Blue light is a possibility, but not for more than a few hundreds of meters. High power isn't the answer in that case. Look at section 7.5 of Jackson's "Classical Electrodynamics" -- at least the 3rd edition. There is a very interesting window in the absorption coefficient of *fresh* water right in the visible region, which life has obviously taken advantage of. However, even for the LOWEST area of that coefficient (around 10^(-4) ) per centimeter still puts the range at which light loses 50% of its intensity at about 60 m, 25% at 120 m, etc. Sea water is far worse in terms of getting light through.
[...] but this mega-update-in-a-patch is still interesting for other reasons.
Why not just say what those reasons are? I'd like to know, because I followed the link which suggests it'll tell me what the reasons are, and it's---so far as I can tell---only interesting because it contains so little detail. Please be careful with futzing about with infinite regress like that. Eventually you're going to divide by zero, and then we're all fucked.
I have theorized (just a simple man) that primes could be identified by:
* Using a compounding light wave and identifying the lowest intensity frequencies
* A cross bar chip cdeveloped using nano scale lines to identify a number as its prime components, up to some limit.
Would love to know what your theorizing is. I think you mean you've "guessed". Additionally, you're going to run into big problems with your analogue computer (specifically, the golden mean -- also called the "most irrational number" -- which is, I suspect, what you're talking about). The most difficult problems to work around (probably deal-breakers) have already been addressed in the other response.
If we're going to give analogies like that, you will have to forgive some ragging on the realism:
Now change the stick to a spring. You can still move the weight up and down but it moves a lot less for a given amplitude.
You've said nothing about the possible *resonances* of the mass-on-a-spring model. For some driving frequencies ( fdrive >> fresonance ) you're right: the response amplitude of the mass will be much smaller than the drive amplitude. However, at very low frequencies (fdrive fresonance) the response amplitude is the *same or larger than* the drive amplitude (this is the limit of your stick analogy), and near resonance, the response amplitude can be much, MUCH larger than the drive amplitude.
Additionally, the mass-on-a-stick model assumes all of the energy dissipation is in the resistance felt by the drive, not the mass (which is, somehow, associated with the lightbulb?).
Right... in a way. Chris Langton's phrase, popularized by Waldrop, is the edge of chaoshttp://www.romanpoet.org/223/Langton.EdgeOfChaos.pdf, meaning that the place in dynamical phase space where things get interesting is in Wolfram's Class IV of complexity. It's not really _chaos_ as that term is used by most people (or, rather, "chaotic" may perhaps be a less precise term than should be used for the systems which show long-term cohesion of some sort, while still being flexible enough to be "interesting").
That's interesting. Computer network models seem to say that with equal-weight connections, if you have, on average, fewer than two connections per node, the network quickly reaches a static state ("death"), whereas if there are more than an average of two connections per node, the network thrashes around in chaos. At 2 per node, "complex" behavior emerges.
We know that many cells are massively more connected in the cerebrum (on the order of 10^4 connections per node), but obviously different connections are weighted differently.
Slashdot Mirror
You must be in some strange orthogonal plane. 1 s^2 is a rate?. It doesn't hold up to scaling arguments. Try 1s/s.
Blue light is a possibility, but not for more than a few hundreds of meters. High power isn't the answer in that case. Look at section 7.5 of Jackson's "Classical Electrodynamics" -- at least the 3rd edition. There is a very interesting window in the absorption coefficient of *fresh* water right in the visible region, which life has obviously taken advantage of. However, even for the LOWEST area of that coefficient (around 10^(-4) ) per centimeter still puts the range at which light loses 50% of its intensity at about 60 m, 25% at 120 m, etc. Sea water is far worse in terms of getting light through.
Those two games introduced me to computers (in my elementary school classroom). I had no idea before that.
I have both fsdn.com and slashdot.org blocked, and can *still* read the comments. Apparently there's a conservation of Javascript thing going on . . ..
It sounds like they have made some progress on something that even in one-dimension was thought to be impossible for a long time.
Focusing in one dimension? You might want to rephrase that.
Granted, some delusions are considered more true than others, or more logical, they're all still delusions.
Er... care to explain?
What -- a Non-Screen Of Death?
So you have a TB of RAM?
Thanks, A Noways Cum Donor
[...] but this mega-update-in-a-patch is still interesting for other reasons.
Why not just say what those reasons are? I'd like to know, because I followed the link which suggests it'll tell me what the reasons are, and it's---so far as I can tell---only interesting because it contains so little detail. Please be careful with futzing about with infinite regress like that. Eventually you're going to divide by zero, and then we're all fucked.
Mine didn't. We ran out of ASCII symbols in the good old days.
I have theorized (just a simple man) that primes could be identified by:
* Using a compounding light wave and identifying the lowest intensity frequencies
* A cross bar chip cdeveloped using nano scale lines to identify a number as its prime components, up to some limit.
Would love to know what your theorizing is. I think you mean you've "guessed". Additionally, you're going to run into big problems with your analogue computer (specifically, the golden mean -- also called the "most irrational number" -- which is, I suspect, what you're talking about). The most difficult problems to work around (probably deal-breakers) have already been addressed in the other response.
Just wait until you're over 30. Then "returning to normal" takes much longer than two minutes after a "respawn".
Then it's a problem with the user, as always, and NOT the operating system.
"as always"? Care to back that up?
(though lets not start that debate...)
You must be new here.
one programmer is more than enough
So then zero is about right?
are humans not animals?
"Do you have crabs?"
"Just one."
Exactly! Loved the Holling C. Holling books.
If we're going to give analogies like that, you will have to forgive some ragging on the realism:
Now change the stick to a spring. You can still move the weight up and down but it moves a lot less for a given amplitude.
You've said nothing about the possible *resonances* of the mass-on-a-spring model. For some driving frequencies ( fdrive >> fresonance ) you're right: the response amplitude of the mass will be much smaller than the drive amplitude. However, at very low frequencies (fdrive fresonance) the response amplitude is the *same or larger than* the drive amplitude (this is the limit of your stick analogy), and near resonance, the response amplitude can be much, MUCH larger than the drive amplitude.
Additionally, the mass-on-a-stick model assumes all of the energy dissipation is in the resistance felt by the drive, not the mass (which is, somehow, associated with the lightbulb?).
Right... in a way. Chris Langton's phrase, popularized by Waldrop, is the edge of chaos http://www.romanpoet.org/223/Langton.EdgeOfChaos.pdf, meaning that the place in dynamical phase space where things get interesting is in Wolfram's Class IV of complexity. It's not really _chaos_ as that term is used by most people (or, rather, "chaotic" may perhaps be a less precise term than should be used for the systems which show long-term cohesion of some sort, while still being flexible enough to be "interesting").
All you need to do is to rearrange things into Haiku form, and that could be epic.
I wish the article would have explained why MLB went with Silverlight in the first place
There was a mixup and they thought they were going with the Fleshlight.
That's interesting. Computer network models seem to say that with equal-weight connections, if you have, on average, fewer than two connections per node, the network quickly reaches a static state ("death"), whereas if there are more than an average of two connections per node, the network thrashes around in chaos. At 2 per node, "complex" behavior emerges.
We know that many cells are massively more connected in the cerebrum (on the order of 10^4 connections per node), but obviously different connections are weighted differently.
My tea leaves tell me that big-breasted beauties will show up here next week. Looks like we're at a stalemate, Trebeck.