...if I believe that conclusion. When I was browsing on Slashdot one April, and everything turned pink and ponyish, I swear that day lasted several months, at least.
This tells me that there are university professors and students who are passionate about hi-tech. That passion is a productive alternative to the other model we have of Iran as a bunch of wild eyed fundamentalists who want to bomb the world back to the 8th century. Perhaps this competing force of moderation in Iran will grow its influence through hi tech and universities. Interesting. Substitute "United States" for "Iran", and see how things change...
Actually, you'll find yourself with quite indeterminate energy. Somewhere between college senior and Richard Simmons. Those are the two recognized physical limits on human energy states.
It the code passes these simple rules the code is fine, leave it alone, it does NOT suck. That's because it puts the lotion on the skin, or it gets the hose again.
Complexity, I don't think, changes anything. Do you think it does,or are you purely play the devil's advocate?;) Not purely. If it's not complexity, then what essence separates mind from algorithm?
In a nutshell it's that computer software is only about syntactical knowledge (manipulating symbols), there's no semantic knowledge. The software doesn't understand what it is doing. At which point of program complexity would you concede this may have changed?
Know your audience! Because this is Slashdot, try a car analogy instead of something with balls.
"That's like saying the flat car is having difficulty with me playing at driving. No! The sucky car (Seagate drive) is the one being acted on. It's me (Linux) having the difficulty playing the car."
Is it really worth pouring more money into this idiotville if every bit of scientific progress they make is practically public knowledge soon after? Yes. I work at LANL; very many of us work on unclassified projects, and we're happy if the progress we make is public knowledge. It wouldn't be of very much use otherwise.
Note that the/. summary is technically correct (yes, the Lab was accused -- do some research if you want to know why I italicized that -- of losing hdds years ago), but not very illuminative.
More recently, we're moving to some different networking configurations to help cut down on some of these breaches. It may help; it may not. Foreign nationals are losing administrator priveleges on their own (unclassified, mind you) computers, which is causing LOTS of headaches and won't solve a damned thing. Many of them have sent messages saying, "Yeah, remove my access, and see how much work gets done." If we had a moderation system here, those would be +5 Damned Right.
Re:Perl 6: The Language of the Future (... Forever
on
State of the Onion 11
·
· Score: 0
However, if you are in your boxer shorts and you just want to pump out a short file-diddling script before bedtime, no one is going to tell you that it can't look like C. And that, boys and girls, is why it's very, very important to give proper context to your statements. Otherwise, you're going to be arrested...
A camera stick lying on the ground is experiencing 1G. Yes, although it's little-gee: "g". Big-gee is Newton's universal gravitation constant.
A camera stick free-falling is experiencing 1G. Actually, in its local reference frame, it's experiencing 0 g.
An interesting way to think about it is that when you have a standard piece of conducting material, it's not that there is no current flowing in it while it sits there not hooked up to a source; actually the electrons go all over the place inside the material. Current flows right to left, left to right, but it all balances out and there is no net current. Resistive heating only occurs when you have net charge current. As I see it, this is a quite interesting statement, because it mixes the time scales present in the system so thoroughly. It somewhat assumes that the lattice is separate from the electrons, even at equilibrium (that is, when there is no net charge flow). In reality, the charge-carriers interact with the lattice constantly (thus not just jumping off the piece of material willy-nilly when the lattice ends at an edge, for example), and there is uniformity of energy density between the charge carriers and the lattice.
This energy density uniformity (maximum entropy) is pretty much the definition of "equilibrium". It is also the reason that saying there is no resistive heating when there is no net charge current is both correct and incorrect. It's correct because, indeed, if an electron loses energy to the lattice, thus "cooling" the electron and "heating" the lattice, the electron is guaranteed to get it back soon after, from either another electron or the lattice.
However, it's incorrect in the following sense: suppose I have a way to drain energy from the lattice (I physically hook it up to a cooler object or allow it to radiate away energy in the form of photons, or something like that; basically, another degree of freedom is introduced into the system which initially has lower energy density than the rest of the system). Then the electrons are left with more net energy density than the lattice. This energy density can diffuse relatively uniformly into the lattice (or the new degree of freedom), thus eventually restoring equilibrium. However, during the diffusion process, there is (I presume -- and if there are problems with my reasoning, I'd guess this is where they occur) no net charge flow, and yet the electrons really are "resistively" heating the lattice during the process.
When I moved to Atlanta in summer of 2004, it was the lack of pay phones in Midtown that finally made me purchase a cell phone. [...] I wonder whether we'll see a significant increase in cell phone subscription now, or whether there aren't enough crazy luddites like me left anymore. You mean you were a crazy luddite ~3 years ago. It's a lot more difficult now, believe me. It's almost a personal hair-shirt thing by this point. And yet people still say to me, "You don't have a cell phone? You're so lucky!".
Then again, the problem with wikipedia isn't that it's impossible to know the answer to everything. That is quite possibly the most painfully profound and simultaneously devoid-of-content thing I've ever read. You can even replace "wikipedia" with whatever you like (I prefer "lemon meringue") and it will be just as profound and devoid-of-content. Well done! And it even fits well in the context of your post: builds the suspense, then totally leaves the reader hanging.
Slashdot Mirror
And the first "practical" mention I have found of this technique so far is from 1979 (if one has access to Phys. Rev. Letters Online): http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v43/i4/p267_1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wakefield_Accelerator
...if I believe that conclusion. When I was browsing on Slashdot one April, and everything turned pink and ponyish, I swear that day lasted several months, at least.
Yeah, but then someone hired by Tonya Harding comes along and whacks it in the knees. It's not a pretty picture.
Mohammed.
Actually, you'll find yourself with quite indeterminate energy. Somewhere between college senior and Richard Simmons. Those are the two recognized physical limits on human energy states.
Yeah, those fuckers really break the spines on paperbacks, too.
(Playing the advocatus diaboli here)
Apparently it somehow kept him from having sex and "evolving". So give the man a break.
How dare you call my chatb -- ... girlfriend a grossly inflated figure?!?
Know your audience! Because this is Slashdot, try a car analogy instead of something with balls.
"That's like saying the flat car is having difficulty with me playing at driving. No! The sucky car (Seagate drive) is the one being acted on. It's me (Linux) having the difficulty playing the car."
There.
Everyone gets paid the same wage (based on experience); it's not like the foreign nationals work for less than anyone else. Nice try, though.
Shouldn't there be a large *Poof!* now, and the faint tinge of logic hanging in the air?
Note that the
More recently, we're moving to some different networking configurations to help cut down on some of these breaches. It may help; it may not. Foreign nationals are losing administrator priveleges on their own (unclassified, mind you) computers, which is causing LOTS of headaches and won't solve a damned thing. Many of them have sent messages saying, "Yeah, remove my access, and see how much work gets done." If we had a moderation system here, those would be +5 Damned Right.
I don't understand. Why not?
You'll have to talk to your parents about that one.
Well, it adds a lot to the replayability value.
This energy density uniformity (maximum entropy) is pretty much the definition of "equilibrium". It is also the reason that saying there is no resistive heating when there is no net charge current is both correct and incorrect. It's correct because, indeed, if an electron loses energy to the lattice, thus "cooling" the electron and "heating" the lattice, the electron is guaranteed to get it back soon after, from either another electron or the lattice.
However, it's incorrect in the following sense: suppose I have a way to drain energy from the lattice (I physically hook it up to a cooler object or allow it to radiate away energy in the form of photons, or something like that; basically, another degree of freedom is introduced into the system which initially has lower energy density than the rest of the system). Then the electrons are left with more net energy density than the lattice. This energy density can diffuse relatively uniformly into the lattice (or the new degree of freedom), thus eventually restoring equilibrium. However, during the diffusion process, there is (I presume -- and if there are problems with my reasoning, I'd guess this is where they occur) no net charge flow, and yet the electrons really are "resistively" heating the lattice during the process.