OK, being unnecessarily complex is nearly as bad as being over-simplified. But while a simple iteration would work adequately for simulating the orbits of planets around a star, this only applies as long as nothing more complex was going on. If you were trying to simulate orbits around a star during planet formation, when you have planetesimals hitting each other, getting slung into the sun and out of the solar system, etc. etc. , you'd need to be able to handle a bit more complexity.
I suspect he is right that Runge-Kutta produces a more stable game if you have complex interactions going on, but his example should have been better chosen.
When you mention Hubble, you have to remember it was seriously short-sighted until astronauts went up to fix it. But OK, that makes them highly skilled technicians rather than researchers.
Well, judging by the difference in price of what this has and what my system at home has, they must have some seriously high quality audio stuff on it. Or are they just pandering to the music/gadget obsessives who think that more expensive means better?
Well yes QM is a theory, but so is Gravity. That doesn't mean apples are going to rise tomorrow.
Anyway, the main point is not that the code is uncrackable, but that you cannot intercept the key without being given away. Being able to crack someones code is often not that useful if they immediately know you've cracked it.
You wouldn't use these LEDs to make things appear to glow, as making a multiple photon emitting LED is far easier than making one that only emits one photon at a time.
Surely it doesn't matter whether you are 1km or 40m off the ground, the energy in a lightning strike will be pretty much the same? Of course the frequency will be higher, but if we couldn't build buildings to take lightning strikes, we wouldn't have had, say, the Empire State building.
Hey, the launch was 85% successful (rounded to nearest integer). The landing on the other hand was only 33% successful, given that one out of three parachutes worked...
Thing is, you can make a big blue furry monster look acceptably like a big blue furry monster quite easily because the audience doesn't see them every day.
We're very good at recognising what a human should look like, and being just a bit off will make the CGI human look and feel fake compared to real actors.
That 'incidental to their studies' bit seems a bit worrying - it'd be alarming if it meant that you couldn't use your general programming skills (as opposed to specific course related routines perhaps) to write something at home without having to hand ownership of it over to the college.
From my understanding of 'incidental', it means casual, subordinate, but still related. But IANAL, and I wouldn't want to have to get into a legal fight over it. Scary.
If you were paying yourself for the true cost of the facilities provided by the university, then student ownership of the patent would be justified. But I certainly didn't when I was doing my PhD, and I wouldn't imagine many others were.
Now I'm a postdoc researcher, if I were to produce anything patentable now, that would be as part of my job - what I'm paid to do (unless I come up with something unconnected at home and in my spare time) - I've signed a form to this effect, so I can't complain about it afterwards if they take ownership. Not paying royalties would be another matter though.
Of course, I still whinge about being underpaid...
Yes, but (to play devil's advocate) if all you have to do to produce a steady stream of terrorists is have a large pool of poor people and tell them it is America's fault, then Afghanistan under Taliban rule was pretty much going to be a training ground haven.
The peaceful solution is always preferable. Unfortunately, this would frequently require the use of a time machine, as the opportunity has often long since passed by the time you realise what the solution was. Once terrorists have been produced in the first place, there is clearly something wrong, and merely turning the other cheek just gets you hit somewhere else. The only option is messy patch ups, and hope that eventually the problem will recede.
I'd like to suggest an easy solution. I'd also like a leprechaun's pot of gold, but they don't exist either.
People are already doing this of course - the Helios project is one that comes to mind, as an unmanned craft intended to be capable of flying for six months without landing - a cheap atmospheric alternative to satellites.
not particularly informative link
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect he is right that Runge-Kutta produces a more stable game if you have complex interactions going on, but his example should have been better chosen.
When you mention Hubble, you have to remember it was seriously short-sighted until astronauts went up to fix it. But OK, that makes them highly skilled technicians rather than researchers.
Well, judging by the difference in price of what this has and what my system at home has, they must have some seriously high quality audio stuff on it. Or are they just pandering to the music/gadget obsessives who think that more expensive means better?
Now, in my opinion, the really smart guy is Shuji Nakamura, without whom you wouldn't have white LEDs yet.
Well yes QM is a theory, but so is Gravity. That doesn't mean apples are going to rise tomorrow. Anyway, the main point is not that the code is uncrackable, but that you cannot intercept the key without being given away. Being able to crack someones code is often not that useful if they immediately know you've cracked it.
You wouldn't use these LEDs to make things appear to glow, as making a multiple photon emitting LED is far easier than making one that only emits one photon at a time.
Try pronouncing it in French...
Surely it doesn't matter whether you are 1km or 40m off the ground, the energy in a lightning strike will be pretty much the same? Of course the frequency will be higher, but if we couldn't build buildings to take lightning strikes, we wouldn't have had, say, the Empire State building.
Hey, the launch was 85% successful (rounded to nearest integer). The landing on the other hand was only 33% successful, given that one out of three parachutes worked...
We're very good at recognising what a human should look like, and being just a bit off will make the CGI human look and feel fake compared to real actors.
From my understanding of 'incidental', it means casual, subordinate, but still related. But IANAL, and I wouldn't want to have to get into a legal fight over it. Scary.
Now I'm a postdoc researcher, if I were to produce anything patentable now, that would be as part of my job - what I'm paid to do (unless I come up with something unconnected at home and in my spare time) - I've signed a form to this effect, so I can't complain about it afterwards if they take ownership. Not paying royalties would be another matter though.
Of course, I still whinge about being underpaid...
The bandwagon is now boarding. All aboard.
The peaceful solution is always preferable. Unfortunately, this would frequently require the use of a time machine, as the opportunity has often long since passed by the time you realise what the solution was. Once terrorists have been produced in the first place, there is clearly something wrong, and merely turning the other cheek just gets you hit somewhere else. The only option is messy patch ups, and hope that eventually the problem will recede.
I'd like to suggest an easy solution. I'd also like a leprechaun's pot of gold, but they don't exist either.
People are already doing this of course - the Helios project is one that comes to mind, as an unmanned craft intended to be capable of flying for six months without landing - a cheap atmospheric alternative to satellites. not particularly informative link