 0.01mm, so along a strip of paper 1 mm long, he can write 100 zeros)
1 AU = 149597870.691 kilometers 100 AU = 14959787069.1 Km = 14,959,787,069,100 m = 1,495,978,706,910,000 cm = 14,959,787,069,100,000 mm
= 1,495,978,706,910,000,000 zeros is how many zeros Takahiro can write along 100 AU, the radius of the solar system.
So, we can get the volume of a sphere using V = (4/3)(PI)(r^3), so we can measure the volume of the solar system in Takahiro zeros as about 14,023,772,097,665,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000,000,000,000,000,000 zeros; just over 14 octodecillion zeros.
So, our heroic Takahiro didn't get close to writing out the googolplex.
Let's now imagine that he managed to get "Epic zero-writing +100 power up elite uberskillz", and could write a hundred thousand zeros along a strip of paper 1mm and 0.00001mm thick. Hey, he can still only fit in 14,023,772,097,665,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 zeros; - a paltry 14,023 vigintillion zeros.
Just to let you know just how small Takahiro's handwriting needs to be to fit the googolplex into the solar system (and why it is a safe bet), he needs to fit 89.5 quadrillion zeros along a millimeter of paper that is 89.5 quadrillionth of a millimeter thick.
Essentially, he needs to write a zero at every 112 femtometers. - significantly smaller than the distance between the carbon atoms in diamond, which are spaced at 142000 femtometers center to center.
A million is 1000^2 or 10^6, a billion is 1000^3 or 10^9, a trillion is 1000^4 or 10^12, a quadrillion is 1000^5 or 10^15 a quintillion is 1000^6 or 10^18 a sextillion is 1000^7 or 10^21 a septillion is 1000^8 or 10^24 a octillion is 1000^9 or 10^27 a nonillion is 1000^11 or 10^30 a decillion is 1000^12 or 10^33 a undecillion is 1000^13 or 10^36 a duodecillion is 1000^14 or 10^39 a tredecillion is 1000^15 or 10^40 a quattuordecillion is 1000^16 or 10^42 a quindecillion is 1000^17 or 10^45 a sexdecillion is 1000^18 or 10^48 a septendecillion is 1000^19 or 10^51 a octodecillion is 1000^20 or 10^54 a novemdecillion is 1000^21 or 10^57 a vigintillion is 1000^22 or 10^60.... a zillion is 10^playground.... a googol is 10^100 a googolplex is 10^googol (if you wrote this down in its expanded form, the paper would not fit into the volume of the solar system)
So the wattage output of the SGR 1806-20 flare is just a piddly 1.0 tredecillion watts - or, you you adopt Jim Blower's Extended System of Units, that would be 10 tredawatts..
A million is 1000^2 or 10^6, a billion is 1000^3 or 10^9, a trillion is 1000^4 or 10^12, a quadrillion is 1000^5 or 10^15 a quintillion is 1000^6 or 10^18 a sextillion is 1000^7 or 10^21 a septillion is 1000^8 or 10^24 a octillion is 1000^9 or 10^27 a nonillion is 1000^11 or 10^30 a decillion is 1000^12 or 10^33 a undecillion is 1000^13 or 10^36 a duodecillion is 1000^14 or 10^39 a tredecillion is 1000^15 or 10^40 a quattuordecillion is 1000^16 or 10^42 a quindecillion is 1000^17 or 10^45 a sexdecillion is 1000^18 or 10^48 a septendecillion is 1000^19 or 10^51 a octodecillion is 1000^20 or 10^54 a novemdecillion is 1000^21 or 10^57 a vigintillion is 1000^22 or 10^60.... a zillion is 10^playground.... a googol is 10^100 a googolplex is 10^googol (if you wrote this down in its expanded form, the paper would not fit into the volume of the solar system)
So the wattage output is just a piddly 1.0 tredecillion watts - or, you you adopt Jim Blower's Extended System of Units, that would be 10 tredawatts..
$3000 for a 800x600 B/W screen (four levels of gray) Takes me back about 25 years. Fair enough that it is new technology - but I guess this is for lab testing only. Unless you are a real early adopter nut!
Yeah! Like that! An audio-meta search tool is hardly rocket science - but that stuff above is more like it - though I don't like that they are attempting to sell the service.
Aw. I was disappointed - I expected an audio search, not an audio metadata search. I was wondering how their audio search would work.. Something like a recording interface expecting the searcher to hum, whistle or sing the song they are looking for..
It would never get to beat modern computer chess programs, as it depends upon a database of previous games that are similar to the current game played, and has no scope for examining possible futures.
A graylist approach could prevent unwanted chess players, by identifying those gamers willing to stick around for a retry.
off on the far left are two cyclists. One has a red backpack. If you follow the road up, and take a left past some trees - there he is again, this time without his friend.
Wikipedia cannot be said to be completely accurate, but you will get a very good overview, based upon a mixture of expertise and community thoughts.
Extreme views tend to be put to one side in an effort to strip away spin and leave the facts.
Political history, and other details are available as links. The two articles change very often, now that the campaign is underway.
George Bush Presidential Campaign John Kerry Presidential Campaign
Also it is worth checking out the article discussions, for opposing views, challenges and related links.
Well, he is reliably credited with solving the Bieberbach conjecture - the guy isn't a complete nut.
However, a quick scan suggests that if his proof is indeed verified, it won't do what a lot of people want it to do: Quote from the article: "The proof of the Riemann hypothesis verifies a positivity condition only for those Dirichlet zeta functions which are associated with nonprincipal real characters. The classical zeta function does not satisfy a positivity condition since the condition is not compatible with the singularity of the function. But a weaker condition is satisfied which has the desired implication for zeros."
So I may be wrong, but it looks like he may have found ground on a restricted interpretation of the GRH (or Generalized Riemann Hypothesis), -ie concerning Dirichlet zeta functions which are associated with nonprincipal real characters only.
As for consequences, If GRH is indeed true, then e.g. the Miller-Rabin primality test is guaranteed to run in polynomial time.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with degrees is that they are out of date, or that they are focussed on academic directions. In the end, when we hire new coders, we look for practical experience, not work-experience; and we look for coders, not academics. This is why we use tests - a degree will get you a long way - but in the end it's being able to refactor a complex logic structure without causing side-effects, and knowing how to write a set of unit tests which will demonstrate robustness. All of our key programmers can deliver a good 1,000 SLOC of C++ (I'm only attempting to give you an idea of the order of magnitude here - I know that SLOC is no good measure) in a day without breaking into a sweat; and all of them got to be like that because they love to write code; even working in it, many of us still program in our own time.
When we started using tests for positions, we saw the number of applicants drop from about a thousand per seat to about twenty per seat. Of those twenty, typically four are worth a FIRST interview. So we skip the first interview and spend a few hours working with the candidates instead.
What I have noticed from graduates is that the quality of knowledge had declined over the last decade. In our last recruitment test we had a simple logic refactoring question, and not one candidate was able to achieve the optimal answer.
So, we don't necessarily ask for any qualifications any more. But we expect skill and interest and determination. A recent markup engineer was 19 years old and knew more about markup than every other candidate put together.
The other thing is, some candidates actually like the tests - the tests indicate what the job will be about, and if the work is interesting to the candidate, (and after all, they will be 'tested' with real work just like it every day of their working life) then it's not such a burden.
We test for every position in the technical department. We tried doing tests for the design and business departments, but it didn't work nearly as well.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7293988.stm
So, according to bbc news, they have stopped it working.
It works fine still on the iPod..
Silence is possible. You just bottom the boat and stop moving around. It's not possible to sustain for a very long time - but it's possible.
One of the difficulties is that measuring superiority with submarines is not as easy as you may think. For instance, every US combat submarine is nuclear - and what that means is that they cannot be silent. Diesel-electric submarines can be 100% silent - and as you probably know, being a submariner, that means that they are 100% undetectable unless you are bump into to them. Nuclear generators need to be regulated all the time - so they cannot shut down, and they have a much louder sonic signature than diesel-electric running silent or even on electric.
So the US got rid of Blueback in 1990 and lost an essential strategic vehicle in the process - short voyage and coastal work, and close work is done better with small diesel-electric submarines. As you know, one of the most important tasks is surveillance and for that you typically get very close to shore.
IMO, the primary purpose of the US submarine fleet over the last few decades was moved away from surveillance and towards providing an undetectable nuclear launch platform - as was seen necessary for the cold war.
Anyways - it's not so hard to identify 'superiority' out of a specific context.
Microsoft Outlook supports iCalendar, though there are some known problems with its support (many of which can be fixed by installing patches); in particular, Outlook 2000 users cannot process iCalendar files created by Outlook 2002 without patching because Outlook 2000 has an error in its iCalendar implementation. Users of Outlook must configure their mail program to use open Internet standards instead of Microsoft's proprietary specifications. Users of Microsoft Outlook 2003 can install RemoteCalendars. in order to subscribe, delete and reload a generic iCalendar through the web.
Outlook 2007 is now fully compatible with iCalendar. Users can add calendars under Account Options and set how often they should be updated. Individual calendars are shown as a list of checkboxes so you can view or hide a calendar without unsubscribing and they can be viewed as separate tabs or overlaid into a single calendar.
iCalendar support includes support for VTODO, VJOURNAL, etc. and Outlook 2007 still cannot import these objects.
Windows Calendar, found in the newly released Windows Vista also supports iCalendar.
The question you should be asking is - which shared calendar protocol should we choose?
Then you don't need to worry about choosing a package, as long as it can manage the correct protocol. The decision will depend upon your environment, budget and beliefs; but as a general rule, going for an open standard isn't such a bad idea. RFC 2445 (aka iCalendar - based on the earlier vCalendar standard) should be a safe bet. You will be able to engineer solutions - not just for desktops, but also for some handhelds.
RFC 2445 is implemented/supported by a large number of products, including 30 Boxes, Apple's iCal application, Darwin Calendar Server, Contactizer and iPod, Chandler, Drupal with its event module, Citadel, Facebook, FirstClass, Google Calendar, Jalios JCMS, KOrganizer, Lotus Notes, Microsoft Entourage, Mozilla Calendar (including Mozilla Sunbird), Mulberry, Novell Evolution, Novell GroupWise, Nuvvo, Simple Groupware, Upcoming.org, Windows Calendar, Webical, Zimbra Collaboration Suite, and Microsoft Outlook (see below). Notably missing from this list is the Palm Desktop and Palm (PDA). Blackberry, Internet edition, does not recognize iCalendar, although in concert with the Blackberry Server, iCalendar invites can be sent and received.
Our company chose this route for a similar issue, using a WebDav server as a backend.
So.. unless you have wild environment, budget or beliefs - there isn't much choice!
The only reason I have Windows (well except for testing production websites in IE) is for games. We use Mac OS X for our workstations (lower support cost, higher productivity) and Linux for our Servers. For me, gaming is moving onto handhelds, consoles and cardboard. Vista? Maybe sometime in a year or two.
It amazes me that there are coders - even managers - who have posted here and do not use xhtml in utf-8.
Moreover, it amazes me even more that an xml signature in front of validating xhtml sticks MSIE into quirks mode.
We've been writing valid xhtml utf-8 sites for years now. The advantages are many. xml coding turns content into an asset beyond mere presentation - and data miners and other intelligent agents can make use of xml with ease.
I guess that many people just never bother to learn how to code properly, or don't see the long term benefit to their sites, or to the sites commissioned by their clients.
"life does a reasonable job of exhausting chemical based energy sources" - literally. One of the best chemical-based energy sources on this planet is oxygen, all of which is what was originally toxic 'exhaust' excreted by the early phases of life on this planet. Life adapts, and turned this toxin into a great energy-source, especially tied to sunlight.
The raw materials for our kind of life are pretty simple- Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, and power (normally the sun). If (I know, it's a huge if) nanoreplicators were able to decompose molecules constructed of these three elements, and recompose themselves using those three with maybe the odd bit of other stuff, then grey goo is a possibility. It would pretty quickly strip life as we know it off the surface of the planet.
Of course, one would need to develop a general purpose organic molecule decomposition department for the self-replicator, which is some pretty neat kit. Of course, biology doesn't bother - there's enough specialised 'food' for survival around - you can't move for energy sources as a bacteria, and adaptation has managed to stay one step ahead of supply, otherwise we would be extinct.
So, I disagree that 'grey goo' falls apart with the parent's argument: Nanotech can find plenty of raw materials that would devastate life - if those materials are primarily O/H/C - implementing oxygen as a secondary (chemical) energy source, just as most life does right now. Nanotech replicators may not have the same limitations as bacteria or virii; I'm not saying it's easy, but I'm certainly not going to state it as impossible or that it's never going to happen. Life as we know it hangs by a thread.
Of course, anyone who walks in fear of the impending grey goo should re-evaluate their own mental health. One may as well walk in fear of accidental teleportation accidents.
Have you attempted to create any myths of your own?
There is a myth that myths/new words can be created and propagated very easily, such as the famous myth relating to the Dublin origins of the word "Quiz" - similar to memes such as "All your Base" -though you tend to prefer big explosion myths (and I know why!)
So - why not see if you can create a myth (that involves explosions, and bust your own myth, and then confirm the myth of being able to create myths?!
Well see my note on Takahiro for the solar system equation - certainly one has to go very small indeed ... :-)
Taking a generous estimate of the radius of the solar system to be 100AU (1 AU is the distance from the earth to the sun), using a simple spherical model for the shape of the solar system, and if we have a Japanese rice writer (called Takahiro), who can write zeros at 0.01mm on very thin paper 0.01mm thick, we can work out just how many zeros Takahiro can fit into the universe. (To be clear, we are stating that Takahiro can write a zero on a piece of paper 0.01mm x 0.01mm x 0.01mm, so along a strip of paper 1 mm long, he can write 100 zeros)
0 ,000,000,000,000,000,000 zeros; just over 14 octodecillion zeros.
0 ,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 zeros; - a paltry 14,023 vigintillion zeros.
1 AU = 149597870.691 kilometers
100 AU = 14959787069.1 Km
= 14,959,787,069,100 m
= 1,495,978,706,910,000 cm
= 14,959,787,069,100,000 mm
= 1,495,978,706,910,000,000 zeros is how many zeros Takahiro can write along 100 AU, the radius of the solar system.
So, we can get the volume of a sphere using V = (4/3)(PI)(r^3), so we can measure the volume of the solar system in Takahiro zeros as about 14,023,772,097,665,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,00
So, our heroic Takahiro didn't get close to writing out the googolplex.
Let's now imagine that he managed to get "Epic zero-writing +100 power up elite uberskillz", and could write a hundred thousand zeros along a strip of paper 1mm and 0.00001mm thick. Hey, he can still only fit in
14,023,772,097,665,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,00
Just to let you know just how small Takahiro's handwriting needs to be to fit the googolplex into the solar system (and why it is a safe bet), he needs to fit 89.5 quadrillion zeros along a millimeter of paper that is 89.5 quadrillionth of a millimeter thick.
Essentially, he needs to write a zero at every 112 femtometers. - significantly smaller than the distance between the carbon atoms in diamond, which are spaced at 142000 femtometers center to center.
A million is 1000^2 or 10^6, .... ....
..
a billion is 1000^3 or 10^9,
a trillion is 1000^4 or 10^12,
a quadrillion is 1000^5 or 10^15
a quintillion is 1000^6 or 10^18
a sextillion is 1000^7 or 10^21
a septillion is 1000^8 or 10^24
a octillion is 1000^9 or 10^27
a nonillion is 1000^11 or 10^30
a decillion is 1000^12 or 10^33
a undecillion is 1000^13 or 10^36
a duodecillion is 1000^14 or 10^39
a tredecillion is 1000^15 or 10^40
a quattuordecillion is 1000^16 or 10^42
a quindecillion is 1000^17 or 10^45
a sexdecillion is 1000^18 or 10^48
a septendecillion is 1000^19 or 10^51
a octodecillion is 1000^20 or 10^54
a novemdecillion is 1000^21 or 10^57
a vigintillion is 1000^22 or 10^60
a zillion is 10^playground
a googol is 10^100
a googolplex is 10^googol (if you wrote this down in its expanded form, the paper would not fit into the volume of the solar system)
So the wattage output of the SGR 1806-20 flare is just a piddly 1.0 tredecillion watts - or, you you adopt Jim Blower's Extended System of Units, that would be 10 tredawatts
A million is 1000^2 or 10^6, .... ....
..
a billion is 1000^3 or 10^9,
a trillion is 1000^4 or 10^12,
a quadrillion is 1000^5 or 10^15
a quintillion is 1000^6 or 10^18
a sextillion is 1000^7 or 10^21
a septillion is 1000^8 or 10^24
a octillion is 1000^9 or 10^27
a nonillion is 1000^11 or 10^30
a decillion is 1000^12 or 10^33
a undecillion is 1000^13 or 10^36
a duodecillion is 1000^14 or 10^39
a tredecillion is 1000^15 or 10^40
a quattuordecillion is 1000^16 or 10^42
a quindecillion is 1000^17 or 10^45
a sexdecillion is 1000^18 or 10^48
a septendecillion is 1000^19 or 10^51
a octodecillion is 1000^20 or 10^54
a novemdecillion is 1000^21 or 10^57
a vigintillion is 1000^22 or 10^60
a zillion is 10^playground
a googol is 10^100
a googolplex is 10^googol (if you wrote this down in its expanded form, the paper would not fit into the volume of the solar system)
So the wattage output is just a piddly 1.0 tredecillion watts - or, you you adopt Jim Blower's Extended System of Units, that would be 10 tredawatts
$3000 for a 800x600 B/W screen (four levels of gray)
Takes me back about 25 years.
Fair enough that it is new technology - but I guess this is for lab testing only. Unless you are a real early adopter nut!
Yeah! Like that!
An audio-meta search tool is hardly rocket science - but that stuff above is more like it - though I don't like that they are attempting to sell the service.
Aw. I was disappointed - I expected an audio search, not an audio metadata search.
I was wondering how their audio search would work.. Something like a recording interface expecting the searcher to hum, whistle or sing the song they are looking for..
"it goes Dum di doo di doo diddly dum"
Basically, yes, but not so well.
It would never get to beat modern computer chess programs, as it depends upon a database of previous games that are similar to the current game played, and has no scope for examining possible futures.
A graylist approach could prevent unwanted chess players, by identifying those gamers willing to stick around for a retry.
off on the far left are two cyclists. One has a red backpack. If you follow the road up, and take a left past some trees - there he is again, this time without his friend.
From the response headers of ILB
Apache/1.3.19 (Unix) (Red-Hat/Linux)
Here is a PDF File from the project owners, including photo.
Wikipedia cannot be said to be completely accurate, but you will get a very good overview, based upon a mixture of expertise and community thoughts.
Extreme views tend to be put to one side in an effort to strip away spin and leave the facts.
Political history, and other details are available as links. The two articles change very often, now that the campaign is underway.
George Bush Presidential Campaign
John Kerry Presidential Campaign
Also it is worth checking out the article discussions, for opposing views, challenges and related links.
For an accessible math article on this, try http://mathworld.wolfram.com/news/2003-04-15/poinc are/
Well, he is reliably credited with solving the Bieberbach conjecture - the guy isn't a complete nut.
However, a quick scan suggests that if his proof is indeed verified, it won't do what a lot of people want it to do: Quote from the article: "The proof of the Riemann hypothesis verifies a positivity condition only for those Dirichlet zeta functions which are associated with nonprincipal real characters. The classical zeta function does not satisfy a positivity condition since the condition is not compatible with the singularity of the function. But a weaker condition is satisfied which has the desired implication for zeros."
So I may be wrong, but it looks like he may have found ground on a restricted interpretation of the GRH (or Generalized Riemann Hypothesis), -ie concerning Dirichlet zeta functions which are associated with nonprincipal real characters only.
As for consequences, If GRH is indeed true, then e.g. the Miller-Rabin primality test is guaranteed to run in polynomial time.