Yes, I'd expect most of the readership to not realise that in fact. This is a general techy website, not an astro one. Would you expect most people here to know how solar cells work, or how to construct a thermocouple?
Perhaps not. But I'd expect someone who is consolidating this information to at least do rudimentary fact-checking so as to not spread misinformation.
I'm using it now (at least on Windows), because it allows me to open webpages from the Messenger, IN FIREFOX, rather than IE. That, combined with the fact that the rest of the program is pretty unintrusive if you install it semi-carefully, makes it very useful to me. Well, where "very useful" means "saves me some keystrokes and the annoyance of actually seeing IE at all."
why dry spaghetti breaks into more than one piece when it is bent: -1, Lame
Apparently someone doesn't know how interesting this problem is. Feynman spent a lot of time on it. It's much, much harder than, say, showing that a tall, skinny brick structure will break 1/3 of the way up from the ground if it's slowly tipped to one side (or if a demolition charge makes it crumble). Though that research certainly isn't Nobel-winning stuff, it's a remarkably difficult problem with a lot of applications (including, methinks, applications to space-station engineering and probably nanostructures).
What gauge wire do I use for my 4000 Amp circuit and why can't I find a 4000 Amp circuit breaker at Home Depot. I will tell you why, Big Oil.
The day *you* are able to waltz into a Home Depot and buy a 4000A circuit breaker and have no one bat an eye is the day I get the fuck out of the country.
i've seen to many patents/copyright lawsuits, i'm all for breaking copyright/patents.. monkeys and their damn text with mumble jumble.. who cares.. i will not obey your patents and copieright i wil continue to disobey until you lie in your own shit, with all your lawsuit documents and your patents stuff up your ass, it means absolutely nothing. screw the law.
Yargghh! And screw grammar and spelling! It's just keepin' the man down.
Sadly, he's gone now. Erosion and nature, rather than aliens, took the famous face in the rocks away from us in May of 2003.
Side note: I was there just months before it fell.
Oh, you were, were you? Perhaps we need a little *security* around here, if people like you are going to use psionics to wreck our famous national-treasures-if-you-look-at-'em-from-the-rig ht-angle-in-the-right-light.
I admit you caught me -- I don't specifically know about "law of [linearj] superposition of electric fields", but any measurement I've seen of the real world has some small degree of divergence from the formulas -- small in orders of magnitude. The official line is that this variance is due to the imperfection of lab setup, imperfection of materials measured, and the imperfection of the measuring equipment.
I'm generally agreed. On the other hand, most experimentalists (and many of the theorists) are extremely aware of the errors that their theories might introduce, either through simplifications (in some cases, the theories turn out to be more complicated than they need to be) to make the math or simulations easier, through effects arising from limited numbers of measurements on what are inherently unpredictable processes (radioactive decays, predator/prey populations, almost anything chaotic) or just plain old "it's too complicated at the present time" models (psychology, neuronal models, bird-flocking behavior). And _if_ present models are correct (and we have pretty good reason to suspect they're not too bad), then teensy tiny changes in certain numbers can lead to pretty damned big changes in other numbers, so the precision at which we think we're working can be awfully good.
It just so happens that the example you raised (electromagnetic fields) is *the* model for experiment and theory agreeing to within ridiculously small tolerances. I don't know what the latest measurements (of the fine-structure constant, for example, or the quantization of electric charge, or the photon mass -- these guys are all related) turn out to be, but in about 1999, the agreement between measurement and theory was better than one part in 10^20. THAT's why I jumped all over your statement. Now I see that it was quite a general statement, and I shouldn't have been so hasty.
Real-world measurements don't exactly work out the way you would have us believe.
"So why is it that electric fields follow the law of superposition, which is an additive law working precisely as we said addition should thousands of years before we ever imagined electric fields?"
Except when you actually do the measurements, you get a slight variance. Why should we get some discrepancy? I thought this was precise mathematics, proven sturdy for thousands of years. 'Well,' the answer goes, 'the measurement tools aren't precise enough.' So we make tools more precise, and the variance gets smaller, presumably ad infinitum. But does it really work out ad inifitum? I mean, it always works out on paper. Why shouldn't it be exact in real life then? Maybe it actually starts diverging at a certain scale? Maybe the mathematical model breaks down at some point? How do we know unless we go down all the way?
Whoa. What measurements show a deviance from the law of [linearj] superposition of electric fields? The statement about QED covering the most precisely measured (and experimentally verified) phenomena is still true, as far as I know.
I used to have almost a hundred icons scattered all over both my Windows and linux desktops. Finally I just gave up, hid all those icons, and installed Launchy http://launchy.net/ (on Windows) and Katapult (for some of the linux WMs). I don't know that I'm more efficient now, but I'm much happier.
Surely the casino's geeks can help keep out the mongrel hordes of wannabe geeks.
You're probably right. However, there have to be a considerable number of the casino geeks who *want* someone to hack the crap out of the casinos. I think that a mark (perhaps one of the defining marks) of true geekery is rooting for the underdog who beats the corporation type. Maybe some of these guys can be the helpers on the inside.
They've had to resort to taking photos of the stele, as the scanners kept getting crushed. And here "scanners" mean the people sent out to do crayon rubbings.
Dude, to be fair, you have to have the amount of time over which those stats were accumulated. The ones you give are valid for the period of at least a day. Maybe even a week!
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I'd expect most of the readership to not realise that in fact. This is a general techy website, not an astro one. Would you expect most people here to know how solar cells work, or how to construct a thermocouple?
Perhaps not. But I'd expect someone who is consolidating this information to at least do rudimentary fact-checking so as to not spread misinformation.
I'm using it now (at least on Windows), because it allows me to open webpages from the Messenger, IN FIREFOX, rather than IE. That, combined with the fact that the rest of the program is pretty unintrusive if you install it semi-carefully, makes it very useful to me. Well, where "very useful" means "saves me some keystrokes and the annoyance of actually seeing IE at all."
why dry spaghetti breaks into more than one piece when it is bent: -1, Lame
Apparently someone doesn't know how interesting this problem is. Feynman spent a lot of time on it. It's much, much harder than, say, showing that a tall, skinny brick structure will break 1/3 of the way up from the ground if it's slowly tipped to one side (or if a demolition charge makes it crumble). Though that research certainly isn't Nobel-winning stuff, it's a remarkably difficult problem with a lot of applications (including, methinks, applications to space-station engineering and probably nanostructures).
From your diagram, it looks like NASA has just found the 9th planet again.
what does this add to the movie itself?
In the case of this movie? Doesn't matter. Anything helps.
Now if only we can genetically modify them to attack other Dodder plants.
In related news, the 2010 Darwin Awards have been announced. .
[...]saved the world from nuclear destruction in 1983. Sadly there are plenty of other examples of this kind of thing.
Yeah, I get the meta-reference, but isn't there a better way you could have worded that?
That's because snide comments can't be bookmarked.
Ha! I just drag the little "/." icon in my Firefox address bar to the link bar, and I've bookmarked them. Suck it, Trebeck.
Now you're baiting him, chum.
I sure hope it isn't a vasectomy.
Oh, it's not. At first.
The Editors just made a fox pass. Apparently, spelling isn't their fort.
What gauge wire do I use for my 4000 Amp circuit and why can't I find a 4000 Amp circuit breaker at Home Depot. I will tell you why, Big Oil.
The day *you* are able to waltz into a Home Depot and buy a 4000A circuit breaker and have no one bat an eye is the day I get the fuck out of the country.
I need some sleep, I read that as "Stern Bears Analysts" and thought, man that must be a tough firm to work for!
You're a true American. One of The Heroes. We'll incorporate that into the Threat-Down.
i've seen to many patents/copyright lawsuits, i'm all for breaking copyright/patents.. monkeys and their damn text with mumble jumble.. who cares.. i will not obey your patents and copieright i wil continue to disobey until you lie in your own shit, with all your lawsuit documents and your patents stuff up your ass, it means absolutely nothing. screw the law.
Yargghh! And screw grammar and spelling! It's just keepin' the man down.
Sadly, he's gone now. Erosion and nature, rather than aliens, took the famous face in the rocks away from us in May of 2003.
Side note: I was there just months before it fell.
Oh, you were, were you? Perhaps we need a little *security* around here, if people like you are going to use psionics to wreck our famous national-treasures-if-you-look-at-'em-from-the-ri
ROSSSSWEELLLLLLLLLLLL!!!
I'm sure the adult industry will find innovative uses for a device of this shape...
I *knew* that "embedded linux" sounded a bit strange for some reason . . .
Apparently 640K wasn't enough memory for the calculation to finish correctly.
I admit you caught me -- I don't specifically know about "law of [linearj] superposition of electric fields", but any measurement I've seen of the real world has some small degree of divergence from the formulas -- small in orders of magnitude. The official line is that this variance is due to the imperfection of lab setup, imperfection of materials measured, and the imperfection of the measuring equipment.
I'm generally agreed. On the other hand, most experimentalists (and many of the theorists) are extremely aware of the errors that their theories might introduce, either through simplifications (in some cases, the theories turn out to be more complicated than they need to be) to make the math or simulations easier, through effects arising from limited numbers of measurements on what are inherently unpredictable processes (radioactive decays, predator/prey populations, almost anything chaotic) or just plain old "it's too complicated at the present time" models (psychology, neuronal models, bird-flocking behavior). And _if_ present models are correct (and we have pretty good reason to suspect they're not too bad), then teensy tiny changes in certain numbers can lead to pretty damned big changes in other numbers, so the precision at which we think we're working can be awfully good.
It just so happens that the example you raised (electromagnetic fields) is *the* model for experiment and theory agreeing to within ridiculously small tolerances. I don't know what the latest measurements (of the fine-structure constant, for example, or the quantization of electric charge, or the photon mass -- these guys are all related) turn out to be, but in about 1999, the agreement between measurement and theory was better than one part in 10^20. THAT's why I jumped all over your statement. Now I see that it was quite a general statement, and I shouldn't have been so hasty.
Real-world measurements don't exactly work out the way you would have us believe.
"So why is it that electric fields follow the law of superposition, which is an additive law working precisely as we said addition should thousands of years before we ever imagined electric fields?"
Except when you actually do the measurements, you get a slight variance. Why should we get some discrepancy? I thought this was precise mathematics, proven sturdy for thousands of years. 'Well,' the answer goes, 'the measurement tools aren't precise enough.' So we make tools more precise, and the variance gets smaller, presumably ad infinitum. But does it really work out ad inifitum? I mean, it always works out on paper. Why shouldn't it be exact in real life then? Maybe it actually starts diverging at a certain scale? Maybe the mathematical model breaks down at some point? How do we know unless we go down all the way?
Whoa. What measurements show a deviance from the law of [linearj] superposition of electric fields? The statement about QED covering the most precisely measured (and experimentally verified) phenomena is still true, as far as I know.
I used to have almost a hundred icons scattered all over both my Windows and linux desktops. Finally I just gave up, hid all those icons, and installed Launchy http://launchy.net/ (on Windows) and Katapult (for some of the linux WMs). I don't know that I'm more efficient now, but I'm much happier.
Surely the casino's geeks can help keep out the mongrel hordes of wannabe geeks.
You're probably right. However, there have to be a considerable number of the casino geeks who *want* someone to hack the crap out of the casinos. I think that a mark (perhaps one of the defining marks) of true geekery is rooting for the underdog who beats the corporation type. Maybe some of these guys can be the helpers on the inside.
They've had to resort to taking photos of the stele, as the scanners kept getting crushed. And here "scanners" mean the people sent out to do crayon rubbings.
This might be the first funny "In Communist the you!" joke I've seen. Thanks!
Dude, to be fair, you have to have the amount of time over which those stats were accumulated. The ones you give are valid for the period of at least a day. Maybe even a week!
And then the "next big thing" will come along, and the Internet will be no more interesting than a ham radio today.
My god! You mean we can listen to music on meat?!? Next you'll tell me that I can install linux on a dead badger.