Case closed, he is executive. That he has the tie breaking vote and serves as pres of the Senate no more makes him a member of the Legislative branch than the veto pen make the Pres one. It's part of this whole "checks and balances" thing that nobody in the executive these days seems to understand.
Have they figured out how fast neutrinos typically go yet? I mean, since we're pretty sure they're massive they must go at a speed less than c, but since it has taken us so long to figure it out, it must be really close to c.
We think it's time goes slow, it thinks our time goes slow. It's one of the symmetries of a Lorentz transformation. What happens is that when one of the observers accelerates so that it can sit down and compare notes with the other observer the observer that did the accelerating will have seen less time go by. It's a peculiarity of the geometry of spacetime that an inertial observer takes the path of longest proper time, that is the time that the observer will see go by.
It's really simple too - take a cue from Pokemon and make units persistent somehow between battles. Not just heros, either, but units should be able to gain experience, have morale, be decimated even if it doesn't technically die, etc. I don't know how exactly to make it fun, but the basic idea seems sound - ie that the army is something you have to take care of and not just send on suicide runs. I'm not talking about that "send a hero unit on a treasure hunt" crap from WC3, either, just sound battle hardened or shell shocked units.
In that vein, permitting people to customize their army somewhat seems like a good idea, too. This would work best with the persistent army, but even if the army isn't persistent allowing people to customize which branches of the tech tree they have access before the game might be a good idea, too. Kind of like how you're locked in to your technological choices before a war even starts.
Having persistent territory or some kind of objective world that this operates in is more questionable.
This would all be a play balancing nightmare, but could be worth the effort if done right.
I have a hard time squaring this with the central element of SC games - resource gathering to build an army up - but whatever. That's what makes brain dumps fun.:)
I mean, NSL only applies in the case of slow moving/low acceleration objects because it assumes infinite propagation speed of the force carrier.
If he finds this it will be interesting not because of NSL concerns but because it would be an observation of the finite propagation speed of gravity. A fact that would serve as indirect (or perhaps direct) evidence of gravitational waves.
Seriously. When I was in undergrad I had a couple of friends who were in the business school. One of them characterized the business ethics program as, "If it's not already illegal then it's your moral obligation to do it in order to encourage people to make it illegal, because if you don't someone else will and they'll out-compete you..." etc.
Don't you remember the clip from back around 2000 that showed Bush obviously drunk at a party in the 90s, a decade after he claimed to have gone dry? Or the DUI he had?
The evidence for Bush the alcoholic is more solid than for Bush the coke head.
Occam's razor states: "It is foolish to do with more that which can be done with less."
It's not about the number of assumptions, or veracity of the theory. It's a fundamental statement that science's job is about predicting results. As long as the predicted results cannot be distinguished, go for the simpler theory. It's why we still teach Newtonian mechanics in schools - 99.9999% of the time, Newton is plenty accurate and far easier to learn and apply.
It misses one of the four fundamental forces of nature. You know, an unimportant little thing we call "gravity." Naturally, if there's a particle that only interacts gravitationally, it would also have to be missing from the standard model.
There's also the unresolved matter of actually observing a little particle that is in the Standard Model called the Higgs boson.
Trust me, the standard model is really really good, but it's far from complete.
The aids were likely told to go over all of the governator's speeches to see if anything he said could be used against him in the court of public opinion and they stumbled across more files than were linked to on the web site. The line between this and hacking is easy to see and bright in color because this isn't just the web server responding the way it responds, it's responding the way it was meant to respond.
It's the fault of Arnold's team if they're too stupid to realize that putting something like this in a publicly accessible directory of the server is 100% pure stupidity.
A better analogy is Arnold team left out boxes of recordings of his speeches and all the boxes say "take one." And behind the front row of boxes was a box with an embarrassing recording in it.
Any reputation system would need to take into account topic area somehow. Otherwise you could get someone who is extremely competent in one area making an @ss of themselves in another article.
Consider Einstein's quote, "Marriage is nothing more than an attempt to make something lasting out of an incident." Obviously Einstein was a less than stellar social psychologist.
It's fine to have the hardware validate the software, I don't think anyone can rationally argue against that. What's not fine is to have the hardware refuse to run the software at all. If the user is conscious that the software is modified and therefor unsupported, then the user should have the ability to run any software he chooses.
So, have a cryptographic check alongside a message or error light or something about running in unsupported mode, but don't completely cripple the hardware just because you want to avoid support headaches.
I don't have access to the necessary data and my training in this area is thin, but one possibility that springs to mind is that the object has too much angular momentum. I'm sure every slashdotter knows that the Earth is slightly flattened by its rotation. As you add more angular momentum you normally expect the object to just flatten more and more as it spins faster and faster. It turns out that after a certain point the body will be more stable as a tumbling elongated shape than a fast spinning disc. Continue to increase the angular momentum and the body will ultimately separate in to two.
Now, this won't result in a perfect cigar shape - especially the high length to width ratio and straight sides - so another theory may be necessary, depending on the data. This is what sprang in to my mind when they mentioned it, though.
The researcher is flat out wrong. His criterion of "major innovations" is actually equivalent to "easily understood innovations" because significance is in the eyes of the beholder, and his beholders (technology historians) aren't specialists. Viewed in that light, the article's claims rocket up in the "duh" factor. Innovation isn't slowing down, the ability of the laymen to understand what innovation is occurring is no longer sufficient.
Even granting that innovation per capita is dropping, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were, the researcher misattributes the root cause. He talks about what innovations are "economical" without considering what factors would go in to determining that limitation. Long story short - the limitations of the human brain play an important role: how fast it can learn, how much memory it can retain, how fast it can communicate with the outside world, etc. If innovation is slowing it is likely because we're running in to limitations inherent to the human brain as it exists today. Just look at how long it takes before a person can learn enough to make a meaningful contribution to a chosen field today as it compares to yesteryear. Hell, the fact that we have to specialize to the degree we do today compared to the days of Galilei, Newton, Franklin, and the like speaks volumes about how far we've come. Without any changes to the system (education, research, etc) it is obvious that the time will eventually come when a human being simply cannot live long enough to learn what's necessary to make any contribution whatsoever no matter how early they specialize. Fortunately, there's hope. Whether the advances in the human brain come from genetic engineering, cybernetic implants, developmental modifications (think something along the lines of mentats from Dune), or just better teaching methods, they will come. Once we have achieved enough of an understanding of the brain to improve our ability to augment it in a widespread fashion (that is, cheaply), innovation per capita would pick up again.
And I see no reason why perfecting some technology along those lines isn't economically feasible with our present limitations. In fact, I'll be astounded if something significant doesn't happen in this avenue within the next century.
Slashdot Mirror
Case closed, he is executive. That he has the tie breaking vote and serves as pres of the Senate no more makes him a member of the Legislative branch than the veto pen make the Pres one. It's part of this whole "checks and balances" thing that nobody in the executive these days seems to understand.
Have they figured out how fast neutrinos typically go yet? I mean, since we're pretty sure they're massive they must go at a speed less than c, but since it has taken us so long to figure it out, it must be really close to c.
We think it's time goes slow, it thinks our time goes slow. It's one of the symmetries of a Lorentz transformation. What happens is that when one of the observers accelerates so that it can sit down and compare notes with the other observer the observer that did the accelerating will have seen less time go by. It's a peculiarity of the geometry of spacetime that an inertial observer takes the path of longest proper time, that is the time that the observer will see go by.
Maybe, but you could also impose tariffs. Certainly impose them to a balancing degree, and possibly to a punitive degree.
I see no reason to let them profit because American's are on the whole too lazy to bother with the well being of overseas workers.
It's really simple too - take a cue from Pokemon and make units persistent somehow between battles. Not just heros, either, but units should be able to gain experience, have morale, be decimated even if it doesn't technically die, etc. I don't know how exactly to make it fun, but the basic idea seems sound - ie that the army is something you have to take care of and not just send on suicide runs. I'm not talking about that "send a hero unit on a treasure hunt" crap from WC3, either, just sound battle hardened or shell shocked units.
:)
In that vein, permitting people to customize their army somewhat seems like a good idea, too. This would work best with the persistent army, but even if the army isn't persistent allowing people to customize which branches of the tech tree they have access before the game might be a good idea, too. Kind of like how you're locked in to your technological choices before a war even starts.
Having persistent territory or some kind of objective world that this operates in is more questionable.
This would all be a play balancing nightmare, but could be worth the effort if done right.
I have a hard time squaring this with the central element of SC games - resource gathering to build an army up - but whatever. That's what makes brain dumps fun.
I mean, NSL only applies in the case of slow moving/low acceleration objects because it assumes infinite propagation speed of the force carrier.
If he finds this it will be interesting not because of NSL concerns but because it would be an observation of the finite propagation speed of gravity. A fact that would serve as indirect (or perhaps direct) evidence of gravitational waves.
From TFA (picture cap): "This nighttime view of Saturn's north pole shows a bizarre six-sided hexagon feature encircling the entire north pole."
Call me when they've found a five sided hexagon!
Seriously. When I was in undergrad I had a couple of friends who were in the business school. One of them characterized the business ethics program as, "If it's not already illegal then it's your moral obligation to do it in order to encourage people to make it illegal, because if you don't someone else will and they'll out-compete you..." etc.
My friend was as flabbergasted as I was.
If we keep on this fossil fueled path we're going to choke to death on our own smoke.
You've got the "best" of both worlds.
Don't you remember the clip from back around 2000 that showed Bush obviously drunk at a party in the 90s, a decade after he claimed to have gone dry? Or the DUI he had?
The evidence for Bush the alcoholic is more solid than for Bush the coke head.
Tis to say that the Utahns will vote for the Republican no matter how un-ideal he is because Democrats are "Liberals" and "Liberals"=Evil.
How much more conservative can you get?
Utah: 71% Bush in 04
Alabama: 63% Bush
Occam's razor states: "It is foolish to do with more that which can be done with less."
It's not about the number of assumptions, or veracity of the theory. It's a fundamental statement that science's job is about predicting results. As long as the predicted results cannot be distinguished, go for the simpler theory. It's why we still teach Newtonian mechanics in schools - 99.9999% of the time, Newton is plenty accurate and far easier to learn and apply.
Uncountably infinite theories, depending on how you compactify the extra dimensions to hide them from us.
It misses one of the four fundamental forces of nature. You know, an unimportant little thing we call "gravity." Naturally, if there's a particle that only interacts gravitationally, it would also have to be missing from the standard model.
There's also the unresolved matter of actually observing a little particle that is in the Standard Model called the Higgs boson.
Trust me, the standard model is really really good, but it's far from complete.
It's the fault of Arnold's team if they're too stupid to realize that putting something like this in a publicly accessible directory of the server is 100% pure stupidity.
A better analogy is Arnold team left out boxes of recordings of his speeches and all the boxes say "take one." And behind the front row of boxes was a box with an embarrassing recording in it.
Any reputation system would need to take into account topic area somehow. Otherwise you could get someone who is extremely competent in one area making an @ss of themselves in another article.
Consider Einstein's quote, "Marriage is nothing more than an attempt to make something lasting out of an incident." Obviously Einstein was a less than stellar social psychologist.
My battery isn't listed in the recall: https://support.apple.com/ibook_powerbook/batterye xchange/index.html
:(
iBook G4 12-inch battery model: A1061
serial number starts with ranges:
ZZ338-ZZ427
3K429-3K611
6C519-6C552
PowerBook G4 12-inch model: A1079
serial number starts with ranges:
ZZ411 - ZZ427
3K428 - 3K611
PowerBook G4 15-inch model: A1078 and A1148
serial number starts with ranges:
3K425 - 3K601
6N530 - 6N551
6N601
It is, however, down to about 75% of what used to be full capacity at full charge.
I wanted a new battery.
These types of little entities break your perspective badly.
It's fine to have the hardware validate the software, I don't think anyone can rationally argue against that. What's not fine is to have the hardware refuse to run the software at all. If the user is conscious that the software is modified and therefor unsupported, then the user should have the ability to run any software he chooses.
So, have a cryptographic check alongside a message or error light or something about running in unsupported mode, but don't completely cripple the hardware just because you want to avoid support headaches.
I don't have access to the necessary data and my training in this area is thin, but one possibility that springs to mind is that the object has too much angular momentum. I'm sure every slashdotter knows that the Earth is slightly flattened by its rotation. As you add more angular momentum you normally expect the object to just flatten more and more as it spins faster and faster. It turns out that after a certain point the body will be more stable as a tumbling elongated shape than a fast spinning disc. Continue to increase the angular momentum and the body will ultimately separate in to two.
Now, this won't result in a perfect cigar shape - especially the high length to width ratio and straight sides - so another theory may be necessary, depending on the data. This is what sprang in to my mind when they mentioned it, though.
The researcher is flat out wrong. His criterion of "major innovations" is actually equivalent to "easily understood innovations" because significance is in the eyes of the beholder, and his beholders (technology historians) aren't specialists. Viewed in that light, the article's claims rocket up in the "duh" factor. Innovation isn't slowing down, the ability of the laymen to understand what innovation is occurring is no longer sufficient.
Even granting that innovation per capita is dropping, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were, the researcher misattributes the root cause. He talks about what innovations are "economical" without considering what factors would go in to determining that limitation. Long story short - the limitations of the human brain play an important role: how fast it can learn, how much memory it can retain, how fast it can communicate with the outside world, etc. If innovation is slowing it is likely because we're running in to limitations inherent to the human brain as it exists today. Just look at how long it takes before a person can learn enough to make a meaningful contribution to a chosen field today as it compares to yesteryear. Hell, the fact that we have to specialize to the degree we do today compared to the days of Galilei, Newton, Franklin, and the like speaks volumes about how far we've come. Without any changes to the system (education, research, etc) it is obvious that the time will eventually come when a human being simply cannot live long enough to learn what's necessary to make any contribution whatsoever no matter how early they specialize. Fortunately, there's hope. Whether the advances in the human brain come from genetic engineering, cybernetic implants, developmental modifications (think something along the lines of mentats from Dune), or just better teaching methods, they will come. Once we have achieved enough of an understanding of the brain to improve our ability to augment it in a widespread fashion (that is, cheaply), innovation per capita would pick up again.
And I see no reason why perfecting some technology along those lines isn't economically feasible with our present limitations. In fact, I'll be astounded if something significant doesn't happen in this avenue within the next century.
BlackGriffen
"The Joke"
;)
* <- your head
a violation of the DMCA? Turning to the courts sounds like a circumvention technology to me.
BG
Quicktime offers png compression, but I assume you knew that. There's also that pixlet codec, but I assume you knew that, too.
Other than that, I dunno. I know the Gimp supports bz2 compression of images, and I would assume FilmGimp does so for movies.
BG