In the early 80's, the enemy of our enemy Ayatollah Khomeini was our friend Saddam Hussein. In the late 80's, the enemy of our enemy the Soviet Union was our friend Osama bin Laden.
I don't see how that's necessarily true. Special Relativity is based on two postulates:
1. The Principle of Relativity: The laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames. 2. The Law of Propagation of Light: The speed of light is a specific constant value independent of the motion of its source (and this is a "law" for purposes of postulate #1 above).
These two postulates allow you to derive the conclusion that if you send a signal from Event A to Event B such that the signal travels faster than light in one inertial reference frame, then the events are said to be "spatially separated" (as opposed to "temporally separated"). With such events, the temporal ordering is ambiguous, and different inertial reference frames will disagree as to which event occurred first, with neither being more "right" than the other. In other words, there will exist inertial reference frames in which Event B occurred before Event A, and therefore in which the signal traveled backwards in time.
The falsity of this conclusion would imply the falsity of one of those two postulates, both of which are well confirmed experimentally.
The real challenge is actually causing the human body to use more energy than it expends over a sustained period.
Neither exercise nor calorie restriction has a proven track record of being able to do this.
Baloney. Neither of those things alone has been able to do this, because the other one adjusts to maintain status quo. Doing both at the same time is guaranteed to work. The challenge isn't getting the body to do this, it's getting the mind to do it.
PETA killed over 14,400 dogs, cats, and other "companion animals" -- at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. That's more than five defenseless animals every day. Not counting the dogs and cats PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 90 percent of the animals it took in during 2005 alone.
Um, why would one count spaying and neutering towards the tally of how many animals they've killed?
It pissed of the Polish government, because it presently consists mainly of the boot-lickers for the American administration
Why would something done by the US government, which had the support of the Polish people, piss off Polish government people whom you characterize as bootlickers of the US government? Sounds like a non-sequitur to me.
Invention? What the heck are they talking about? My Matlab license has been time-based for years. I remember one day Matlab stopped working for me because I never got around to entering the new license number that our IT folks emailled me a few weeks earlier.
Obviously, I had to make some simplified assumptions about structure in order for the result to be easily recognizable. Thus, all auxiliary verbs became hard-bound to the main verbs as a unified whole. My goal was to have two such verbs, and only the verbs, be operators. I wanted it to be clear what I was doing, and not have it look like I was merely scrambling the word order. So, in addition to the above simplification, I punted on the word "that".
I greatly admire your painstaking quest for precision in humor. I salute you.
Oh well, I figured everyone would get it. HP Calculators use "Reverse Polish Notation" (RPN), also known as "postfix notation". Unlike ordinary "infix notation" calculators, in which you put the operator between the two operands, HP calculators take both operands followed by the operator, thereby eliminating the need for parenthesizing an expression. So, where you might enter "5 * ( 3 + 4 ) =" on an infix calculator, you'd enter "5 [enter] 3 [enter] 4 [enter] + * " on an HP calculator. Every time you enter a number, it gets pushed on the stack. Every operator pops the top two items off the stack, performs the operation, and pushes the result on the stack.
One can write English sentences the same way if one considers the verb to be the operator, while the subject and direct object are the two operands. Thus, what I wrote was the RPN equivalent of "I can't believe that they would be so shortsighted!".
Bear in mind that there's a big difference between a theory which cannot be tested in principle, and one which cannot currently be tested in practice due to limited technology. Actually, it's not even appropriate to use the word "theory" in this context. In the latter case, it's a hypothesis. In the former, it's metaphysics.
I'd imagine a good compiler should be able to optimize that.
Perhaps, but my objection was based more on style than on performance. The code *says* the test is being done twice, even if it isn't under the hood.
In any event, if you're going to make a customized looping construct with a goto anyway, why not just go all the way and do this... it even saves you a jump: [code deleted]
Why do you assume that just because I think that a goto is sometimes a nice solution, I must therefore think that a goto is always preferable? Clearly, that example is exactly the reason why the "while" loop exists in the first place. And it doesn't save a jump. There's a hidden jump in the implementation of the "if".
And, for this particular instance, I don't see why you can't just do this instead: [code deleted]
Yeah, that's actually nice. However, I've developed a habit over the years of trying not to put lots of "stuff" in the while-loop test. With the exception of certain well-established idioms, I find it improves readability to keep long expressions or things with lots of side effects out of the test itself. Matter of personal taste, I suppose. In this case, I could go either way, but I went with my way out of my aforementioned habit.
But surely this must imply that the back EMF is actually forcing the turbine to turn in *reverse*, in which case, I can understand the issue. But if the turbine has a given angular velocity in the "forward" direction (even in the presence of a short), and you apply (via water flow, or any other mechanism) a torque in the *forward* direction, that torque *must* result in an increase in the angular velocity or the turbine in the *forward* direction. Am I missing something here?
Here's my example. Just wrote this yesterday. First time I used a go-to in years:
// Wait for the creator to create the named pipe and start // accepting connections
BOOL waitSucceeded = false;
// Wow, this is the first time I've used a goto in years. Similar // in spirit to Duff's Device, but not as gross looking.
goto FIRST_ITERATION;
while (! waitSucceeded)
{
Sleep(50); FIRST_ITERATION:
waitSucceeded = WaitNamedPipe(fullname,NMPWAIT_WAIT_FOREVER);
}
This code loops until a server process is ready to communicate over a named pipe. If it's ready at the time this code is executed, it proceeds with no delay. If the server hasn't issued a ConnectNamedPipe yet, it blocks. But if the server hasn't even *created* the named pipe yet, the wait function returns immediately, despite the "wait forever" flag, and we need to loop. Alternative approaches include (1) code the "wait" call twice, once inside the loop and once before the loop, and conditionally skip over the loop, and (2) make the loop an infinite loop with a conditional break inside. I don't like the former because it's superfluous code duplication. I don't like the latter because, logically, if a loop has one termination condition, it should occur inside the test expression of the "while" statement. An infinite loop with a conditional break is a kluge.
So the water, which is supposed to be the energy source for the turbine, slows the turbine down? That makes no sense whatsoever. That's like saying that, on a bicycle built for two, if one person stops pedaling and takes his feet off the pedals, the pedals will start to spin faster (due to the other guy pedaling) than they were when that person was pedaling. The water, like the guy pedaling, is either a *net* load, or a *net* source.
Slashdot Mirror
In the early 80's, the enemy of our enemy Ayatollah Khomeini was our friend Saddam Hussein. In the late 80's, the enemy of our enemy the Soviet Union was our friend Osama bin Laden.
I don't see how that's necessarily true. Special Relativity is based on two postulates:
1. The Principle of Relativity: The laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames.
2. The Law of Propagation of Light: The speed of light is a specific constant value independent of the motion of its source (and this is a "law" for purposes of postulate #1 above).
These two postulates allow you to derive the conclusion that if you send a signal from Event A to Event B such that the signal travels faster than light in one inertial reference frame, then the events are said to be "spatially separated" (as opposed to "temporally separated"). With such events, the temporal ordering is ambiguous, and different inertial reference frames will disagree as to which event occurred first, with neither being more "right" than the other. In other words, there will exist inertial reference frames in which Event B occurred before Event A, and therefore in which the signal traveled backwards in time.
The falsity of this conclusion would imply the falsity of one of those two postulates, both of which are well confirmed experimentally.
No, you're thinking of 655,360 tons. *That* ought to be enough for anyone.
Baloney. Neither of those things alone has been able to do this, because the other one adjusts to maintain status quo. Doing both at the same time is guaranteed to work. The challenge isn't getting the body to do this, it's getting the mind to do it.
Except in a hybrid (I drive a Prius). It's gotta decide to rev up the electric motor or the gasoline engine.
What if I create a key of my own and hook it up to the lock on your front door?
Dear Ron-
The 'words and the intent' of the Ex Post Facto Clause encompass '[e]very law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.' Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (1 Dall.) 386, 390 (1798) (opinion of Chase, J.).
Emphasis mine. Hope this helps.
So, does that mean it happened at 12:33 PM for the rest of us east-coast folks who are still on Daylight Saving Time?
From the linked site:
Um, why would one count spaying and neutering towards the tally of how many animals they've killed?
It's also a reflection of one's ignorance of what the term "theory" means in science (as opposed to colloquial discourse).
The content may be rather passionate, but that doesn't make it a troll.
Why would something done by the US government, which had the support of the Polish people, piss off Polish government people whom you characterize as bootlickers of the US government? Sounds like a non-sequitur to me.
Invention? What the heck are they talking about? My Matlab license has been time-based for years. I remember one day Matlab stopped working for me because I never got around to entering the new license number that our IT folks emailled me a few weeks earlier.
Substitute "with prejudice" for "without prejudice", and you've got the answer you're looking for.
Obviously, I had to make some simplified assumptions about structure in order for the result to be easily recognizable. Thus, all auxiliary verbs became hard-bound to the main verbs as a unified whole. My goal was to have two such verbs, and only the verbs, be operators. I wanted it to be clear what I was doing, and not have it look like I was merely scrambling the word order. So, in addition to the above simplification, I punted on the word "that".
I greatly admire your painstaking quest for precision in humor. I salute you.
Oh well, I figured everyone would get it. HP Calculators use "Reverse Polish Notation" (RPN), also known as "postfix notation". Unlike ordinary "infix notation" calculators, in which you put the operator between the two operands, HP calculators take both operands followed by the operator, thereby eliminating the need for parenthesizing an expression. So, where you might enter "5 * ( 3 + 4 ) =" on an infix calculator, you'd enter "5 [enter] 3 [enter] 4 [enter] + * " on an HP calculator. Every time you enter a number, it gets pushed on the stack. Every operator pops the top two items off the stack, performs the operation, and pushes the result on the stack.
One can write English sentences the same way if one considers the verb to be the operator, while the subject and direct object are the two operands. Thus, what I wrote was the RPN equivalent of "I can't believe that they would be so shortsighted!".
I that they so shortsighted would be can't believe!
Bear in mind that there's a big difference between a theory which cannot be tested in principle, and one which cannot currently be tested in practice due to limited technology. Actually, it's not even appropriate to use the word "theory" in this context. In the latter case, it's a hypothesis. In the former, it's metaphysics.
Awesome. I'm thirtytwoteen.
I'd imagine a good compiler should be able to optimize that.
Perhaps, but my objection was based more on style than on performance. The code *says* the test is being done twice, even if it isn't under the hood.
In any event, if you're going to make a customized looping construct with a goto anyway, why not just go all the way and do this... it even saves you a jump: [code deleted]
Why do you assume that just because I think that a goto is sometimes a nice solution, I must therefore think that a goto is always preferable? Clearly, that example is exactly the reason why the "while" loop exists in the first place. And it doesn't save a jump. There's a hidden jump in the implementation of the "if".
And, for this particular instance, I don't see why you can't just do this instead: [code deleted]
Yeah, that's actually nice. However, I've developed a habit over the years of trying not to put lots of "stuff" in the while-loop test. With the exception of certain well-established idioms, I find it improves readability to keep long expressions or things with lots of side effects out of the test itself. Matter of personal taste, I suppose. In this case, I could go either way, but I went with my way out of my aforementioned habit.
In other words, perform the same test twice in rapid succession. No thanks. I like my approach better.
But surely this must imply that the back EMF is actually forcing the turbine to turn in *reverse*, in which case, I can understand the issue. But if the turbine has a given angular velocity in the "forward" direction (even in the presence of a short), and you apply (via water flow, or any other mechanism) a torque in the *forward* direction, that torque *must* result in an increase in the angular velocity or the turbine in the *forward* direction. Am I missing something here?
Here's my example. Just wrote this yesterday. First time I used a go-to in years:
This code loops until a server process is ready to communicate over a named pipe. If it's ready at the time this code is executed, it proceeds with no delay. If the server hasn't issued a ConnectNamedPipe yet, it blocks. But if the server hasn't even *created* the named pipe yet, the wait function returns immediately, despite the "wait forever" flag, and we need to loop. Alternative approaches include (1) code the "wait" call twice, once inside the loop and once before the loop, and conditionally skip over the loop, and (2) make the loop an infinite loop with a conditional break inside. I don't like the former because it's superfluous code duplication. I don't like the latter because, logically, if a loop has one termination condition, it should occur inside the test expression of the "while" statement. An infinite loop with a conditional break is a kluge.
a no-no (as is probably &&a)
Definitely, "&&" (as a succession of unary operators, not logical AND) is never valid, since unary "&" takes an l-value and yields an r-value.
So the water, which is supposed to be the energy source for the turbine, slows the turbine down? That makes no sense whatsoever. That's like saying that, on a bicycle built for two, if one person stops pedaling and takes his feet off the pedals, the pedals will start to spin faster (due to the other guy pedaling) than they were when that person was pedaling. The water, like the guy pedaling, is either a *net* load, or a *net* source.