The chemical properties will not be any more different than between isotopes. Adding a Lambda instead of a neutron doesn't change the electrodynamical properties of the nucleus which govern the chemistry of the element.
It is worthwhile research. For instance: the neutron is stable in the nucleus, but not outside (its lifetime as a free particle is ~15 minutes). Now you put a Lambda into the nucleus. A free lambda has a lifetimetime of ~10^-10 seconds. Will it be stable inside the nucleus or not? Will it's lifetime be significantly altered? That's something you don't know without experiment. Even if you have a theory, without experiment you don't know if it's right.
You don't seriously doubt it's going to come, do you? A law has passed the house, a law has passed congress. They're not very far apart, everything that still needs to be done can be passed with simple majorities which the Democrats have with comfortable margins.
The prez is still trying to get the Republicans aboard, if that fails (I don't think anybody would bet differently) the Democrats will alone be responsible for the greatest step taken recently towards keeping the US a first-world country. The republicans seem to want to claim that his negotiation offer is not serious. Well, he publicized his planned law beforehand so that they would actually have something to talk about, and a basis for a discussion, but I'm sure they'll still claim, that the president didn't make a serious offer. Then Sarah Palin will suggest invading Canada.
Company-internal mail that needs to remain confidential needs not be encrypted -- as long as the company's mail servers remain within the company. Move your mail to google, and suddenly google knows you're getting a rise before you know it. Oh well, some people will call it a good thing if they're getting job offers before they learn that they're going to get laid off. Too bad though that the job offers will be for male escorts or something, as google also knows the reason why you're about to get laid off.
No, I actually like reading right-wing stuff. As an intellectual challenge, as in "are my beliefs consistent enough, should I change them?". The linked-to article is, as I pointed out, nothing but hypotheses, strawmans and unfounded Obama-bashing. That's a very different kind of article, not a challenge but merely a waste of time.
Whether the NYT is left-leaning or not (and as a European I'd say it's far off to the right, even though it may be a leftie publication from the POV of someone in North Dakota who only listens to Rush Limbaugh) doesn't matter in this context, because they were reporting the facts concerning this story and that's why I quoted them. Had my google turned up a story on Newsmax, I would have quoted it instead.
Why are you linking to this "article"? It contains no information, only the Obama-bashing expected from your American right-wingers and unsupported hypotheses.
If you care about facts, you can find them, a few seconds of searching revealed this for instance.
Quote:
Contrary to its portrayal in some movies, Interpol has no police force that conducts investigations and makes arrests. Rather, it serves its 188 member countries by working as a clearinghouse for police departments in different nations to share law enforcement information — like files on wanted criminals and terrorists, stolen cars and passports, and notices that a law enforcement agency has issued an arrest warrant for a fugitive.
...
“We don’t send officers into the field to arrest people; we don’t have agents that go investigate crimes,” said Rachel Billington, an Interpol spokeswoman. “This is always done by the national police in the member country under their national laws.”
When public international organizations are operating on United States soil, a law allows the president to grant them certain rights and immunities, just as foreign embassies receive privileges. More than 70 organizations — including the International Committee of the Red Cross, the World Bank and the International Pacific Halibut Commission — receive those rights.
... But Mr. Reagan’s order did not include other standard privileges — like immunity from certain tax requirements and from having its property or records subject to search and seizure — because at the time, Interpol had no permanent office or employees on United States soil.
That changed in 2004, when Interpol opened a liaison office at the United Nations in New York City.
... The State Department recommended approving the request, but the Bush White House did not complete the matter before its term ended, and so it rolled over.
In other words there appears to be nothing to get worked up about. Even if you believe whatever republicans do is right. Because they would have done the same.
If you're having problems with different versions of glibc on different target system then nothing's preventing you from distributing your application together with your favorite glibc. It's not like disk space would be any concern with any reasonably large application. You could also cut down glibc to whatever you need. And BTW this is an advantage of Free software as you are automatically entitled to redistributing the library yourself.
No, there are the following possibilities 1) both excess events are dark matter events 2) the first excess event is a dark matter event, the second isn't 3) the first excess event is not a dark matter event, the second is 4) both excess events aren't actually dark matter events
Hence, in one out of four cases there is no dark matter which gives their 23% after subtracting 2% since we actually know that there is dark matter.
Heads up everybody, these packet encapsulators, previously known as Envelope Attribution Logos shall henceforth be known as Standardized Envelope Attribution Logos, colloquially seals.
So with bigger drives the probability of Apple being sued because the 1TB iPod only appears as 990GB iPod in OS X increases. It was only a matter of time before the two domains software and hardware had to converge, and obviously they had to converge in the way that makes bigger numbers come out.
Since your employer paid you to create the patch, and since your employer will save money by not having you maintain a fork indefinitely, you should lure the maintainer with the strongest argument of all: money, paid by your boss.
in the frame of reference where the particles collide, they are moving much slower than the speed of light
This is really, really wrong. It doesn't even make sense. What is the frame of reference where the particles collide? Is it the frame where both have the same velocity / momentum / energy? Then this is the frame we're in, the frame where both protons are practically at the speed of light (the "center of mass frame" to put it into technical terms, which in the case of the LHC equals the so-called "lab frame"). If you're talking about the center of mass frames of the individual colliding quarks, then the energy is lower, as they only carry part of the momentum of the proton, but even there the collision is essentially at the speed of light.
You're of course alluding to the surprising fact that two particles moving towards eachother at essentially the speed of light in some frame don't move faster than the speed of light in their individual rest frames. That is correct, but your explanation is verging on the meaningless.
As for the rest of your post: cross-sections actually decrease with increasing energy, which is why the LHC has to go to such gigantic luminosities (technical term for something like "beam intensity").
An aside: it may not be well known, but actually the LHC at first won't be able to run at its target luminosity of 10^33 / (s cm^2), as the beam collimation system is not yet ready and needs to be refurbished in the 2010 / 2011 winter break.
This is wrong. No object can be stored at the address pointed to by a NULL pointer. In order to meaningfully (in the framework of the C standard) access the members of a struct, the struct itself has to exist. It can't exist at the address NULL. Therefore it doesn't matter if (ptrdiff_t)NULL + 2 != (ptrdiff_t)NULL, the code is still wrong.
They were writing nonsense. GCC makes use of the fact that in the C language any pointer that was dereferenced can't be NULL (this is made explicit in the standard). People use C as a high-level assembly where these assumptions don't hold. This is why code that doesn't assume this breaks. This issue came up a few months ago on the GCC lists, where an embedded developer pointed out that he regularly maps memory to the address 0x0, thereby running into issues with this assumption in the optimizers. The GCC developers introduced a command-line flag which tells the computer to not make that assumption, therefore allowing the compiler to be used even in environments where NULL pointers can be valid.
Now, the exploit uses this feature of the compiler (or the C language, if you will) to get the kernel into an unspecified state (which is then exploited) -- the NULL pointer check will be "correctly" optimized away. But in order to do this it first has to make sure that the pointer dereference preceding the NULL pointer check doesn't trap. This needs some mucking around with SELinux, namely one has to map memory to 0x0.
This is a beautiful exploit, which nicely demonstrates how complex interplay between parts can show unforeseen consequences. Linux fixes this by using the aforementioned new compiler option to not have the NULL pointer check optimized away.
Yet, they still mostly agree. Which points to there being a common reason for their agreement. This is the interesting thing. The reason may well be their higher average level of education and the fact that their day job requires critical thinking.
Whatever the server's implemented in, it's definitely not fast enough.
Today's Fortran is not the Fortran of 40 years ago. Ever since Fortran 90 (i.e. for almost twenty years) the language has real dynamic memory allocation and real ways of sharing data between different parts of the program. Fortran got its bad reputation because the lack of these features caused most old Fortran code to be hard to follow -- emulating memory allocation by using lots of large arrays, and tens of lines of repeated COMMON blocks scattered all through the code.EQ.ual very opaque code. And let's not forget that those codes were written to be extremely efficient in terms of CPU time as opposed to developer time.
It's no surprise that Fortran got this bad reputation some 25 years ago when the art of language design had advanced significantly beyond what was in Fortran originally, but people who still think they need to pontificate on that point should catch up with the times -- or at least with 20 years ago.
Huh? Exactly my point: the last value dominates the result, not the first. I'm not by any means disputing that it's the wrong thing to do.
To put it in a mathematically precise statement: if you put in a total of n values, the first is weighed with weight 2^(-n), the second with weight 2^(-n+1)... the n-th with weight 1/2, whereas for a true average all would be weighted with an equal weight of 1/n.
Readings are Not Averaged Correctly: When the software takes a series of readings, it first averages the first two readings. Then, it averages the third reading with the average just computed... There is no comment or note detailing a reason for this calculation, which would cause the first reading to have more weight than successive readings.
no matter how long the ellipsis. IOW the last measurement has the highest weight if indeed the algorithm works as described. Of course that's still wrong.
In other words, by running stories from news agencies themselves, google has turned from someone benefitting the various news sites into a freeloader.
No. If the AP wants to charge Google, they are free to do so. The papers that carry AP stories have not been granted an exclusive license.
I'll reply to you, but others have misunderstood me the same way. The work a newspaper does is in large parts selecting which agency stories are interesting or relevant. Google lets others do this work for them without compensation. That's the problem. I would have thought that I had made that point quite explicitly in my first point but judging from the numerous replies, apparently I didn't.
Slashdot Mirror
The chemical properties will not be any more different than between isotopes. Adding a Lambda instead of a neutron doesn't change the electrodynamical properties of the nucleus which govern the chemistry of the element.
It is worthwhile research. For instance: the neutron is stable in the nucleus, but not outside (its lifetime as a free particle is ~15 minutes). Now you put a Lambda into the nucleus. A free lambda has a lifetimetime of ~10^-10 seconds. Will it be stable inside the nucleus or not? Will it's lifetime be significantly altered? That's something you don't know without experiment. Even if you have a theory, without experiment you don't know if it's right.
You don't seriously doubt it's going to come, do you? A law has passed the house, a law has passed congress. They're not very far apart, everything that still needs to be done can be passed with simple majorities which the Democrats have with comfortable margins.
The prez is still trying to get the Republicans aboard, if that fails (I don't think anybody would bet differently) the Democrats will alone be responsible for the greatest step taken recently towards keeping the US a first-world country. The republicans seem to want to claim that his negotiation offer is not serious. Well, he publicized his planned law beforehand so that they would actually have something to talk about, and a basis for a discussion, but I'm sure they'll still claim, that the president didn't make a serious offer. Then Sarah Palin will suggest invading Canada.
Company-internal mail that needs to remain confidential needs not be encrypted -- as long as the company's mail servers remain within the company. Move your mail to google, and suddenly google knows you're getting a rise before you know it. Oh well, some people will call it a good thing if they're getting job offers before they learn that they're going to get laid off. Too bad though that the job offers will be for male escorts or something, as google also knows the reason why you're about to get laid off.
No, I actually like reading right-wing stuff. As an intellectual challenge, as in "are my beliefs consistent enough, should I change them?". The linked-to article is, as I pointed out, nothing but hypotheses, strawmans and unfounded Obama-bashing. That's a very different kind of article, not a challenge but merely a waste of time.
Whether the NYT is left-leaning or not (and as a European I'd say it's far off to the right, even though it may be a leftie publication from the POV of someone in North Dakota who only listens to Rush Limbaugh) doesn't matter in this context, because they were reporting the facts concerning this story and that's why I quoted them. Had my google turned up a story on Newsmax, I would have quoted it instead.
Sorry, I meant to make this a top-level reply. I meant the article linked to in the summary. Sorry, geoffrey.landis.
Why are you linking to this "article"? It contains no information, only the Obama-bashing expected from your American right-wingers and unsupported hypotheses.
If you care about facts, you can find them, a few seconds of searching revealed this for instance.
Quote:
In other words there appears to be nothing to get worked up about. Even if you believe whatever republicans do is right. Because they would have done the same.
You Americans are crazy.
If you're having problems with different versions of glibc on different target system then nothing's preventing you from distributing your application together with your favorite glibc. It's not like disk space would be any concern with any reasonably large application. You could also cut down glibc to whatever you need. And BTW this is an advantage of Free software as you are automatically entitled to redistributing the library yourself.
No, there are the following possibilities
1) both excess events are dark matter events
2) the first excess event is a dark matter event, the second isn't
3) the first excess event is not a dark matter event, the second is
4) both excess events aren't actually dark matter events
Hence, in one out of four cases there is no dark matter which gives their 23% after subtracting 2% since we actually know that there is dark matter.
Heads up everybody, these packet encapsulators, previously known as Envelope Attribution Logos shall henceforth be known as Standardized Envelope Attribution Logos, colloquially seals.
Think of it as a feature: it's faster than pulling the plug.
So with bigger drives the probability of Apple being sued because the 1TB iPod only appears as 990GB iPod in OS X increases. It was only a matter of time before the two domains software and hardware had to converge, and obviously they had to converge in the way that makes bigger numbers come out.
a perfect diversity trifecta of asian guy, black guy, and white woman? In an ad, pretty good. In real life, not so much.
I somehow read that as "asian guy, black woman, white baby". But then I thought "that's unlikely in an ad, but not so much in real life".
Since your employer paid you to create the patch, and since your employer will save money by not having you maintain a fork indefinitely, you should lure the maintainer with the strongest argument of all: money, paid by your boss.
in the frame of reference where the particles collide, they are moving much slower than the speed of light
This is really, really wrong. It doesn't even make sense. What is the frame of reference where the particles collide? Is it the frame where both have the same velocity / momentum / energy? Then this is the frame we're in, the frame where both protons are practically at the speed of light (the "center of mass frame" to put it into technical terms, which in the case of the LHC equals the so-called "lab frame"). If you're talking about the center of mass frames of the individual colliding quarks, then the energy is lower, as they only carry part of the momentum of the proton, but even there the collision is essentially at the speed of light.
You're of course alluding to the surprising fact that two particles moving towards eachother at essentially the speed of light in some frame don't move faster than the speed of light in their individual rest frames. That is correct, but your explanation is verging on the meaningless.
As for the rest of your post: cross-sections actually decrease with increasing energy, which is why the LHC has to go to such gigantic luminosities (technical term for something like "beam intensity").
An aside: it may not be well known, but actually the LHC at first won't be able to run at its target luminosity of 10^33 / (s cm^2), as the beam collimation system is not yet ready and needs to be refurbished in the 2010 / 2011 winter break.
This is wrong. No object can be stored at the address pointed to by a NULL pointer. In order to meaningfully (in the framework of the C standard) access the members of a struct, the struct itself has to exist. It can't exist at the address NULL. Therefore it doesn't matter if (ptrdiff_t)NULL + 2 != (ptrdiff_t)NULL, the code is still wrong.
They were writing nonsense. GCC makes use of the fact that in the C language any pointer that was dereferenced can't be NULL (this is made explicit in the standard). People use C as a high-level assembly where these assumptions don't hold. This is why code that doesn't assume this breaks. This issue came up a few months ago on the GCC lists, where an embedded developer pointed out that he regularly maps memory to the address 0x0, thereby running into issues with this assumption in the optimizers. The GCC developers introduced a command-line flag which tells the computer to not make that assumption, therefore allowing the compiler to be used even in environments where NULL pointers can be valid.
Now, the exploit uses this feature of the compiler (or the C language, if you will) to get the kernel into an unspecified state (which is then exploited) -- the NULL pointer check will be "correctly" optimized away. But in order to do this it first has to make sure that the pointer dereference preceding the NULL pointer check doesn't trap. This needs some mucking around with SELinux, namely one has to map memory to 0x0.
This is a beautiful exploit, which nicely demonstrates how complex interplay between parts can show unforeseen consequences. Linux fixes this by using the aforementioned new compiler option to not have the NULL pointer check optimized away.
So they're reading different media from the general populace. Either that or they're reading it differently. Still interesting.
Yet, they still mostly agree. Which points to there being a common reason for their agreement. This is the interesting thing. The reason may well be their higher average level of education and the fact that their day job requires critical thinking.
Whatever the server's implemented in, it's definitely not fast enough.
Today's Fortran is not the Fortran of 40 years ago. Ever since Fortran 90 (i.e. for almost twenty years) the language has real dynamic memory allocation and real ways of sharing data between different parts of the program. Fortran got its bad reputation because the lack of these features caused most old Fortran code to be hard to follow -- emulating memory allocation by using lots of large arrays, and tens of lines of repeated COMMON blocks scattered all through the code .EQ.ual very opaque code. And let's not forget that those codes were written to be extremely efficient in terms of CPU time as opposed to developer time.
It's no surprise that Fortran got this bad reputation some 25 years ago when the art of language design had advanced significantly beyond what was in Fortran originally, but people who still think they need to pontificate on that point should catch up with the times -- or at least with 20 years ago.
Rather, they support the least amount of regulation that works.
By that definition, everybody is a libertarian, they just define to work differently
Huh? Exactly my point: the last value dominates the result, not the first. I'm not by any means disputing that it's the wrong thing to do.
To put it in a mathematically precise statement: if you put in a total of n values, the first is weighed with weight 2^(-n), the second with weight 2^(-n+1) ... the n-th with weight 1/2, whereas for a true average all would be weighted with an equal weight of 1/n.
Readings are Not Averaged Correctly: When the software takes a series of readings, it first averages the first two readings. Then, it averages the third reading with the average just computed... There is no comment or note detailing a reason for this calculation, which would cause the first reading to have more weight than successive readings.
This is incorrect:
.5 * (1 + 1) = 1
.5 * (.5*(1 + 1) + 1) = .5*(1 + 1)= 1
.5 * (.5*(.5*(1 + 1) + 1) + 1) = 1
...
.5 * (1 + 99) = 50
no matter how long the ellipsis. IOW the last measurement has the highest weight if indeed the algorithm works as described. Of course that's still wrong.
Bad timing :)
RC2 just came out link
No. If the AP wants to charge Google, they are free to do so. The papers that carry AP stories have not been granted an exclusive license.
I'll reply to you, but others have misunderstood me the same way. The work a newspaper does is in large parts selecting which agency stories are interesting or relevant. Google lets others do this work for them without compensation. That's the problem. I would have thought that I had made that point quite explicitly in my first point but judging from the numerous replies, apparently I didn't.