I find it a very attractive feature of Mohrhoff's interpretation of QM that he completely does away with causality at a fundamental level. http://aps.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9903051
WTF? As one comment already explained, the problem only occurs when ungrounded power adapters are used. Three-pronged plug grounded ones remove this problem. So clearly it's not the issue of the EMI filter you described. As another post explained, the issue is capacitive coupling between the primary and secondary windings in the switching transformer. I am sorry that your misinforming post got moderated highly.
Don't be stupid. Ever look at a CFL's spectrum? Compare that to a real daylight lamp's spectrum (incandecent with filtering reflector): http://www.outsidein.co.uk/images/solvfs.gif
As an artist I can tell you the CFL daylight bulbs are garbage. Compare the spectrum of a daylight CFL with that of an incandecent with filtering reflector: http://www.outsidein.co.uk/images/solvfs.gif
The latter actually is very close to a mid-day sun+sky spectrum. The peaks in the former make a lot of colors look whack (which is why I use them in my fish tank)
The quality of light of CFLs is actually much lower than that of good incandecent bulbs. And from what I'm aware of, only special incandecent bulbs like the Solux ones can get very close to a solar spectrum (example spectra at http://www.outsidein.co.uk/images/solvfs.gif ). The tube fluorescents are even worse. While I was doing my degree, I'd turn them off when alone in the office so that I could use a desk lamp and avoid the eye strain the crappy fluorescent light gave.
Why would you need to do something that a calculator can do? The things that are important to be able to figure out are those that computing machines can't do yet.
Why do you think there's Matlab, Mathematica, and Maple? The 89 is essentially a mini portable version of that.
That's pretty close to my situation, except that my degree is in computer science. The parent is just trolling.
I didn't know Matlab does symbolic stuff; don't you need Mathematica or Maple for that? I'd say the 89 is more like a mini-Matlab+Maple.
Java is a pretty lame language. Why would you want to be forced into OO-programming? C++ is a multiparadigm language, and you can mix various approaches, from OO to generic programming (templates and the STL). And Java's still slow as shit. My thesis code took several hours in four hardware threads on a medium dataset. If I had written it in Java, I'd still not have finished my degree.
This is pretty stupid, as you can't pigeonhole users in these two categories. I MUCH prefer TI over HP, no preference on GUI vs command-line, don't use either emacs or vi, MUCH prefer C++ over Java (I didn't write C/C++ on purpose, since I see no point in using plain C), and have an MSc in computer science. How the hell does that fit in your silly categories? I'm betting the majority of people are also variouis combinations of your two lists, which makes the clustering you've made absolutely ludicrous.
The 89 is an order of magnitude better than the 86. I know because I upgraded from the latter to the former in my first year at uni. It really made calculus a breeze, essentially any problem we had on tests I could solve on the calculator, even if it took a bit of finagling on occasion. One just has to know the limitations of its solvers to avoid using it in cases where it will not be correct. The 89 is essentially a mini-Maple/Matlab in a calculator.
I am in Canada, and I have never heard anyone around here think their business is hurt by Walmart, or their wages affected. I've actually seen a drill press in Walmart for $25. That's between a third and half of what any other place would sell the same item for.
Why would you be happy if Walmart goes bankrupt? I am one of those people whose financial situation means Walmart is the best option for saving money. It is presumptuous and condescending on your part to make that statement.
>> Raytracing can be almost naivly paralellised with up to as many processors as screen pixels.
What the hell? You cannot produce high quality images with a single ray per pixel. Even with the best importance sampling, you still need on the order of a dozen rays per pixel on average.
Slashdot Mirror
I find it a very attractive feature of Mohrhoff's interpretation of QM that he completely does away with causality at a fundamental level. http://aps.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9903051
So, I asked him "Who wired that outlet?"
/. !!!
You forgot to say who "him" is. How about you proofread before you post next time? Oh wait, I forgot this is
WTF? As one comment already explained, the problem only occurs when ungrounded power adapters are used. Three-pronged plug grounded ones remove this problem. So clearly it's not the issue of the EMI filter you described. As another post explained, the issue is capacitive coupling between the primary and secondary windings in the switching transformer. I am sorry that your misinforming post got moderated highly.
He's obviously trolling. No one is that stupid. I can't figure out why you bother replying.
You're essentially blaming the rich for being rich. That's pretty lame.
Your signature should have "pop ups" not "pops up".
Bravo! I'm pleasantly surprised when someone posts a cool-headed, sensible comment on slashdot.
Don't be stupid. Ever look at a CFL's spectrum? Compare that to a real daylight lamp's spectrum (incandecent with filtering reflector): http://www.outsidein.co.uk/images/solvfs.gif
As an artist I can tell you the CFL daylight bulbs are garbage. Compare the spectrum of a daylight CFL with that of an incandecent with filtering reflector: http://www.outsidein.co.uk/images/solvfs.gif The latter actually is very close to a mid-day sun+sky spectrum. The peaks in the former make a lot of colors look whack (which is why I use them in my fish tank)
The quality of light of CFLs is actually much lower than that of good incandecent bulbs. And from what I'm aware of, only special incandecent bulbs like the Solux ones can get very close to a solar spectrum (example spectra at http://www.outsidein.co.uk/images/solvfs.gif ). The tube fluorescents are even worse. While I was doing my degree, I'd turn them off when alone in the office so that I could use a desk lamp and avoid the eye strain the crappy fluorescent light gave.
Why would you need to do something that a calculator can do? The things that are important to be able to figure out are those that computing machines can't do yet. Why do you think there's Matlab, Mathematica, and Maple? The 89 is essentially a mini portable version of that.
I flipped a coin
As should be clear from the replies your post has gotten, you flipped a hell of a lot more than a coin.
That's pretty close to my situation, except that my degree is in computer science. The parent is just trolling. I didn't know Matlab does symbolic stuff; don't you need Mathematica or Maple for that? I'd say the 89 is more like a mini-Matlab+Maple. Java is a pretty lame language. Why would you want to be forced into OO-programming? C++ is a multiparadigm language, and you can mix various approaches, from OO to generic programming (templates and the STL). And Java's still slow as shit. My thesis code took several hours in four hardware threads on a medium dataset. If I had written it in Java, I'd still not have finished my degree.
This is pretty stupid, as you can't pigeonhole users in these two categories. I MUCH prefer TI over HP, no preference on GUI vs command-line, don't use either emacs or vi, MUCH prefer C++ over Java (I didn't write C/C++ on purpose, since I see no point in using plain C), and have an MSc in computer science. How the hell does that fit in your silly categories? I'm betting the majority of people are also variouis combinations of your two lists, which makes the clustering you've made absolutely ludicrous.
The 89 is an order of magnitude better than the 86. I know because I upgraded from the latter to the former in my first year at uni. It really made calculus a breeze, essentially any problem we had on tests I could solve on the calculator, even if it took a bit of finagling on occasion. One just has to know the limitations of its solvers to avoid using it in cases where it will not be correct. The 89 is essentially a mini-Maple/Matlab in a calculator.
I am in Canada, and I have never heard anyone around here think their business is hurt by Walmart, or their wages affected. I've actually seen a drill press in Walmart for $25. That's between a third and half of what any other place would sell the same item for.
Why would you be happy if Walmart goes bankrupt? I am one of those people whose financial situation means Walmart is the best option for saving money. It is presumptuous and condescending on your part to make that statement.
LOL, it's 'muriatic', not 'muranatic'. Actually it's HCl.
Swapping? This really is more work than it's worth.
Oh. I don't like Stargate which is why I didn't recognize the reference.
Within a factor of two.
>> Raytracing can be almost naivly paralellised with up to as many processors as screen pixels.
What the hell? You cannot produce high quality images with a single ray per pixel. Even with the best importance sampling, you still need on the order of a dozen rays per pixel on average.
I don't get it. What is this in reference to?
Studies show it is ineffective: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12375295&dopt=Abstrac t
You may wish to notify these ophthamologists.
So, like, do you miss your thymus?