Except that ppO2 = amount of oxygen (i.e. a ppO2 of 3psi is the same amount of O2 whether there's also a ppN2 of 12psi - roughly the composition of air at sea level - or it's pure O2). What you're thinking is that relative oxygen content determines combustability.
Great! Uh, except that water isn't 2/3 hydrogen *by weight*. The correct fraction is 1/9, so you're not much better off than using AlH3.
If we could only synthesize XH100 for some magic X... Damn chemistry with its "limitations"!
Re:They'd better be profitable; consider alternati
on
High Tech High 2.0
·
· Score: 1
Fact: Relative to wages, America has quite a low cost of living. Think about it - how long do you have to work at an average job to afford a car in America? How long in Calcutta? Even goods that are more locally priced (e.g., food) are almost always relatively cheaper in America, particularly when quality and safety are taken into account.
What you're advocating is protectionist trade policy, and this almost always hurts us at least as much as it hurts our importers.
Furthermore, your facts are wrong - if American companies were actually going bankrupt, or if everything were being offshored, then our balance of trade wouldn't be negative. Macroeconomics teaches us that balance of trade is the opposite of the balance of investment (plus some adjustments for currency, but these are usually small enough to ignore). Thus we have a large positive balance of investment - countries like China are investing more heavily in the US than we are in them. Also, they are doing this despite strong domestic growth. This indicates that investments in the US are pretty profitable.
So I'm not too worried about us spiraling to our doom just yet. Both the theory and the facts are lacking.
Heh, yep. I've been interviewing potential web application developers for months, and one of the things I try to probe is how much they really know about Javascript. So far I've met exactly zero who knew more than <a href="javascript:void(0)" onclick="alert('kewl')">.
As for missiles? First, they fly unarmed on ferry missions because ammo is dead weight that reduces range; and second, even if they were armed, what do you really think would happen if an AMRAAM missile was free launched without being turned on, much less having had targeting info downloaded? Drop like a stone, it would, right into the pacific. Bloop. All gone.
So you say. But if you think sharks with frickin' lasers on their heads are scary, imagine sharks with fricking' AMRAAMs.
If you use water to cool electricity-based computing, wouldn't it make sense to use electricity to cool water-based computing? Where's your head, man?!
This reminds me of the Lysenkoist agricultural programs adopted during the Great Leap Forward: Space Potato 10x more nutritious than right-deviant potatoes, also enhances fellowship!
No, an infinite sequence can't have both a beginning and an end. You're thinking of Zeno's Paradox, and that sequence has no end. It does, however, have a limit, which is not the same thing.
How could the rules possibly change in this way? Suppose I have an NPC problem I wish to solve (call it P), and a known quantum algorithm that solves a different NPC problem in poly time (call it Q). In poly time I transform P into Q. In poly time I solve Q using the quantum computer. Then in poly time I transform the solution to Q into a solution for P. If I want, I can then check the solution to P in poly time using a conventional computer (this is guaranteed by the definition of NPC). I only need to invoke quantum computing when I'm solving Q - no other step requires nonpoly time.
[Warning: I have no idea what I'm talking about here...]
Well, we can make really tiny lasers. And there's a way to use lasers to cool stuff. If you could find a way to isolate the BEC and use active laser cooling, maybe you could turn this into something practical.
Sure, but sometimes you're stuck with the design you're given.:) OP used name fields, so I did, too. But the query could be improved without changing the DDL.
Say, did you hear that Jim Gray is missing? I think the topic is several miles over thataway *gesturing*.
I can't really speak to differences between the "races", since race is a very slippery term in the first place. But sex is much less so, since it is clearly identifiable genetically (in almost all cases, I'll add to cover the odd hermaphrodite here and there).
The differences between the sexes may have nothing to do with potentialities - I don't think there's enough data to keep anything but an open mind about this - but it has a lot to do with how we educate. Should classes be coed or unisex? If unisex, should men's classes be organized differently from women's classes? Should certain courses be taught earlier to women while others are taught later? There's some evidence that there really are nontrivial answers to these questions.
I'll put it this way: it's almost certainly true that women are more different from men than Chinese men are different from, say, Khoisan men.
Once you break the stereotypes, you realise that much of what is "male" or "female" is learnt.
Turns out you couldn't be more wrong. Much of what is male or female (hopefully you realize that these terms do not require quotes) is biological, not learned. Men's brains are more specialized compared to women's (this does not necessarily confer an advantage one way or another, but it does help, for example, to protect women from the effects of strokes). Women have better hearing. Men have better spatial vision but women have better color vision. Men learn spatial relations abstractly; women by landmarks. This stuff turns out to be true from infancy, so it can't be learned.
Much of what you've been taught about gender differences for the past few decades is wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that ppO2 = amount of oxygen (i.e. a ppO2 of 3psi is the same amount of O2 whether there's also a ppN2 of 12psi - roughly the composition of air at sea level - or it's pure O2). What you're thinking is that relative oxygen content determines combustability.
In a cage match between a corpse and a robot, always bet on the 'bot.
Unless you're inside Resident Evil, of course. Then you bet on the corpse.
Hey, on the plus side, that's no global warming for a year!
Great! Uh, except that water isn't 2/3 hydrogen *by weight*. The correct fraction is 1/9, so you're not much better off than using AlH3.
If we could only synthesize XH100 for some magic X... Damn chemistry with its "limitations"!
Fact: Relative to wages, America has quite a low cost of living. Think about it - how long do you have to work at an average job to afford a car in America? How long in Calcutta? Even goods that are more locally priced (e.g., food) are almost always relatively cheaper in America, particularly when quality and safety are taken into account.
What you're advocating is protectionist trade policy, and this almost always hurts us at least as much as it hurts our importers.
Furthermore, your facts are wrong - if American companies were actually going bankrupt, or if everything were being offshored, then our balance of trade wouldn't be negative. Macroeconomics teaches us that balance of trade is the opposite of the balance of investment (plus some adjustments for currency, but these are usually small enough to ignore). Thus we have a large positive balance of investment - countries like China are investing more heavily in the US than we are in them. Also, they are doing this despite strong domestic growth. This indicates that investments in the US are pretty profitable.
So I'm not too worried about us spiraling to our doom just yet. Both the theory and the facts are lacking.
Maybe he works for Verizon...
Heh, yep. I've been interviewing potential web application developers for months, and one of the things I try to probe is how much they really know about Javascript. So far I've met exactly zero who knew more than <a href="javascript:void(0)" onclick="alert('kewl')">.
So this is how your average afternoon goes, right?...
Heads: don tin-foil hat and take a nap.
Tails: work on better randomizer.
So you say. But if you think sharks with frickin' lasers on their heads are scary, imagine sharks with fricking' AMRAAMs.
If you use water to cool electricity-based computing, wouldn't it make sense to use electricity to cool water-based computing? Where's your head, man?!
Microsoft is backing them?
Change subject to: Mao.
This reminds me of the Lysenkoist agricultural programs adopted during the Great Leap Forward: Space Potato 10x more nutritious than right-deviant potatoes, also enhances fellowship!
No, an infinite sequence can't have both a beginning and an end. You're thinking of Zeno's Paradox, and that sequence has no end. It does, however, have a limit, which is not the same thing.
How could the rules possibly change in this way? Suppose I have an NPC problem I wish to solve (call it P), and a known quantum algorithm that solves a different NPC problem in poly time (call it Q). In poly time I transform P into Q. In poly time I solve Q using the quantum computer. Then in poly time I transform the solution to Q into a solution for P. If I want, I can then check the solution to P in poly time using a conventional computer (this is guaranteed by the definition of NPC). I only need to invoke quantum computing when I'm solving Q - no other step requires nonpoly time.
Wow am I square. It took me until this post (I haven't RTFA yet) to realize that the summary wasn't referring to a Biblical stoning. Yikes.
"Clear eyes? How would that protect this poor girl from a thrown... ooooh!"
No problem - we'll use the ones those now-passe electrons have just jumped!
[Warning: I have no idea what I'm talking about here...]
Well, we can make really tiny lasers. And there's a way to use lasers to cool stuff. If you could find a way to isolate the BEC and use active laser cooling, maybe you could turn this into something practical.
Sure, but sometimes you're stuck with the design you're given. :) OP used name fields, so I did, too. But the query could be improved without changing the DDL.
Say, did you hear that Jim Gray is missing? I think the topic is several miles over thataway *gesturing*.
That would be more clearly written as:
This way it's crystal clear which is the join clause and which is the search clause.
I can't really speak to differences between the "races", since race is a very slippery term in the first place. But sex is much less so, since it is clearly identifiable genetically (in almost all cases, I'll add to cover the odd hermaphrodite here and there).
The differences between the sexes may have nothing to do with potentialities - I don't think there's enough data to keep anything but an open mind about this - but it has a lot to do with how we educate. Should classes be coed or unisex? If unisex, should men's classes be organized differently from women's classes? Should certain courses be taught earlier to women while others are taught later? There's some evidence that there really are nontrivial answers to these questions.
I'll put it this way: it's almost certainly true that women are more different from men than Chinese men are different from, say, Khoisan men.
Geez, moderators. Don't you know a joke when you see one? Talk about a waste of a mod point.
You freaking pinko commie oil-loving corporatist hippy! Take that back!
Turns out you couldn't be more wrong. Much of what is male or female (hopefully you realize that these terms do not require quotes) is biological, not learned. Men's brains are more specialized compared to women's (this does not necessarily confer an advantage one way or another, but it does help, for example, to protect women from the effects of strokes). Women have better hearing. Men have better spatial vision but women have better color vision. Men learn spatial relations abstractly; women by landmarks. This stuff turns out to be true from infancy, so it can't be learned.
Much of what you've been taught about gender differences for the past few decades is wrong.
Ah. So that's why this made it as a news item on Slashdot.
I didn't make a statement; I asked a question.
But I'm sure your users input dates using 64-bit timestamps, so there must be no problem. And no doubt your output routines are Y10K tested and ready.