No, that doesn't mean that. There is ample evidence collected over some 40 years (but mostly from early 80ties) that stimuli can be too weak to be conciously noticed but have a measurable effect on cognitive processes. To what ends these effects can be exploited is not active research area of cognitive psychology.
Well, he weren't able to prove or disprove two worms were finite but for other ones, he did prove they were identical except for being rotated versions of each other. I understand that you expect a proof of the form "blah blah blah hence these two worms are identical QED" nevertheless "I run both programs, they produce the same output before terminating except for their output being rotated" is a very stong proof.
Interesting. I wonder why I misrecall the definition. I'm almost sure that (1g,1atm,4->5C) is what my thermodynamics book, which is written well after 1950, had about the SI definition of the term.
The joule to calorie fixing makes sense but I wonder where they pulled the 4.184 number from, why not go with, say, 4.2055 instead. All things about water are either defined at triple point (0 C) or when water desity is highest (4 C), choice of 15 C and only approximating that, is interesting.
Comparing number of registers in a CISC architecture to one at RISC architecture is not apples to apples comparison. There are many operations where CISC uses only the target register to store values while RISC has to store operands to different registers and then find a target register to store the result. I think for most operations 16 registers of CISC compares very favorably to 32 registers of RISC. Of course, when you have to do many different operations on the same little (greater than 16, fewer than 32) set of values RISC's 32 register come handy, but these cases are few.
Yes, because the road itself gets longer. Imagine a mountain rises in Denver after 3 hours, if the cars' drivers decide to see each other, they will have to travel for longer than 300 miles.
Parts of WineX are covered under at least three licences: GPL, APL and X11. I don't know how they manage to get non-GPLed portions NOT being derivative works of GPLed portions, but they implictly claim to manage that.
Yes, you are such a bad guy. You shouldn't have staticly linked to code you can't put under GPL in the first place. Or you shouldn't have distributed it, I'm not sure which.
If someone released source code under GPL, do they also need to make sure that others can compile it? These guys use "we can't compile it" argument just to prove that the source code is incomplete but suppose that linksys ported linux to INTERCAL++ and released full source code but did not provide the compiler they made in-house. Would that still violate GPL?
Furthermore the idea of "cheap" precision guided bombs is a bit silly. It takes a hell of alot more than unfettered access to an accurate positioning system to build a precision guided weapon.
Lets see what is really required to use such a weapon.
1) a missle
2) ability to detect exact coordinates of the target
3) accurate 3d maps of the world
4) an accurate positioning system feeding the craft location info
5) a computer fast enough to use that information to steer the craft.
3 and 5 are things everybody reading slashdot has access to. 1 is something China has. You need a GPS-like system for 2 and 4.
I want my beer. Please verify by compiling openoffice.org Although the source itself is not 2GB, make process creates more than 2GB worth of temporary files (with gentoo ebuilds but I don't think it is any different on any other linux.) Add that the memory OS and compiler, linker etc. uses, source files and target files, the process may benefit from as much as 3GB memory.
You make it sound as if 5 detonations per second are required for Orion concept to work but there are quite a few different operating modes of Orion, with different detonation rates. Also, its ascend time is much shorter than competing designs.
Keep in mind that dedsing of Orion requires light, directed detonation bombs, not high yield ones. So it is possible to make cleaner bombs for Orion, at least for take off. If you want shuttle missions powered by Orion concept, I concur that it is very dirty; both because competing technology (chemical rockets) is clean and because low yield bombs are dirtier than high yield bombs. However if you think big, take every kind of pollution from production to actual flight exhaust in to account instead of focusing on nuclear fallout, it is not only clean but probably (at least for big enough designs) cleaner.
Interesting concept. It looks something between NERVA and Orion. I'm not sure how exactly they can use the trust without a pusher plate, a la Orion, if the bulk of fission occurs outside reaction chamber. I'll look into it when I have time.
The anti-nuclear lobby will so to that it shall never be used though. Sad, really.
I agree with you that Dyson's book is excellent read. I went from "what an insane idea" to "hmmm, interesting and very promising concept, only if it was feasible" to "damn, we humans are fools, how can we NOT build that thing."
You (and your replier) are wrong about German atomic bomb, they were really far away from building one when the war had ended. USA feared that they were close to building one and didn't have conclusive evidence that they weren't until after the war, but for fuck's sake, we are living more than 60 years after the end of the war and you, telling other people to get a clue, still think Germany was about the build a bomb. They didn't have science, they didn't have materials, they didn't have facilities and they didn't even have strong support from Hitler.
Also, NOBODY knew how to go about building a fusion bomb in 40ties. Get a clue.
When you need nukes, nothing else will do. For things like building a 50 man moon base and flying it from Earth to Moon in one go or taking humans to outer planets in a few months or sending probes out of solar system that will reach their destinations in a lifetime, nothing except Orion will do. That still is the case and I don't see how that can change given the physics of propulsion. It could have worked, and it still can work. Instead of writing it off as an insane idea and staying on this planet I would rather see the technology developed and used until we have an alternative.
Perhaps that can be done after 20-50 flights. For the first few dozens, we have to get the capsule and check out how systems have fared during the flight. Unless, of course, you don't want to know about failure-prone sub-systems until a real failure occurs.
Re:Do you want to be shaken, not stirred?
on
Studies In Ornithopters
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
BS. You can't scale up ornithopters exploiting unsteady flow dynamics you mention unless you scale kinematic viscosity and compressibility of air in the process (which -of course- one can't.) Ornithopters may be the future of Jovian avionics but they can't fly humans on Earth and offer bumblebee dynamics at the same time.
It is very easy, Altivec can do something SSE(2) can't. If both ISAs can vectorize the given operation, SSE2 is just as good. With higher frequency, SSE2 wins. When you need to do something that can be done with altivec but can't be done with SSE(2) unit (inter-vector permutations are one example, see arstechnica.com for more examples) altivec is way faster.
Also, I don't know how much PPC970s costs but considering how much dual G5s from Apple are expected to cost, PPC970 must be very competitevly priced.
It was about beliefs and proofs. It is not a trojan, nobody said it was a regular science fiction movie. Sure, there is alien invasion but it is done purposely silly to support the religious plot. The sheer unbelievability of the fact that plain water kills aliens while the daughter leaves half emptied glasses around while the bat hits one while being swinged while the wife has told... etc. is an integral part of the message.
Having said that, I didn't like the movie either. I don't even know anyone who did. Because I, like many others, was expecting a science fiction despite the movie wasn't promoted as one, nor any positive critics told me it was one. That was my misake, not the movie's.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless the secure OS is open source, it can't be immune to insecurities of an MS product.
No, that doesn't mean that. There is ample evidence collected over some 40 years (but mostly from early 80ties) that stimuli can be too weak to be conciously noticed but have a measurable effect on cognitive processes. To what ends these effects can be exploited is not active research area of cognitive psychology.
Well, he weren't able to prove or disprove two worms were finite but for other ones, he did prove they were identical except for being rotated versions of each other. I understand that you expect a proof of the form "blah blah blah hence these two worms are identical QED" nevertheless "I run both programs, they produce the same output before terminating except for their output being rotated" is a very stong proof.
The joule to calorie fixing makes sense but I wonder where they pulled the 4.184 number from, why not go with, say, 4.2055 instead. All things about water are either defined at triple point (0 C) or when water desity is highest (4 C), choice of 15 C and only approximating that, is interesting.
A calorie is the amount of heat required to raise 1 gram of pure water at +4C to +5C under 1 atm pressure.
Comparing number of registers in a CISC architecture to one at RISC architecture is not apples to apples comparison. There are many operations where CISC uses only the target register to store values while RISC has to store operands to different registers and then find a target register to store the result. I think for most operations 16 registers of CISC compares very favorably to 32 registers of RISC. Of course, when you have to do many different operations on the same little (greater than 16, fewer than 32) set of values RISC's 32 register come handy, but these cases are few.
Ok, so KDE doesn't do KMS. But X does. Wouldn't it have been a bit dumb to duplicate whole effort just to make "KDE does it"?
Yes, because the road itself gets longer. Imagine a mountain rises in Denver after 3 hours, if the cars' drivers decide to see each other, they will have to travel for longer than 300 miles.
As of 1.1rc3, first start time is about half of 1.0.3 which still kind slow. Second and later starts are very fast unlike 1.0.x.
Parts of WineX are covered under at least three licences: GPL, APL and X11. I don't know how they manage to get non-GPLed portions NOT being derivative works of GPLed portions, but they implictly claim to manage that.
Yes, you are such a bad guy. You shouldn't have staticly linked to code you can't put under GPL in the first place. Or you shouldn't have distributed it, I'm not sure which.
If someone released source code under GPL, do they also need to make sure that others can compile it? These guys use "we can't compile it" argument just to prove that the source code is incomplete but suppose that linksys ported linux to INTERCAL++ and released full source code but did not provide the compiler they made in-house. Would that still violate GPL?
google for "diamagnetic", "frog".
Lets see what is really required to use such a weapon.
1) a missle
2) ability to detect exact coordinates of the target
3) accurate 3d maps of the world
4) an accurate positioning system feeding the craft location info
5) a computer fast enough to use that information to steer the craft.
3 and 5 are things everybody reading slashdot has access to. 1 is something China has. You need a GPS-like system for 2 and 4.
I want my beer. Please verify by compiling openoffice.org Although the source itself is not 2GB, make process creates more than 2GB worth of temporary files (with gentoo ebuilds but I don't think it is any different on any other linux.) Add that the memory OS and compiler, linker etc. uses, source files and target files, the process may benefit from as much as 3GB memory.
That is what Orion promises. Don't let inefficiency of rockets fool you.
Keep in mind that dedsing of Orion requires light, directed detonation bombs, not high yield ones. So it is possible to make cleaner bombs for Orion, at least for take off. If you want shuttle missions powered by Orion concept, I concur that it is very dirty; both because competing technology (chemical rockets) is clean and because low yield bombs are dirtier than high yield bombs. However if you think big, take every kind of pollution from production to actual flight exhaust in to account instead of focusing on nuclear fallout, it is not only clean but probably (at least for big enough designs) cleaner.
The anti-nuclear lobby will so to that it shall never be used though. Sad, really.
I agree with you that Dyson's book is excellent read. I went from "what an insane idea" to "hmmm, interesting and very promising concept, only if it was feasible" to "damn, we humans are fools, how can we NOT build that thing."
Also, NOBODY knew how to go about building a fusion bomb in 40ties. Get a clue.
When you need nukes, nothing else will do. For things like building a 50 man moon base and flying it from Earth to Moon in one go or taking humans to outer planets in a few months or sending probes out of solar system that will reach their destinations in a lifetime, nothing except Orion will do. That still is the case and I don't see how that can change given the physics of propulsion. It could have worked, and it still can work. Instead of writing it off as an insane idea and staying on this planet I would rather see the technology developed and used until we have an alternative.
How about
for(i=0;in;++i)
{
instead of
int (*f)(int arg1, char *arg2, void **data);
long long x = (v != NULL)?qd:tt;
?
Perhaps that can be done after 20-50 flights. For the first few dozens, we have to get the capsule and check out how systems have fared during the flight. Unless, of course, you don't want to know about failure-prone sub-systems until a real failure occurs.
BS. You can't scale up ornithopters exploiting unsteady flow dynamics you mention unless you scale kinematic viscosity and compressibility of air in the process (which -of course- one can't.) Ornithopters may be the future of Jovian avionics but they can't fly humans on Earth and offer bumblebee dynamics at the same time.
Also, I don't know how much PPC970s costs but considering how much dual G5s from Apple are expected to cost, PPC970 must be very competitevly priced.
Having said that, I didn't like the movie either. I don't even know anyone who did. Because I, like many others, was expecting a science fiction despite the movie wasn't promoted as one, nor any positive critics told me it was one. That was my misake, not the movie's.