From the evidence to date, I think that the management of TEPCO would be improved by replacing every C level executive with a homeless person. It could hardly get worse.
The question is not, "when can a bunch of machinery beat a human at X." The question is "when can a bunch of machinery beat a team of humans _with access to similar computational resources_ at X." I don't see much progress there.
And, Chang'E 2 then went on and flew by Asteroid (4179) Toutatis, as a bonus, for a tiny fraction of the cost of a new spacecraft launch.
Scheduling that a few months in advance with a spacecraft that was not intended for deep space puts China up in the first ranks of spacefaring nations IMHO.
Chang'E 3 has several cameras (as does the YuTu rover), following the MER standard of having "science," "navigation" and "hazard avoidance" cameras. One of the Lander camera pointing systems was designed in Hong Kong; I suspect that system made these images.
Note - some of the published images were high-def (16:9 ?) and were just aired as 4:3 on the TV broadcasts, making the lander (to me) look squished on screen and screen-shots.
The image linked to is apparently from the Universe Today. As the linked article says:
To make it easier to see and sense ‘the new view from the Moon’, we have created screen shots from the rather low resolution TV broadcast and assembled them into a photo mosaic of the landing site - see above and below mosaic by Marco Di Lorenzo and Ken Kremer.
That's why it's fuzzy. It's screen scraped from a TV.
Americans are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but civil forfeiture turns that principle on its head. With civil forfeiture, your property is guilty until you prove it innocent.
Yes, letting the police keep the proceeds of civil forfeiture is an obvious moral hazard, which has lead to predictably bad results. It is hard to overstate how vile that can be in practice, and I personally think that there are police that should go to jail over it.
On the other hand, we got rid of the crown a long time ago, we are citizens, not subjects (thank God), and we didn't even have to guillotine anyone to do it. (Yet.)
This is a big (and, I personally fear, unfixable) problem for the IETF and associated Internet bodies. Of course, router security is only a tiny piece of it. Given that RSA has been revealed as taking money from the NSA to weaken security protocols, who knows how deep the rot goes.
The lander did not land in Sinus Iridum, but in Mare Imbrium proper.
I do not think this was a mistake, as they could have waited a few more orbits and made the original landing point in Sinus Iridum. For some reason, a site in Mare Imbrium was chosen. As the actual landing site is on the border between the Titanium rich and Titanium poor parts of Sinus Iridum, I suspect this was not an arbitrary choice, but driven by a desire to understand better the mineral resources of the Moon.
If we are really lucky, the rover will drive the 120 km North to Montes Recti, a mountain range to the North. (These mountains are really islands of old terrain high enough to avoid being submerged in the Mare Imbrium lava flows.) At 100 m/day, it would only take 3 years...
No, it is still not even wrong, but we are closer to knowing if it could be right or wrong. This is not strong evidence, let alone proof, of string theory. This just gives it a way to be more compatible with relativity. The problem is that it could be just a good approximation of something else.
It's not even that good. It deals with the AdS/CFT correspondence. The "AdS" in that acronym stands for "Anti-de Sitter" space, i.e., a spacetime with a negative cosmological constant. Observation shows that we actually live in a universe with a positive cosmological constant, so the compatibility is with the wrong relativity.
All of this was theoretical until this recent finding. The researches created two mathematical models of the universe - one of them ten-dimensional (similar to some forms of modern theories of our universe, though the article points out their model was simpler). The other model was a one-dimensional universe filled with ideal springs. These models were identical, in the same way as the 3D universe and the event horizon - they're alternate ways of calculating the same thing.
The researchers discovered that simulations in both of these universe models have the same output - in other words, they do seem to be different ways of describing the same universe.
It's still theoretical. There is absolutely no experimental evidence for any of this.
...so before you call it horseshit, you could try to read what they are actually saying. Also, the particular theory they are talking about here has actually been tested, at least somewhat: people used it to compute some stuff about gluon plasma, which they then tested against LHC data, and it matched quite well. So the theories do work, and they can be used to compute real predictions.
Which papers are these? The two papers referenced above do not discuss this at all, and I am not aware of any LHC results dealing with quantum gravity. References would be appreciated.
That is exactly backwards. Unlike General Relativity, quantum mechanics was driven by experiment almost every step of the way. It was met with some derision (and worse, see, e.g., Nazi Germany), but it was experimentally based. (BTW, Einstein accepted that it explained the (then available) experimental data, he just thought that it wasn't the entire explanation.)
. But although the validity of Maldacena's ideas has pretty much been taken for granted ever since, a rigorous proof has been elusive. In two papers posted on the arXiv repository, Yoshifumi Hyakutake of Ibaraki University in Japan and his colleagues now provide, if not an actual proof, at least compelling evidence that Maldacena's conjecture is true."
None of this is evidence of anything, and anyone who takes these ideas for granted, without the slightest experimental proof whatsoever, can be assumed to be no longer talking about physics.
Makers of medical devices like implantable defibrillators or breast implants are immune from liability for personal injuries as long as the Food and Drug Administration approved the device before it was marketed and it meets the agency’s specifications, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday.
Slashdot Mirror
From the evidence to date, I think that the management of TEPCO would be improved by replacing every C level executive with a homeless person. It could hardly get worse.
The question is not, "when can a bunch of machinery beat a human at X." The question is "when can a bunch of machinery beat a team of humans _with access to similar computational resources_ at X." I don't see much progress there.
Yep.
And, Chang'E 2 then went on and flew by Asteroid (4179) Toutatis, as a bonus, for a tiny fraction of the cost of a new spacecraft launch.
Scheduling that a few months in advance with a spacecraft that was not intended for deep space puts China up in the first ranks of spacefaring nations IMHO.
I imagine it was a std def broadcast.
Chang'E 3 has several cameras (as does the YuTu rover), following the MER standard of having "science," "navigation" and "hazard avoidance" cameras. One of the Lander camera pointing systems was designed in Hong Kong; I suspect that system made these images.
Note - some of the published images were high-def (16:9 ?) and were just aired as 4:3 on the TV broadcasts, making the lander (to me) look squished on screen and screen-shots.
The image linked to is apparently from the Universe Today. As the linked article says :
That's why it's fuzzy. It's screen scraped from a TV.
CCTV just announced that the Sun has set at Mare Imbrium and the Chang'E lander and the Yutu rover both have gone to sleep for the night.
But, what will we do with our easy-bake ovens? How will America's future home-makers make tiny cakes?
I don't see how geothermal heat pump illustrates anything about the efficiency of electric heating.
I have had an electrically powered heat pump, and would not recommend it for anyone, at least in my climate. When it gets cold outside, so will you.
What a quaint custom.
Remind me again why I should care?
There is no crown. In the US, the Feds seize first, worry about proof later. Civil forfeiture is big business, "policing for profit":
http://www.ij.org/policing-for-profit-the-abuse-of-civil-asset-forfeiture-4
Yes, letting the police keep the proceeds of civil forfeiture is an obvious moral hazard, which has lead to predictably bad results. It is hard to overstate how vile that can be in practice, and I personally think that there are police that should go to jail over it.
On the other hand, we got rid of the crown a long time ago, we are citizens, not subjects (thank God), and we didn't even have to guillotine anyone to do it. (Yet.)
argh : "advise" -> "advice"
Look, I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advise, but does this guy actually have a lawyer*? Would any lawyer make such a dumb argument?
* If he doesn't, he sure needs one. Stat.
How do you know that those are not genetically modified birds, subjecting you to a roost in the middle attack ?
This is a big (and, I personally fear, unfixable) problem for the IETF and associated Internet bodies. Of course, router security is only a tiny piece of it. Given that RSA has been revealed as taking money from the NSA to weaken security protocols, who knows how deep the rot goes.
One big fight right now is in over the removal of NSA employed Chair of the Crypto Forum Research Group. There will be more.
The lander did not land in Sinus Iridum, but in Mare Imbrium proper.
I do not think this was a mistake, as they could have waited a few more orbits and made the original landing point in Sinus Iridum. For some reason, a site in Mare Imbrium was chosen. As the actual landing site is on the border between the Titanium rich and Titanium poor parts of Sinus Iridum, I suspect this was not an arbitrary choice, but driven by a desire to understand better the mineral resources of the Moon.
If we are really lucky, the rover will drive the 120 km North to Montes Recti, a mountain range to the North. (These mountains are really islands of old terrain high enough to avoid being submerged in the Mare Imbrium lava flows.) At 100 m/day, it would only take 3 years...
There is a cool animated gif of the descent imager pictures of the landing, and a false color image of the surface.
Mod this parent up.
No, it is still not even wrong, but we are closer to knowing if it could be right or wrong. This is not strong evidence, let alone proof, of string theory. This just gives it a way to be more compatible with relativity. The problem is that it could be just a good approximation of something else.
It's not even that good. It deals with the AdS/CFT correspondence. The "AdS" in that acronym stands for "Anti-de Sitter" space, i.e., a spacetime with a negative cosmological constant. Observation shows that we actually live in a universe with a positive cosmological constant, so the compatibility is with the wrong relativity.
All of this was theoretical until this recent finding. The researches created two mathematical models of the universe - one of them ten-dimensional (similar to some forms of modern theories of our universe, though the article points out their model was simpler). The other model was a one-dimensional universe filled with ideal springs. These models were identical, in the same way as the 3D universe and the event horizon - they're alternate ways of calculating the same thing.
The researchers discovered that simulations in both of these universe models have the same output - in other words, they do seem to be different ways of describing the same universe.
It's still theoretical. There is absolutely no experimental evidence for any of this.
...so before you call it horseshit, you could try to read what they are actually saying. Also, the particular theory they are talking about here has actually been tested, at least somewhat: people used it to compute some stuff about gluon plasma, which they then tested against LHC data, and it matched quite well. So the theories do work, and they can be used to compute real predictions.
Which papers are these? The two papers referenced above do not discuss this at all, and I am not aware of any LHC results dealing with quantum gravity. References would be appreciated.
That is exactly backwards. Unlike General Relativity, quantum mechanics was driven by experiment almost every step of the way. It was met with some derision (and worse, see, e.g., Nazi Germany), but it was experimentally based. (BTW, Einstein accepted that it explained the (then available) experimental data, he just thought that it wasn't the entire explanation.)
Not. Even. Wrong.
None of this is evidence of anything, and anyone who takes these ideas for granted, without the slightest experimental proof whatsoever, can be assumed to be no longer talking about physics.
Not if you could get arrested just for parking your EV in a local school parking lot.
Probably not much, as long as they got certified. From Justices Shield Medical Devices From Lawsuits
IANAL, this is not legal advice, etc.