(1) Many instrument in theory could, with harmonics.
(2) I can hear up to 25,000Hz from medical tests, however, whether i want to hear such frequency is doubtful; yet it is always good to have faithful replication of what is happening on the stage.
(3) Digital have sampling problems, but so are analog - that's true - yet the capability of current digital musical appeartus are way behind the tubes are standing now.
but in the real world, most people care about what they think than what they hear.
1. energy needn't be doing something else; they flow from being high grade energy (that is capable of doing work) to low grade energy (heat) for no obvious reason. Any energy somehow would be dissipated as heat.
2. Plants does not cover the whole earth.
3. In principle, you trap the light, not 'heat energy' and there is no such thing as 'heat energy'. and moreover, if you use anything to do any kind of work, the energy is released to the environment as heat, too.
4. the use of solar energy does NOT increase the nuclear fusion rate of the sun.
come on, face it. firstly, he didn't did ANYTHING ad hominem on his first post.
secondly, I do agree with him that wikipedia is not an peer-reviewed ('peer' being expert) and written by experts, and nor do it aims at. Read their site if you would like to confirm with that.
and finally, as a half-teacher, I would say that a general suggestion to high-school students would be "read more before you write". A nice time to write would be when you master the topic quite well, and you don't really need to refer to anything when you want to write something, and that you only search for reference when you need to get to specific figures or wordings.
Academically, I would say a high-schooler is not capable of writing ordinary encyclopedia, and I think many here would agree with me; But I also think it's also a good chance of you to contribute to the internet and its community by contributing your knowledge (make sure it's correct!:p) to the wikipedia.
I'm also a frequent visitor and random contributor to the wikipedia project; I mainly do my articles on medical/biochemistry block:)
Re:Quick Mind-Translation (Microsoftish, though)
on
Make More Mistakes
·
· Score: 1
what makes it more advertisement like is that it lacks the grammatical mistakes that normal feature articles are filled with.
Fellow techs are not grammar geeks, microsoft proofreaders are; Programmers are not linguists, advertisers are; and most importantly, Articles should not be biased, this one is.:-)
Re:Quick Mind-Translation (Microsoftish, though)
on
Make More Mistakes
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Below listed are some of the features hidden by the writer, perhaps guided by principles of neurolinguistic programming or freudian psychology... err.
Be careful about using bleeding-edge technologies.
i.e. use established (i.e. Microsoft) technologies.
A market with no competition ain't.
i.e. stay away from free software. (as microsoft always propose that free software is anti-competitive)
Small ISVs should build apps, not platforms.
i.e. build with existing platforms (i.e. microsoftish)
I, for one, support the original poster on that. this is because the biological virus uses the cell machinary (ribosomes, phospholipids, etc.) of the host just as the email viruses use the system API calls (Windows API calls, scripting host, etc.)
It is length of the distinct sequence that allows things to be executed that matters.
However, it should be noted that there are many computer viruses that have lengths comparable, or less than the synthesized virus... and that the original author seems to be pretending to be funny...
The problem is feasibility & efficiency. Whether something is implemented depends on whether it is possible for it to make some technological advance (On printing, e.g. making nano-tech chips) or seriously, money.
However, the real problem lies in the focus of the light, and how do we distinguish between well-behaving cells and carcinoma? On a cell-to-cell scale? I believe not. It would then costs millions to have a surgery getting one simple surgery done with the lasers and it would last ages.
If you think any kind of staining/identifying can work with computers that automate the thing then you better think who is to blame if such things happened.
I just want to tell that these magazines are actually faster source than any of the literature available. It takes much less time for an article to be released in form of Nature or S.A. Articles than it is to a related journal.
If i were him i would probably get an engineering sample (or retail? i saw it in Hong Kong recently, motherboard with CPU.) of opteron or wait a couple of days, or weeks for PPC970. It'll suit more to the name.
Though I do doubt if quality chess software is on the platform yet.
1. There is an imbalance towards napoleon during his era, and after that, the time corrected it by shifting him towards st. helena.
2. it's just that bismarck create less imbalance than napoleon and hence much of his achievement stays recognized.
3. the point on 'western knowledge as application, chinese knowledge in heart' has been put into history for many years, do you have a clue on what's happening on china? you don't? I do, as I've lived in China/Hong Kong for a total of 18 years.
4. There doesn't have to be a spy satellite to target any major city in the world; and that they want to target something doesn't imply that they want to launch it on anything.
three words - conflict of interest. some nations believes (and is true!) that they have better technology than the others, thus any synergy movement would narrow'en the gap between her and the other countries. They believe that better technology = better position in the world.
On the contrary, many nations, which are of lower technological level do have these sort of policy. However, most channels are through institutional (i.e. university-university or researchfacility-researchfacility) base rather than national cooperation.
Wrong. they did have a breakup in the 1960-1980s. This is because the soviet russia (this is an intended wording, for funny purpose.) would like to get the power of foreign policy of chna (i.e. controlling which country to trade with, to talk with and be enemy with). The chinese leader does not agree on this and all is broken up. The chinese suddenly loses all their scientist support as the soviet russia takes away their scientists, forcing the science in china to roll back by at least 10 years...
in my humble opinion, the parent post, although a flamebait and itself flamey, is unfortunately true.
I would believe that the politicians do need to wake up. it's not that destroying the terrorist is bad, but it's time to review that why there are terrorists, are they simply shitty pimpy-faced nerd that hates the whole world? probably not. they are there because of something.
they hate large nations (e.g. China on those liberation parties, America on those in asia minor & arabian regions) because the large nations DID HAVE DONE something bad to them. It's the problem of the nation.
I don't like their way (and do express my strong antipathy against killing innocents) but the government (esp. Chinese & American government) should have themselves thought twice.
actually no government leader in this world, apart from the so-called terrorists who are sort of fighting in a different way, would like to deploy nuclear weapon of anykind into the earth. doing so would mean a possible halt of their country, or more preciously, their life.
To most of the countries, the development reason should be one of the followings:
1) control more land on the whole universe as to establish colonies, which means more power. 2) to stop some other countires from going too far on (1). 3) using (1) to establish places where mining is possible as the earth will have its supply of minerals, and so used up. 4) to do something to slow other countries from going too far on (3).
This could be a bad thing for those who are not fed well in India and in China (of which, the India case is more severe), if you have ever visited India yourself, you'll agree with me if you go to the towns (and not the cities) yourself.
To a timescale of 10 years, space mission (and military research) does sort of nothing good to the society (the theory is that if NO ONE develop military, NO ONE ever would need it.); and India does NOT have enough food to feed herself, if you consider the FDA diet for them, and social structure is no excuse for taking away resources from resucing people from death of them. In humanitarian term, using money that could possibly buy food for the poors to build spaceship is unacceptable.
is always the balance of power. from the napoleonic era to the realpolitik era, to inter-war period and post war period, then cold war, it's always balance of power that acts on the world to prevent world domination.
Powers comes and goes. Napoleon rises, and falls. Bismarck rises, and falls. The franks, then the prussians, the list goes on and on, now it comes to america, who knows if the next one is China?
Yet i don't think china could gasp the key to victory here by having space mission that denotes quite a bit of nothing in military terms (forget the whole lot on spy satellite, they are of no significant use on a direct confrontation of two nuclear-powered countries). To me, I would be more impressed and scared off by the change to democratic (NOT the democratic party but rather democratic society-type form, i.e. humanitarian, [n.b. vegetarian eats vegetable.. so humanitarian eats.. oh nevermind.]) or there is a significant change in the government structure and the way people do business (i.e. guanxi or so.)
enough offtopic, but here's what I want to say on space mission for china.
<div tone="sarcastic"> For india, I think that they better feed their crowd better before the birth mortality rate goes back to the 1930s standard. (THAT'S flamey.) </div>
Slashdot Mirror
(1) Many instrument in theory could, with harmonics.
(2) I can hear up to 25,000Hz from medical tests, however, whether i want to hear such frequency is doubtful; yet it is always good to have faithful replication of what is happening on the stage.
(3) Digital have sampling problems, but so are analog - that's true - yet the capability of current digital musical appeartus are way behind the tubes are standing now.
but in the real world, most people care about what they think than what they hear.
I appreciate your humor, but...
1. energy needn't be doing something else; they flow from being high grade energy (that is capable of doing work) to low grade energy (heat) for no obvious reason. Any energy somehow would be dissipated as heat.
2. Plants does not cover the whole earth.
3. In principle, you trap the light, not 'heat energy' and there is no such thing as 'heat energy'. and moreover, if you use anything to do any kind of work, the energy is released to the environment as heat, too.
4. the use of solar energy does NOT increase the nuclear fusion rate of the sun.
Thanks for watching.
come on, face it.
:p) to the wikipedia.
:)
firstly, he didn't did ANYTHING ad hominem on his first post.
secondly, I do agree with him that wikipedia is not an peer-reviewed ('peer' being expert) and written by experts, and nor do it aims at. Read their site if you would like to confirm with that.
and finally, as a half-teacher, I would say that a general suggestion to high-school students would be "read more before you write". A nice time to write would be when you master the topic quite well, and you don't really need to refer to anything when you want to write something, and that you only search for reference when you need to get to specific figures or wordings.
Academically, I would say a high-schooler is not capable of writing ordinary encyclopedia, and I think many here would agree with me; But I also think it's also a good chance of you to contribute to the internet and its community by contributing your knowledge (make sure it's correct!
I'm also a frequent visitor and random contributor to the wikipedia project; I mainly do my articles on medical/biochemistry block
what makes it more advertisement like is that it lacks the grammatical mistakes that normal feature articles are filled with.
:-)
Fellow techs are not grammar geeks, microsoft proofreaders are; Programmers are not linguists, advertisers are; and most importantly, Articles should not be biased, this one is.
Below listed are some of the features hidden by the writer, perhaps guided by principles of neurolinguistic programming or freudian psychology... err.
Be careful about using bleeding-edge technologies.
i.e. use established (i.e. Microsoft) technologies.
A market with no competition ain't.
i.e. stay away from free software. (as microsoft always propose that free software is anti-competitive)
Small ISVs should build apps, not platforms.
i.e. build with existing platforms (i.e. microsoftish)
I, for one, support the original poster on that. this is because the biological virus uses the cell machinary (ribosomes, phospholipids, etc.) of the host just as the email viruses use the system API calls (Windows API calls, scripting host, etc.)
It is length of the distinct sequence that allows things to be executed that matters.
However, it should be noted that there are many computer viruses that have lengths comparable, or less than the synthesized virus... and that the original author seems to be pretending to be funny...
2^1/2
= (2^1)/2
= 1
Of course an integer is a real number
well maybe i was smoking crack at the moment. I meant:
:-)
The magazines are actually faster source of information than the journals which requires long period for reviewing and rejecting articles.
thanks for pointing out the fact that my wordings are weird & uncomprehensible...
well i study anaesthetics myself, so my name come from one of my favourites in anaesthetics and not of 'recreational purpose' :-)
The problem is feasibility & efficiency. Whether something is implemented depends on whether it is possible for it to make some technological advance (On printing, e.g. making nano-tech chips) or seriously, money.
Welcome to reality.
However, the real problem lies in the focus of the light, and how do we distinguish between well-behaving cells and carcinoma? On a cell-to-cell scale? I believe not. It would then costs millions to have a surgery getting one simple surgery done with the lasers and it would last ages.
If you think any kind of staining/identifying can work with computers that automate the thing then you better think who is to blame if such things happened.
I just want to tell that these magazines are actually faster source than any of the literature available. It takes much less time for an article to be released in form of Nature or S.A. Articles than it is to a related journal.
Well, the funniest statement I could about NASA...
the article is way too pro-BSD to be said, and is comparing apple (linux, kernel sense) with oranges (BSD, distribution-sense).
Though being a BSD-user (OpenBSD server & MacOSX desktop), I feel uneasy to read all those, esp. the 'linux-copy-bsd' phrase.
what if SCO sue that the IBM-optimized powerpc compiler contained misappropriated code from AIX...? oh nevermind.
though i would really want to see if the 1957 patent really have the clause of laser, or it is fine-tuned to that after 1958.
If i were him i would probably get an engineering sample (or retail? i saw it in Hong Kong recently, motherboard with CPU.) of opteron or wait a couple of days, or weeks for PPC970. It'll suit more to the name.
Though I do doubt if quality chess software is on the platform yet.
a CPU can't be slower than another CPU at an equivalent clock speed, it can only be slower at the same clockspeed.
1. There is an imbalance towards napoleon during his era, and after that, the time corrected it by shifting him towards st. helena.
2. it's just that bismarck create less imbalance than napoleon and hence much of his achievement stays recognized.
3. the point on 'western knowledge as application, chinese knowledge in heart' has been put into history for many years, do you have a clue on what's happening on china? you don't? I do, as I've lived in China/Hong Kong for a total of 18 years.
4. There doesn't have to be a spy satellite to target any major city in the world; and that they want to target something doesn't imply that they want to launch it on anything.
-k
three words - conflict of interest.
some nations believes (and is true!) that they have better technology than the others, thus any synergy movement would narrow'en the gap between her and the other countries. They believe that better technology = better position in the world.
On the contrary, many nations, which are of lower technological level do have these sort of policy. However, most channels are through institutional (i.e. university-university or researchfacility-researchfacility) base rather than national cooperation.
wow, that's it.
Wrong. they did have a breakup in the 1960-1980s.
This is because the soviet russia (this is an intended wording, for funny purpose.) would like to get the power of foreign policy of chna (i.e. controlling which country to trade with, to talk with and be enemy with). The chinese leader does not agree on this and all is broken up. The chinese suddenly loses all their scientist support as the soviet russia takes away their scientists, forcing the science in china to roll back by at least 10 years...
in my humble opinion, the parent post, although a flamebait and itself flamey, is unfortunately true.
I would believe that the politicians do need to wake up. it's not that destroying the terrorist is bad, but it's time to review that why there are terrorists, are they simply shitty pimpy-faced nerd that hates the whole world? probably not. they are there because of something.
they hate large nations (e.g. China on those liberation parties, America on those in asia minor & arabian regions) because the large nations DID HAVE DONE something bad to them. It's the problem of the nation.
I don't like their way (and do express my strong antipathy against killing innocents) but the government (esp. Chinese & American government) should have themselves thought twice.
actually no government leader in this world, apart from the so-called terrorists who are sort of fighting in a different way, would like to deploy nuclear weapon of anykind into the earth. doing so would mean a possible halt of their country, or more preciously, their life.
To most of the countries, the development reason should be one of the followings:
1) control more land on the whole universe as to establish colonies, which means more power.
2) to stop some other countires from going too far on (1).
3) using (1) to establish places where mining is possible as the earth will have its supply of minerals, and so used up.
4) to do something to slow other countries from going too far on (3).
You guess, I guess.
This could be a bad thing for those who are not fed well in India and in China (of which, the India case is more severe), if you have ever visited India yourself, you'll agree with me if you go to the towns (and not the cities) yourself.
To a timescale of 10 years, space mission (and military research) does sort of nothing good to the society (the theory is that if NO ONE develop military, NO ONE ever would need it.); and India does NOT have enough food to feed herself, if you consider the FDA diet for them, and social structure is no excuse for taking away resources from resucing people from death of them. In humanitarian term, using money that could possibly buy food for the poors to build spaceship is unacceptable.
is always the balance of power. from the napoleonic era to the realpolitik era, to inter-war period and post war period, then cold war, it's always balance of power that acts on the world to prevent world domination.
Powers comes and goes. Napoleon rises, and falls. Bismarck rises, and falls. The franks, then the prussians, the list goes on and on, now it comes to america, who knows if the next one is China?
Yet i don't think china could gasp the key to victory here by having space mission that denotes quite a bit of nothing in military terms (forget the whole lot on spy satellite, they are of no significant use on a direct confrontation of two nuclear-powered countries). To me, I would be more impressed and scared off by the change to democratic (NOT the democratic party but rather democratic society-type form, i.e. humanitarian, [n.b. vegetarian eats vegetable.. so humanitarian eats.. oh nevermind.]) or there is a significant change in the government structure and the way people do business (i.e. guanxi or so.)
enough offtopic, but here's what I want to say on space mission for china.
<div tone="sarcastic">
For india, I think that they better feed their crowd better before the birth mortality rate goes back to the 1930s standard. (THAT'S flamey.)
</div>