Just because there may be more than one side to a story doesn't mean they're all equally correct, in either a factual or moral view. A view *might* be popular because it happens to be *right*.
Put it this way - see that lightbulb? It's spraying around watts of much higher frequency radiation than any consumer wireless device would.
That's true, and look how sensitive the electrons in our eyes are to it. It's like saying that microwaves can't be seen (they're at a much lower frequency than our eyes detect), therefore they can't hurt us. Good luck with *that*.
It took forever (a decade or more at least) to handle crashes in a microsoft OS which had thousands of talented people working on it.
Perhaps some paradigms are so fundamentally broken that even thousands of talented people can't patch them without (i) starting over; or (ii) adding so much kruft that they might as well have started over.
Doesn't much matter. Sound carries *extremely* low power, until you get up into frequencies far, far beyond what people can produce (with their mouths, anyway. Give me a bean burrito, and I might produce watts at 400 kHz).
We use mathematics to quantify physics, but there is no "connection" between the two, except in the sense that we can count *anything* and say there's a connection. It's like saying, "How deep does the connection go between mathematics and bananas when I observe there are 10 bananas, and I add two more, and then I observe 12 bananas."
I'm glad you're so sure of yourself. However, the connection between *counting* (ring of integers) and, say, complex conjugation isn't so obvious. If you'd like to compete with Dirac (for example) and argue that he was dumb for taking so long to recognize antiparticles' existence, or that Green should have "obviously" recognized that there must be such things as evanescent waves because the Helmholtz equation has some complex roots for the wavenumbers, then be my guest.
I don't know what your background is, but such connections between mathematics and the "real world" are NOT always obvious, and it is a continued source of delight and puzzlement when one explores some neglected branch-cut in the maths, and it turns out to have real impact on the physics. Please, explain to all of we poor physicists how bananas can point us to truth.
Those were probably marble galls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oak_marble_gall); I find them a lot, too. They are produced in addition to acorns, though.
That's because you're looking at some MathML code. What one actually types into Mathematica, and sees in Mathematica (or sees in a raw text file version IF the "InputForm" of the code is looked at) is the following. Unfortunately, the code ends suddenly because slashcode somehow doesn't allow more to be shown. BAAAAAD slashcode.
Complaining about the readability of what you posted is like complaining about the raw HTML which goes into this webpage.
True. But have you looked at the algorithm? It's remarkably simple, was written in 1992, and is totally generalized to any size chessboard (there is an example in Arnd Roth's implementation for a 180x180 board).
the student who knows when to use which abstract concept can delegate the algorithmic work to a computer algebra system.
Sometimes. However, except for the trivial integrations of "find the volume of such-and-such", integrations actually done in the sciences are much trickier, and rarely do computers help a whole lot. Mostly, one does approximations based on polynomial expansions. Many CASs can do approximations, but it takes a lot of insight by the programmer/user to know when to truncate them, how to further simplify the truncations, when to use the "simplest" version that a CAS returns and when to retain certain complexities, and so on. And all of that takes an intimate understanding of what the hell is going on. You don't get that from asking a computer to do the algorithmic work.
I went to a selective school - called a "grammar school" - which took the top 20% of the population based on a mixed IQ/attainment test. I was then in the top set for maths and the three sciences - so that's the top 5%.
Waiiiiiittt -- What're those funny circle-line-circle symbols after the numbers?
Slashdot Mirror
Just because there may be more than one side to a story doesn't mean they're all equally correct, in either a factual or moral view. A view *might* be popular because it happens to be *right*.
Absolutely: use lyx. The users' mailing list is amazingly helpful. www.lyx.org
Piracy is the response of all good, thinking people to an epidemic of Ninjas.
Put it this way - see that lightbulb? It's spraying around watts of much higher frequency radiation than any consumer wireless device would.
That's true, and look how sensitive the electrons in our eyes are to it. It's like saying that microwaves can't be seen (they're at a much lower frequency than our eyes detect), therefore they can't hurt us. Good luck with *that*.
Brilliant post. Whomever modded it "Redundant" is an idiot.
In my mind, there's one workwoman, she's played by Natalie Portman, and the lava is actually hot grits.
Sorry about that.
...without all the fucking ads and stuff:
http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=21840&channel=computing§ion=
Funny... I had a head crash once, and my girlfriend got pregnant.
No mohs puns, please!
It took forever (a decade or more at least) to handle crashes in a microsoft OS which had thousands of talented people working on it.
Perhaps some paradigms are so fundamentally broken that even thousands of talented people can't patch them without (i) starting over; or (ii) adding so much kruft that they might as well have started over.
But when you get there the shops are all closed. Bollocks to that.
unless the language is in the tail end of its life, like Fortran and Cobol
Thus the phrases "The looooooooooong tail" and "You're ALL tail, baby".
Doesn't much matter. Sound carries *extremely* low power, until you get up into frequencies far, far beyond what people can produce (with their mouths, anyway. Give me a bean burrito, and I might produce watts at 400 kHz).
Do you love them with all of your body (including your pee pee)?
OK, I'm on tenterhooks. Which people laughed at whom?!?
We use mathematics to quantify physics, but there is no "connection" between the two, except in the sense that we can count *anything* and say there's a connection. It's like saying, "How deep does the connection go between mathematics and bananas when I observe there are 10 bananas, and I add two more, and then I observe 12 bananas."
I'm glad you're so sure of yourself. However, the connection between *counting* (ring of integers) and, say, complex conjugation isn't so obvious. If you'd like to compete with Dirac (for example) and argue that he was dumb for taking so long to recognize antiparticles' existence, or that Green should have "obviously" recognized that there must be such things as evanescent waves because the Helmholtz equation has some complex roots for the wavenumbers, then be my guest.
I don't know what your background is, but such connections between mathematics and the "real world" are NOT always obvious, and it is a continued source of delight and puzzlement when one explores some neglected branch-cut in the maths, and it turns out to have real impact on the physics. Please, explain to all of we poor physicists how bananas can point us to truth.
The boom years are known as "mast" years--not sure what the bust years are called.
"Half-mast" years?
Those were probably marble galls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oak_marble_gall); I find them a lot, too. They are produced in addition to acorns, though.
That's because you're looking at some MathML code. What one actually types into Mathematica, and sees in Mathematica (or sees in a raw text file version IF the "InputForm" of the code is looked at) is the following. Unfortunately, the code ends suddenly because slashcode somehow doesn't allow more to be shown. BAAAAAD slashcode.
Complaining about the readability of what you posted is like complaining about the raw HTML which goes into this webpage.
True. But have you looked at the algorithm? It's remarkably simple, was written in 1992, and is totally generalized to any size chessboard (there is an example in Arnd Roth's implementation for a 180x180 board).
... here: http://www.tri.org.au/tourcode.html
Especially when studying law!
the student who knows when to use which abstract concept can delegate the algorithmic work to a computer algebra system.
Sometimes. However, except for the trivial integrations of "find the volume of such-and-such", integrations actually done in the sciences are much trickier, and rarely do computers help a whole lot. Mostly, one does approximations based on polynomial expansions. Many CASs can do approximations, but it takes a lot of insight by the programmer/user to know when to truncate them, how to further simplify the truncations, when to use the "simplest" version that a CAS returns and when to retain certain complexities, and so on. And all of that takes an intimate understanding of what the hell is going on. You don't get that from asking a computer to do the algorithmic work.
I went to a selective school - called a "grammar school" - which took the top 20% of the population based on a mixed IQ/attainment test. I was then in the top set for maths and the three sciences - so that's the top 5%.
Waiiiiiittt -- What're those funny circle-line-circle symbols after the numbers?