I wonder how the outcome would of changed if the choice was that everybody got free tuition (or whatever) with everyone giving up the right to vote?
As might economist and politico friends like to point out, my vote in federal elections is meaningless, because I live in a jurisdiction that is overwhelmingly dominated by one party. It is inconceivable that any block of 10,000 voters could affect the outcome of a national election. Would I give up the right to vote in exchange for a year's college tuition? Perhaps not - but it would be a symbolic, and completely irrational decision.
However, if everyone here gave up the right to vote in exchange for free college tuition, it would be an entirely different situation.
To calculate the average IT worker heat dissipation, take the daily number of Calories in the diet, converted to joules, divided by the number of seconds in a day.
2km/363000km (distance to the moon) = 0.0003 degrees beamwidth, which I would guess would be the lowest achievable width, given that it would maximize your signal that returns to earth. That's not right out of the laser, you run it backwards through a telescope (I believe the real name is a "beam expander", which increases the spot size and decreases the beam spread.
Given that it's bouncing off a retroreflector, the spot size is probably doubled when it returns to earth.
The best way to think of it is to ignore spot size and all that. A beam with a 0.07 degree width needs to be pointed with an accuracy of 0.07 degrees or better.
Aim is an identical issue with both radio and lasers.
Unlike radio stations, most point to point links (for example, satellite uplinks) use a focus beam. That's what the big dish is for. The tighter the beam, the less area your transmitted power is spread over and the greater your received signal strength. The downside, of course, is that a tighter beam has to be aimed that much more accurately. As a point of reference, most geosynchronous satellites are spaced about 2 degrees apart, which requires a terresterial pointing accuracy of about 1 or 2 degrees. On the other hand, the Arecibo radio telescope has a beam width of a few thousands of a degree.
A laser naturally comes out with a narrow beamwidth, while a radio signal takes a little more work. But the beam width of both can be manipulated to where you need them to be, and the issues of signal strength versus pointing accuracy are identical in both cases.
Magnets don't affect a beam of light directly. The point is to put a sample in their, and the magnetic field changes the behavior of the sample, which you measure with a beam of light.
The bad news, he writes, is that it's not in the record companies' interests to sort it out. In this case: "Efficiency is not seen as being in the direct interest of the record company - because it profits from its carelessness."
It's like an insurance company accidently losing claims you file - it's egregious because they benefit from their own incompetence.
I've made only one edit ever on Wikipedia, in the section on heat pipes. I happened to notice a minor, but not insignificant, omission.
I would imagine that most single edits are like that - someone with a good depth of knowledge on a subject, noticing something that's not quite right. The threshold for action is high enough that you'd only do it if it was worthwhile.
"Suspect has hostage in basement and is holding detonator to instantly kill victim. Suspect is unaware they have been identified. Suspect threatened to kill hostage at the first sign of the police."
Not saying it would necessarily cause the person to be shot, but it would certainly raise the odds, don't you think?
As someone who has lived both a religious and nonreligious life (although moving in the opposite direction you have), I agree with your basic point - my basic concepts of right and wrong have not changed, and I certainly don't feel that a religious life is the only proper way to live. It works for me.
The important thing, as in so many things, is to be careful about who you lump together. I have a friend who is a rabbi (he doesn't have a pulpit, he's a headmaster at a jewish school.) He says that when he travels, and his seatmate finds out he's a rabbi, he inevitably gets a long story about the persons awful rabbi growing up, or their terrible hebrew school experience, or other disappointments with their jewish experience. The thing is, this guys is the epitome of tolerance, cheerfulness, and thoughtfulness. He takes it all in good humor, but I think is saddened to see people rejecting a religious life because of their bad childhood experiences, without realizing that there are other ways to do it.
I don't know much about christian communities, and it sounds like you've seen a huge lack of humility, and a huge amount of hypocrisy. Religion isn't a cure all for bad behavior. At it's best, it provides a few guideposts for seeing where the pitfalls of being human are, and some clues as to how to approach them. At it's worst... well, there have been horrors visited on the world by the religious and nonreligious alike.
(they're simple linear shift-invariant filters, and you're not losing information in that process)
Which points to the difference between the computational and physical worlds. If I blur an image by, say, projecting it through a lens on a piece of film, I reduce the amplitude of the high spatial frequency components. As you say, this isn't a lossy process. The difference in the physical world, there's noise added at every step, and the physical blurring reduces the signal to noise in the higher spatial frequency components, causing some true loss of information.
Doing a blur in photoshop reduces the amplitude of the high spatial frequency components as well, but there is no added noise - so the process is reversible.
It's funny. I always thought the power of the phone line for the phone was useless because everyone used cordless phones. Then we lost power for several days (in DC, BIG storm, many tree corpses several years back), and I found an old corded phone in the basement, which we used for days.
Because they don't actually tell you what the case is about until you hear the opening statements?
My experience with jury duty (I live in DC, and go every two years) is that you learn what the case is about prior to selection during the voir dire process. That's one of the ways they figure out if you should be disqualified.
If a comment on slashdot can post in a few seconds, surely an online database can update phishing websites that quickly. Site discovery is easy, from one of the hundred million spam emails with links to the site.
So yes, actually, I would have expect that every few days
Given that the phishing site goes up when the spam goes out, you'd want information much fresher than that. I imagine a phishing site's only good for a few hours after you send out the "bait". I occasionally check out phishing sites I get in my spam, and it seems that a lifetime of a few hours is typical. I think the banks/etc. are getting faster at getting them taken down.
Slashdot Mirror
when I remember playing a ghostbusters game on my Apple //e?
As might economist and politico friends like to point out, my vote in federal elections is meaningless, because I live in a jurisdiction that is overwhelmingly dominated by one party. It is inconceivable that any block of 10,000 voters could affect the outcome of a national election. Would I give up the right to vote in exchange for a year's college tuition? Perhaps not - but it would be a symbolic, and completely irrational decision.
However, if everyone here gave up the right to vote in exchange for free college tuition, it would be an entirely different situation.
Yes, this is a bit offtopic...
This assumes no actual work is being done.
You're too subtle for the mods...
Given that it's bouncing off a retroreflector, the spot size is probably doubled when it returns to earth.
The best way to think of it is to ignore spot size and all that. A beam with a 0.07 degree width needs to be pointed with an accuracy of 0.07 degrees or better.
Unlike radio stations, most point to point links (for example, satellite uplinks) use a focus beam. That's what the big dish is for. The tighter the beam, the less area your transmitted power is spread over and the greater your received signal strength. The downside, of course, is that a tighter beam has to be aimed that much more accurately. As a point of reference, most geosynchronous satellites are spaced about 2 degrees apart, which requires a terresterial pointing accuracy of about 1 or 2 degrees. On the other hand, the Arecibo radio telescope has a beam width of a few thousands of a degree.
A laser naturally comes out with a narrow beamwidth, while a radio signal takes a little more work. But the beam width of both can be manipulated to where you need them to be, and the issues of signal strength versus pointing accuracy are identical in both cases.
Magnets don't affect a beam of light directly. The point is to put a sample in their, and the magnetic field changes the behavior of the sample, which you measure with a beam of light.
The bad news, he writes, is that it's not in the record companies' interests to sort it out. In this case: "Efficiency is not seen as being in the direct interest of the record company - because it profits from its carelessness."
It's like an insurance company accidently losing claims you file - it's egregious because they benefit from their own incompetence.
Given the same thermal dissipation, 500% more heat means about 500% more temperature rise above ambient.
Why should someone have to learn a new way to do the same thing?
I would imagine that most single edits are like that - someone with a good depth of knowledge on a subject, noticing something that's not quite right. The threshold for action is high enough that you'd only do it if it was worthwhile.
Not saying it would necessarily cause the person to be shot, but it would certainly raise the odds, don't you think?
>>> import turtle
>>> x = turtle.Pen()
>>> x.forward(10)
>>> x.left(90)
>>> x.forward(10)
(Try it, it's fun! It's logo in python!)
Failed due to lack of 50% participation of "P" members...
The important thing, as in so many things, is to be careful about who you lump together. I have a friend who is a rabbi (he doesn't have a pulpit, he's a headmaster at a jewish school.) He says that when he travels, and his seatmate finds out he's a rabbi, he inevitably gets a long story about the persons awful rabbi growing up, or their terrible hebrew school experience, or other disappointments with their jewish experience. The thing is, this guys is the epitome of tolerance, cheerfulness, and thoughtfulness. He takes it all in good humor, but I think is saddened to see people rejecting a religious life because of their bad childhood experiences, without realizing that there are other ways to do it.
I don't know much about christian communities, and it sounds like you've seen a huge lack of humility, and a huge amount of hypocrisy. Religion isn't a cure all for bad behavior. At it's best, it provides a few guideposts for seeing where the pitfalls of being human are, and some clues as to how to approach them. At it's worst... well, there have been horrors visited on the world by the religious and nonreligious alike.
Which points to the difference between the computational and physical worlds. If I blur an image by, say, projecting it through a lens on a piece of film, I reduce the amplitude of the high spatial frequency components. As you say, this isn't a lossy process. The difference in the physical world, there's noise added at every step, and the physical blurring reduces the signal to noise in the higher spatial frequency components, causing some true loss of information.
Doing a blur in photoshop reduces the amplitude of the high spatial frequency components as well, but there is no added noise - so the process is reversible.
While physicists are only a danger to ourselves.
It's funny. I always thought the power of the phone line for the phone was useless because everyone used cordless phones. Then we lost power for several days (in DC, BIG storm, many tree corpses several years back), and I found an old corded phone in the basement, which we used for days.
You try to be funny...
Nazi!
My experience with jury duty (I live in DC, and go every two years) is that you learn what the case is about prior to selection during the voir dire process. That's one of the ways they figure out if you should be disqualified.
If a comment on slashdot can post in a few seconds, surely an online database can update phishing websites that quickly. Site discovery is easy, from one of the hundred million spam emails with links to the site.
Given that the phishing site goes up when the spam goes out, you'd want information much fresher than that. I imagine a phishing site's only good for a few hours after you send out the "bait". I occasionally check out phishing sites I get in my spam, and it seems that a lifetime of a few hours is typical. I think the banks/etc. are getting faster at getting them taken down.