Dimeola plays as many notes in 30 seconds as most people would use on an entire album, so I can see how you might have thought that the clip you heard was the whole thing.:-)
Check out "Maxinquaye" by Tricky. That one sounds more like Portishead to me than anything else I have. Plus it's a freaking great album in its own right anyway!
Well, you have to remember that the Soviet Union played a significant and probably the largest role in defeating Nazi Germany (certainly they sustained the most damage). In that light it was more like evil-vs-evil.
It makes perfect sense to me. By using the most popular OS on the most popular hardware platform they will get the best selection of specialized POS peripherals and attendant driver support. I don't know what that bit about 'cross-platform' is supposed to mean, but I did notice it wasn't a direct quote so it could be that the reporter just got confused. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that ever happened...
If I had a site like that I'd call it "Quantum Overclocking". It sounds all cool and futuristic but it really means "overclocking by the smallest possible amount".
Look, go calculate how a single-photon double-slit apparatus can produce an intereference pattern without using QM, then I'll believe you. This nattering about 'chaos' is just hot air otherwise. How can it be more 'feasible' than QM, when QM perfectly describes the observed behavior and your 'theory' hasn't been shown to do so?
I think he meant that to overclock a CPU by a lot you generally have to buy some sort of fancy cooler, instead of just using the heatsink+fan that comes with it.
Do you have any citations for these "several parties" that have observed anomalous energy production in hydrogen plasmas? I haven't heard anything about them, but I'm not a plasma physicist or a free-energy enthusiast either. The linked article certainly didn't mention them. Certainly there must have been many hydrogen plasma experiments that didn't see anything out of the ordinary, but that's probably because they didn't use the "magic" catalyst or twitch their noses the right way. It's cold fusion all over again.
Mills' work seems to be all over the place, dropping projects and starting new ones whenever things aren't going as planned. That's not really the hallmark of a "competent experimenter". Why doesn't he ever see anything through to some sort of conclusion?
NASA hasn't verified anything. The guy they sent was an engineer, not a plasma physicist. Just because he didn't see anything obviously wrong doesn't validate the result very much. Only independent confirmation by other plasma physics experts could do that. Given Mills' past history I doubt if many people will be willing to waste their time chasing after his fantasies, though. It may not be fair, but that's what you get when you develop a bad reputation.
They laughed at Edison, they laughed at Einstein. But they laughed at Bozo the Clown too.
Probably we are both right and both wrong. In a situation like this, you really can't use a frequentist definition of probability anymore, where you just divide the number of hits by the number of trials. You need to use something like a Bayesian probability, and there we could argue about the proper prior until the cows come home without getting anywhere, since there's no unambiguous recipe for getting the right answer (assuming there even is one). Your comment about 'personal preference' is right on, that's pretty much what it comes down to. I just don't like to see these "the probability of obtaining our universe is 10^(-57), that means there must be an intelligent designer" stories, since that's a frequentist a priori probability and therefore a meaningless number. It doesn't mean there is or is not a God, it just means the author doesn't understand statistics.:-)
It sounds nice to say that every idea should get a fair examination, but in reality there are limited resources, both materially and in terms of peoples' time. You have to make some judgment calls, and it makes me angry that NASA is wasting money on a textbook free energy scam when they could be spending it on something useful. Of course it's possible that 'hydrino' theory is correct, but I certainly don't see any reason to believe that's so in the meandering mess of 'experiments' that have been advanced so far as proof. Having an open mind is a great ideal, but you have to practical about things too if you want to get anything done.
You still aren't understanding the difference between a priori and a posteriori probabilities. If I take the digits of pi and fool around converting them into different bases, plotting them, whatever, and suddenly I see something that looks like 'Elvis lives', I can't use the a priori probability of that particular combination to prove that it's "impossible" for this to have happened merely by chance. Now that you know it's there, the a posteriori probability is 100% and the a priori probability is meaningless.
I don't think either the g-2 or the neutrino oscillations really pose much problem to the Standard Model, unfortunately. Nonzero neutrino masses can be easily incorporated into the SM, there's nothing there that requires them to be massless. You just add the mass terms to the Lagrangian and throw in a mixing matrix, sure the masses are arbritrary but they are for all other particles too. I don't quite know what to make of the g-2 measurement. After the first results came out there was so much arguing about the theoretical prediction that it started to look like you could get any answer you wanted. First there was a lot of heat about the hadronic correction term, then the light-by-light scattering part turned out to have the wrong sign, etc. It's not at all obvious to me that there is a really firm SM prediction to compare the experimental results too, it's like the kaon mixing epsilon'/epsilon business all over again. The g-2 people seem to be a bit too eager pushing a "new physics" interpretation for my taste, although I guess it's understandable why they are doing it. The last time I looked the discrepancy was 2.2 sigma, which is certainly not 'very clear' evidence that the SM is wrong.
The key part is that his ogg files use vbr (variable bitrate). This means that the file averages about 128 kb/s, but some parts will be encoded at a higher rate and some at a lower rate depending upon the complexity of the original signal. He could have done the same thing with an mp3 encoder like LAME and seen similar improvements over his constant-bitrate 256 kb/s files, since mp3 supports vbr also.
What's all this bullshit about the "real" Internet, anyway? When I visit my parents I use their AOL account on my iBook for access. I fire up the AOL client, tell it to connect, then once I'm online I minimize it and use all the same stuff I do at home on my broadband connection (IMAP mail, Mozilla, ssh, etc.) Why is an AOL connection any worse than one from i.e. Earthlink?
The Republicans hold tiny majorities in the House and Senate and a President who lost the popular vote. Where does this notion that they are overwhelming dominant come from?
I think you (and almost everyone else) are confusing 8-bit word size with base-8 numbering systems. You can write 12-bit words in binary, octal, hex, or whatever just as easily as 8-bit words.
Re:Ransom is such a negative word
on
Software For Ransom
·
· Score: 5, Funny
When the source code is released, will it come in the mail with no return address and spelled out in individual letters clipped from the newspaper? If so, where are they going to find enough semicolons?
Slashdot Mirror
"cross-skillification"? Wow, Don King reads Slashdot!
So that's what happened to it! Man, you set something down for a second to go back into the house for your sunglasses and look what happens...
Dimeola plays as many notes in 30 seconds as most people would use on an entire album, so I can see how you might have thought that the clip you heard was the whole thing. :-)
Check out "Maxinquaye" by Tricky. That one sounds more like Portishead to me than anything else I have. Plus it's a freaking great album in its own right anyway!
Get back to me in a couple of years and I'll let you know. :-(
Well, you have to remember that the Soviet Union played a significant and probably the largest role in defeating Nazi Germany (certainly they sustained the most damage). In that light it was more like evil-vs-evil.
It makes perfect sense to me. By using the most popular OS on the most popular hardware platform they will get the best selection of specialized POS peripherals and attendant driver support. I don't know what that bit about 'cross-platform' is supposed to mean, but I did notice it wasn't a direct quote so it could be that the reporter just got confused. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that ever happened...
If I had a site like that I'd call it "Quantum Overclocking". It sounds all cool and futuristic but it really means "overclocking by the smallest possible amount".
Look, go calculate how a single-photon double-slit apparatus can produce an intereference pattern without using QM, then I'll believe you. This nattering about 'chaos' is just hot air otherwise. How can it be more 'feasible' than QM, when QM perfectly describes the observed behavior and your 'theory' hasn't been shown to do so?
I think he meant that to overclock a CPU by a lot you generally have to buy some sort of fancy cooler, instead of just using the heatsink+fan that comes with it.
Every product can be "the best product in its class", you just have to carefully choose the evaluation criteria. :-)
Do you have any citations for these "several parties" that have observed anomalous energy production in hydrogen plasmas? I haven't heard anything about them, but I'm not a plasma physicist or a free-energy enthusiast either. The linked article certainly didn't mention them. Certainly there must have been many hydrogen plasma experiments that didn't see anything out of the ordinary, but that's probably because they didn't use the "magic" catalyst or twitch their noses the right way. It's cold fusion all over again.
Mills' work seems to be all over the place, dropping projects and starting new ones whenever things aren't going as planned. That's not really the hallmark of a "competent experimenter". Why doesn't he ever see anything through to some sort of conclusion?
NASA hasn't verified anything. The guy they sent was an engineer, not a plasma physicist. Just because he didn't see anything obviously wrong doesn't validate the result very much. Only independent confirmation by other plasma physics experts could do that. Given Mills' past history I doubt if many people will be willing to waste their time chasing after his fantasies, though. It may not be fair, but that's what you get when you develop a bad reputation.
They laughed at Edison, they laughed at Einstein. But they laughed at Bozo the Clown too.
Probably we are both right and both wrong. In a situation like this, you really can't use a frequentist definition of probability anymore, where you just divide the number of hits by the number of trials. You need to use something like a Bayesian probability, and there we could argue about the proper prior until the cows come home without getting anywhere, since there's no unambiguous recipe for getting the right answer (assuming there even is one). Your comment about 'personal preference' is right on, that's pretty much what it comes down to. I just don't like to see these "the probability of obtaining our universe is 10^(-57), that means there must be an intelligent designer" stories, since that's a frequentist a priori probability and therefore a meaningless number. It doesn't mean there is or is not a God, it just means the author doesn't understand statistics. :-)
It sounds nice to say that every idea should get a fair examination, but in reality there are limited resources, both materially and in terms of peoples' time. You have to make some judgment calls, and it makes me angry that NASA is wasting money on a textbook free energy scam when they could be spending it on something useful. Of course it's possible that 'hydrino' theory is correct, but I certainly don't see any reason to believe that's so in the meandering mess of 'experiments' that have been advanced so far as proof. Having an open mind is a great ideal, but you have to practical about things too if you want to get anything done.
Does your laptop case have room for a car battery to power all of that stuff? :-)
You still aren't understanding the difference between a priori and a posteriori probabilities. If I take the digits of pi and fool around converting them into different bases, plotting them, whatever, and suddenly I see something that looks like 'Elvis lives', I can't use the a priori probability of that particular combination to prove that it's "impossible" for this to have happened merely by chance. Now that you know it's there, the a posteriori probability is 100% and the a priori probability is meaningless.
I don't think either the g-2 or the neutrino oscillations really pose much problem to the Standard Model, unfortunately. Nonzero neutrino masses can be easily incorporated into the SM, there's nothing there that requires them to be massless. You just add the mass terms to the Lagrangian and throw in a mixing matrix, sure the masses are arbritrary but they are for all other particles too. I don't quite know what to make of the g-2 measurement. After the first results came out there was so much arguing about the theoretical prediction that it started to look like you could get any answer you wanted. First there was a lot of heat about the hadronic correction term, then the light-by-light scattering part turned out to have the wrong sign, etc. It's not at all obvious to me that there is a really firm SM prediction to compare the experimental results too, it's like the kaon mixing epsilon'/epsilon business all over again. The g-2 people seem to be a bit too eager pushing a "new physics" interpretation for my taste, although I guess it's understandable why they are doing it. The last time I looked the discrepancy was 2.2 sigma, which is certainly not 'very clear' evidence that the SM is wrong.
The key part is that his ogg files use vbr (variable bitrate). This means that the file averages about 128 kb/s, but some parts will be encoded at a higher rate and some at a lower rate depending upon the complexity of the original signal. He could have done the same thing with an mp3 encoder like LAME and seen similar improvements over his constant-bitrate 256 kb/s files, since mp3 supports vbr also.
What's all this bullshit about the "real" Internet, anyway? When I visit my parents I use their AOL account on my iBook for access. I fire up the AOL client, tell it to connect, then once I'm online I minimize it and use all the same stuff I do at home on my broadband connection (IMAP mail, Mozilla, ssh, etc.) Why is an AOL connection any worse than one from i.e. Earthlink?
The Republicans hold tiny majorities in the House and Senate and a President who lost the popular vote. Where does this notion that they are overwhelming dominant come from?
It took guts to give up and quit? Man, I'm the gutsiest guy on the planet by that metric! Who knew?
Yeah, I'm sure New Line spent $0 on promotion, and they get every penny of the box office with the theaters getting nothing.
I think you (and almost everyone else) are confusing 8-bit word size with base-8 numbering systems. You can write 12-bit words in binary, octal, hex, or whatever just as easily as 8-bit words.
When the source code is released, will it come in the mail with no return address and spelled out in individual letters clipped from the newspaper? If so, where are they going to find enough semicolons?
I can see it now: National Lampoon's Office 1.0 - "Buy this software or the dog gets it!"