A beam from the LHC can melt a 500kg block of copper.
Technically, if things are set up, any continuous source of energy can melt just about anything meltable. Just keep the energy flowing, insulate the target, and if the temperature of the energy source (e.g. a lightbulb) is higher than that of the target, then energy will couple in and eventually melt the target. What needs to be mentioned if such a statement is to be of any use, is how long such melting is expected to take.
But, to say that there isn't a difference between the two is inane.
To say that I asserted that is inane. In some cases (as in the case that the original story referenced) there *is* no difference. An exhaustive numeric search provided a proof of the original assertion.
I'm not saying that numerics and analytical proofs are always the same (as they very often are not).
The "infinite situations" you reference were shown to be equivalent to a collection of two different sets:
i) a set of 1936 (originally; later this was reduced to 1476 of them) maps. Each of these maps were checked one-by-one;
ii) a set of counter-counter-examples, which also had to be checked one-by-one.
Each of the successful proofs of the 4-color theorem has required the same sort of exhaustive search over these two kinds of sets (that I know of).
Yes, people routinely get this wrong. They're not wrong this time.
In this case, the distinction between "it was proven" and "it was shown" is a distinction without a difference. In math, you can "show" something within a restricted domain; for example, that a postulated solution to a given equation really is a solution, without giving a complete family of solutions. One can show it numerically, or show it analytically. Here, a restricted set of postulated solutions over the only available domain (the positive integers) was exhaustively searched for actual solutions, and the set that satisfied the postulates was also shown to be optimal (in a well-defined sense for the problem).
This is no more a "non-proof" than the proof of the 4-color map theorem in two dimensions, which was also "shown" using an exhaustive search.
LeCroy is all right (stuck with them through grad. school), but don't ever try to get the circuits from them in case you have to fix something with it yourself. Your best bet in that case is to find an electronics expert in the area who is willing to share his diagrams with you. LeCroy has been *really* closed-source about releasing their plans.
My big problem with LeCroy scopes recently is that their knobs seem to gum up (har-har) a lot, and nothing is more frustrating than trying to adjust a DC-offset, only to have the entire trace disappear off the screen because of some dirt in their goddamned sealed knobs. Even getting to the things is an afternoon-long job.
In terms of dedicated digital scopes, I've also a lot of experience with Agilent (HP) and Tektronix. I'd personally give instek a miss (too much aliasing, not enough capabilities, though the newer ones might be better than the 806C). One of my colleagues, who is knowledgeable about these things, uses nothing but Tektronix, and I have to admit that the ones I've seen lately are awfully nice.
For cheaper USB-based scopes, TiePies are all right. ECON-series digitizers are all right, too, though maybe not exactly what you're looking for.
That's what happens when you stupify data, you loose data. Anyway Kaspersky don't give a rats ass about any tests, if it was them up there at the top of the list they would have nodded their heads and opened their pockets wide. And I wouldn't be surprised if someone fiddled with the software to the advantage of others, or even worse, fiddled with the logic. The anti-virus industry is ironicly equal to the medicine industry, same overadvertising unnecessary medication using scare tactics. It's simple folks, keep your fucking shit together, don't put your dick wherever it fits and then complain when it falls off because you eat 30 vitamines every day.
Exactly right. It's called technology lock-in, and it often (at least to me) seems pretty arbitrary (the classic examples being modern clocks going clockwise rather than counter-clockwise, and the QWERTY keyboard). "History validating Apple's decisions" of killing technology is rather a weak anthropic principle, rather than any explanatory answer.
Many live CD systems now have taken to being installable from those same CDs. According to the release announcement, one still has to acquire an OpenBSD release set to install to hdd. Too bad.
Slashdot Mirror
Children might be reading!
This is slashdot. I guarantee you they're reading.
A beam from the LHC can melt a 500kg block of copper.
Technically, if things are set up, any continuous source of energy can melt just about anything meltable. Just keep the energy flowing, insulate the target, and if the temperature of the energy source (e.g. a lightbulb) is higher than that of the target, then energy will couple in and eventually melt the target. What needs to be mentioned if such a statement is to be of any use, is how long such melting is expected to take.
A Muslim, holding to Sharia law, sees women as less-than-human.
I can't support such an ideology.
A Christian, holding to the values espoused in the New Testament, sees women similarly.
Luckily, the FSM has a place for all in his noodly sauce.
As a fellow mammal, I know that getting beaten off would make me go away.
No way. You'd just roll over and fall asleep.
Of course! Or it gets the hose again.
Kodos wants us all healthy, for various reasons.
I'm sure he's fine. They just wanted to take him back to the station for milk and cookies!
Ah, yes. Because milk has been so comforting lately.
I guess Richard Gere just went green earlier than the rest of the world.
Nah. Ignoring history just means we'll be doomed to relive it. We can catch it when it comes around the next time.
But, to say that there isn't a difference between the two is inane.
To say that I asserted that is inane. In some cases (as in the case that the original story referenced) there *is* no difference. An exhaustive numeric search provided a proof of the original assertion.
I'm not saying that numerics and analytical proofs are always the same (as they very often are not).
The "infinite situations" you reference were shown to be equivalent to a collection of two different sets:
i) a set of 1936 (originally; later this was reduced to 1476 of them) maps. Each of these maps were checked one-by-one;
ii) a set of counter-counter-examples, which also had to be checked one-by-one.
Each of the successful proofs of the 4-color theorem has required the same sort of exhaustive search over these two kinds of sets (that I know of).
Yes, people routinely get this wrong. They're not wrong this time.
In this case, the distinction between "it was proven" and "it was shown" is a distinction without a difference. In math, you can "show" something within a restricted domain; for example, that a postulated solution to a given equation really is a solution, without giving a complete family of solutions. One can show it numerically, or show it analytically. Here, a restricted set of postulated solutions over the only available domain (the positive integers) was exhaustively searched for actual solutions, and the set that satisfied the postulates was also shown to be optimal (in a well-defined sense for the problem).
This is no more a "non-proof" than the proof of the 4-color map theorem in two dimensions, which was also "shown" using an exhaustive search.
Mathematics may be defined
as the subject in which we
never know what we are talking
about,nor whether what we are
saying is true.
--Bertrand Russell
Apparently so.
THey are so big that you stop imagening how big it is.
That's right, ladies.
LeCroy is all right (stuck with them through grad. school), but don't ever try to get the circuits from them in case you have to fix something with it yourself. Your best bet in that case is to find an electronics expert in the area who is willing to share his diagrams with you. LeCroy has been *really* closed-source about releasing their plans.
My big problem with LeCroy scopes recently is that their knobs seem to gum up (har-har) a lot, and nothing is more frustrating than trying to adjust a DC-offset, only to have the entire trace disappear off the screen because of some dirt in their goddamned sealed knobs. Even getting to the things is an afternoon-long job.
In terms of dedicated digital scopes, I've also a lot of experience with Agilent (HP) and Tektronix. I'd personally give instek a miss (too much aliasing, not enough capabilities, though the newer ones might be better than the 806C). One of my colleagues, who is knowledgeable about these things, uses nothing but Tektronix, and I have to admit that the ones I've seen lately are awfully nice.
For cheaper USB-based scopes, TiePies are all right. ECON-series digitizers are all right, too, though maybe not exactly what you're looking for.
That's what happens when you stupify data, you loose data. Anyway Kaspersky don't give a rats ass about any tests, if it was them up there at the top of the list they would have nodded their heads and opened their pockets wide. And I wouldn't be surprised if someone fiddled with the software to the advantage of others, or even worse, fiddled with the logic. The anti-virus industry is ironicly equal to the medicine industry, same overadvertising unnecessary medication using scare tactics. It's simple folks, keep your fucking shit together, don't put your dick wherever it fits and then complain when it falls off because you eat 30 vitamines every day.
Well, that about speaks for itself . . ..
Hhhhmm, guess the eh got cut off.
Lorena? Is that you?
Exactly right. It's called technology lock-in, and it often (at least to me) seems pretty arbitrary (the classic examples being modern clocks going clockwise rather than counter-clockwise, and the QWERTY keyboard). "History validating Apple's decisions" of killing technology is rather a weak anthropic principle, rather than any explanatory answer.
Many live CD systems now have taken to being installable from those same CDs. According to the release announcement, one still has to acquire an OpenBSD release set to install to hdd. Too bad.
Maybe that's just age.
Note that the study was done on a Mac, by a Mac-user, so your point is partially moot.
BIG squares.
Bristol? Is that you?
More comprehensive information from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_TC3