You would think so. I did as well but then I just sent a question to realclimate.org. Here is part of the response I got:
The global energy usage is around 316 quadrillion BTUs (World Bank, 1995
figures) per year. 1 BTU = 1055 Joules. Therefore spread out over the
globe the effective forcing (W/m2) is
this should be compared to 0.25 W/m2 for a solar cycle, or 2.8 W/m2 for
well mixed anthopogenic greenhouse gases or, -3 W/m2 for a big volcano,
like Pinatubo.
More explanation:
The laws of theromdynamics lead to the conclusion, hat every bit of energy used is converted to heat eventually. So this calculation takes all the energy used by humans (transportation, electricity,... - all kinds of primary energy) and calculates how much energy is released per square meter per second. (1 [Watt] = [Joule]/[Second])
I can post my whole question and the answer, if someone is interested.
Mathematics is not science. It is a very complex formal system. You could desribe it as the science of understanding that system, I guess. But I wouldn't. Although you are right, mathematics is somewhat purer, that does not invalidate physics.
For example: Let assume we have a theory of space, time and gravity, that seems to be tremendously correct for all observations we made as of now (note that this is just an example, we do not have such a theory, but please bear with me). Now we observe some new event or something that was out of reach previously, which cannot be described with current theory, and seems to need not a small fix, but a complete rework of current theory.
So, does this observation suddenly invalidate the usefulness of the existing body of theory?
Does an apple on earth suddenly not fall with the same speed as before and does it not release the same amount of kinetic energy in impact?
What physics is about is one belief: That the world can be described in terms of a formal system (mathematics). That is the only 'faith' physicists have. We don't know (and probably never will) if that is true or not. All we know is that everything in nature that follows rules can be described with a formal system and if there is something that does not follow a set of rules, it cannot be predicted anyways.
Besides that, physics is just trying to find new insights and new systems to describe rule-abiding reality as accurate as possible, using mathematics as a tool. Physics does acknowledge, that it may never be complete. But the knowlege we have gained so far is correct and works, albeit only for the cases in which it has been tested. And no new insight will invalidate that. No machines will stop working, no buildings collapse, because of a new observation that cannot be described within the current body of theory. We may find a better, simpler or more complex theory, which gives for tested known and understood cases the same results as the old one AND describes previously unexplainable observations.
And if you want to start with "formally proveable", may I give you Gödel? Any system complex enough to reference itself (like mathematics) is by definition incomplete AND contains provably unprovable sentences which are nonetheless valid within this system.
If that were the case, we'd better tell the permafrost that it should stay frozen. Because, if you haven't heard, it ismeltingrightnow.
And if you ask if that is bad, well, scientists estimate that fourteen percent of the worlds carbon is stored in permafrost. Fourteen percent of ALL carbon, not only of the CO2 and methane in the atmosphere. And it is mostly in the form of methane, which upon release, would increase the greenhouse effect considerably. See also positivefeedback loop.
At my company, we have two groups working on different products (software). For one group development was split between two locations, to make commute easier. But in that group that lead to immense problems. People didn't communicate with the other location, rivalries (the bad kind) crept into the relationship and the product suffered as as result. Now they are in one location, and things are going much better.
The second group (where I am) on the other hand, had its members split into all directions from the beginning. Half of it was working from home, and the other half is now as well. Some are on the road almost always, doing support or installations, sometimes assisting sales people. We meet each other rarely in person. But we work together without trouble, and are as efficient as ever. That is for two reasons: First, we stay in contact closely via all means possible: IM, VoIP, phone, EMail, discussion boards, aso. Second, we were friends and working together at other companies before the current one and know each other well.
So, to sum it up: As others have written, only being in contact electronically can be problematic, as you have trouble building up trust and the kind of relationship that is necessary for well-oiled development.
But if you have all of that already, you can make it work just fine.
Be nice to each other and do not forget that in electronic communications (of all kinds) a lot gets lost. Words alone make it difficult to get what the other wants to say, so it is better to assume the thing he just said was just a joke, not an insult. That the phrasing was just harsh out of not having much time, not because the other side disklikes you.
If you intend to do contract work, that makes it difficult, but if you've worked together for years, go for it.
The EU has currently 450 Million inhabitants, and this number will increase to 500 Million in 2 years, when Bulgaria and Romania join (increasing the number of members to 27).
If you haven't got the memo, the EU is currently the biggest econonmy on this nice planet.
Oh, and Turkey is not part of the EU (yet).
What may help Wikipedia is to adapt some of Everything2's ideas. Namely, to allow several concurring writeups for one topic. This would allow for many different viewpoints to coexist. For some topics it is simply not possible to condensate all the opinions and views into *one* coherent body of text.
Of course you'd still have the problem that a potential reader does not know which of these writeups he can rely on. So you could add 2 mechanisms. First, highlight articles from experts somehow, and second, have one 'main writeup' that is maintained exactly as it is now.
This would yield a consenus view on the subject AND additional personal viewpoints.
And the nice thing is, you could simply implement it by adding the possibility of writeups ('comments') to the existing articles and some sort of registered users who have proven credibility for certain subjects.
What about holding politicians or managers liable for their misjudgements and mistakes? Or maybe hold journalists/reporters liable for their spelling and grammar mistakes?
If the software is in some sort life-endagering system, that is already the case. But for a security breach? That would be like sueing a lock-maker for not being able to produce an unpickable lock.
If someone were obviously negligent, we could talk about it. But for a bug? People make mistakes. Software is more complex than any other tool ever invented. Combine those two, and it is inevitable that mistakes occur, unless you spend A LOT of ressources for testing and/or prooving the code correct. And that does not proove the design and requirements to be correct, only that the implementation matches the design.
Indeed it is. I like it even more, when the silent music comes in after you have killed all hostiles.
You are right, WC did the same thing. But X-Wing did it as well as Tie Fighter (my favorite of the whole series).
I have X-Wing Alliance installed, and it uses dynamic music. Partly it seems to be scripted (when certain ships arrive or mission goals are achieved) and partly it chooses music depending on your current state (fighting, loosing, winning,...).
How could they possibly simulate bacteria, if they are not completely understood yet? You would have to simulate every single molecule of the bacteria. A quick guess is, that bacteria have several billion molecules (a bacteria has a size of about 1 micrometer; that are 1000 to 10000 atoms, which taken to the third power are 10^9 - 10^12. roughly).
Fully calculating all those parts' movement in all 3 degrees of freedom could prove tricky. Especially taking quantum effects into account.
Even if they do simulate it on a higher level (proteins, rna and dna) it is too complicated and not fully understood.
And here we are talking about one individual bacterium. To calculate whole colony of those AND their interactions (wich are even less understood): that is a little bit much for me to believe.
They might have a framework, which is able to simulate several "agents" and their interactions in a 3D-world. But it still needs to be fed with a complete description of a bacteria. A _formal_ description. But we are as far away from knowing that as a chemical rocket is from achieving interstellar travel.
I do not doubt it will help researchers all over the world to understand certain aspects and test some theories, but it is only a first step, and a very small one at that.
But IANAMB, so YMMV.
Is there a module somewhere in there, that says "mysterious stuff"
If you've got a laptop and you've got a cell phone, is there any need for a PDA?
Well, if you do not want to drag a laptop around and still have some computing power with you, there is a need. Besides the obvious (calendering, address book, todos,...) I use my iPAQ as MP3 Player (1 GB SD card), for running emulators (NES, SNES, GameBoy, Atari, ScummVM,...), as mobile storage device and to check EMails (in combination with my mobile).
Yes, I could do that with my mobile, a Gameboy, a MP3Player and with a portable HDD, but why not have all in one device?
And Smartphones are, at least IMHO, the worst of the bunch. Why? I have a phone to make calls and maybe to send/recieve SMS'. If I wanted it to be a PDA, I'd buy one (what I did). Smartphones either have a large display and are too bulky to have them on you all the time OR have display far too small to be useful as PDA-replacement. Also, my mobile (a Siemens M45 - outdoor) is nearly indestructible and has a long battery life. If it had a high-res display and a 200Mhz CPU that would change.
You know that without DOS there would have been no Linux, right? Linus worked on a PC and DOS was the only viable OS. Without an existing OS and compiler you have a very hard time developing anything, except you like writing machine code.
And I just assume that Linus used an unlizensed copy of MS-DOS, just like we all did back then. Also, I seriosly doubt that the compiler and text editor used by him were legally purchased.
Also, part of the money and manpower donated to open source projects (and Linux in particular) in the past few years came from the industry (IBM, Sun,...). They in turn got the money by selling software and services.
Please stop telling that Linux was developed by a small group of heroic people. It was built using existing commercial tools and the time open source developers worldwide donated. But this time was bought by commercial software as well (how do you think they pay for food, clothing and shelter?).
So one could say that Linux was developed by a fraction of the money we paid when purchasing our hard- and software for the past 15 years. You could even call it a tax.
Where "farklempt" comes from
on
Farklempt!
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Seems to be a play on the german word "verklemmt" which can be translated as "uptight".
Just my 0,02...
Try to get your hands on some programming exams. The programs there are usually designed and written within one or two hours (to fit into a typical lesson). Also they touch all subjects that are of interest in your case, for example the 8-queen-problem for recursion, simple algebra (prime numbers) for number handling, pointers, etc without going to deep into details not necessary if you are not writing productive software.
Some more detailled data about the meaning of the word monad. Especially the first three seem apropriate somehow.
Monad
The word monad comes from the Greek word (from the word , which means "one", "single", "unique") and has had many meanings in different contexts:
Among the Pythagoreans (followers of Pythagoras) the monad was the first thing that came into existence. The monad begat the dyad, which begat the numbers, the numbers begat points, which begat lines, which begat two-dimensional entities, which begat three-dimensional entities, which begat bodies, which begat the four elements earth, water, fire and air, from which the rest of our world is built up. The monad was thus a central concept in the cosmology of the Pythagoreans, who held the belief that the world was - literally - built up by numbers. (The source of this claim is Diogenes Laertius' book Lives of Eminent Philosophers.)
Within certain variations of Gnosticism, especially those inspiered by Monoimus, the monad was the higher being which created lesser gods, or elements (similar to aeons). This view was according to Hippolytus inspired by the Pythagoreans.
In the writings of the philosopher Gottfried Leibniz, monads are atomistic mental objects which experience the world from a particular point of view. Leibniz's theory does not posit physical space; rather, physical objects are constructs of the collective experiences of monads. This way of putting it is misleading, however; monads do not interact with each other (are "windowless"), but rather are imbued at creation with all their future experiences in a system of pre-established harmony. The arrangements of the monads make up the faith and structure of this world, which to Leibniz was "the best of all possible worlds".
Within mathematics, specifically category theory, a monad is a type of functor important in the theory of adjoint functors. It is this usage that has led to the one in functional programming explained below. See monad (category theory).
In pure functional programming languages such as Haskell, monads are data types that encapsulate the functional I/O-activity, in such a manner that the side-effects of IO are not allowed to spread out of the part of the program that is not functional (imperative).
Technocracy Incorporated describes its symbol as being a geometric representation of the monad.
\'Monad' is a codename for a command line interface that is up to come with Windows Longhorn. It includes many features borrowed from Unix and AmigaOS.
Slashdot Mirror
Ever heard of Guantanamo Bay?
You would think so. I did as well but then I just sent a question to realclimate.org. Here is part of the response I got:
The global energy usage is around 316 quadrillion BTUs (World Bank, 1995 figures) per year. 1 BTU = 1055 Joules. Therefore spread out over the globe the effective forcing (W/m2) is
More explanation: The laws of theromdynamics lead to the conclusion, hat every bit of energy used is converted to heat eventually. So this calculation takes all the energy used by humans (transportation, electricity,3.16 x 10^17 * 1055 / 5.1x10^14 / (3600*24*365) = 0.02 W/m2
this should be compared to 0.25 W/m2 for a solar cycle, or 2.8 W/m2 for well mixed anthopogenic greenhouse gases or, -3 W/m2 for a big volcano, like Pinatubo.
Sigh. Ok, let's try this.
Mathematics is not science. It is a very complex formal system. You could desribe it as the science of understanding that system, I guess. But I wouldn't. Although you are right, mathematics is somewhat purer, that does not invalidate physics. For example: Let assume we have a theory of space, time and gravity, that seems to be tremendously correct for all observations we made as of now (note that this is just an example, we do not have such a theory, but please bear with me). Now we observe some new event or something that was out of reach previously, which cannot be described with current theory, and seems to need not a small fix, but a complete rework of current theory. So, does this observation suddenly invalidate the usefulness of the existing body of theory? Does an apple on earth suddenly not fall with the same speed as before and does it not release the same amount of kinetic energy in impact?
What physics is about is one belief: That the world can be described in terms of a formal system (mathematics). That is the only 'faith' physicists have. We don't know (and probably never will) if that is true or not. All we know is that everything in nature that follows rules can be described with a formal system and if there is something that does not follow a set of rules, it cannot be predicted anyways.
Besides that, physics is just trying to find new insights and new systems to describe rule-abiding reality as accurate as possible, using mathematics as a tool. Physics does acknowledge, that it may never be complete. But the knowlege we have gained so far is correct and works, albeit only for the cases in which it has been tested. And no new insight will invalidate that. No machines will stop working, no buildings collapse, because of a new observation that cannot be described within the current body of theory. We may find a better, simpler or more complex theory, which gives for tested known and understood cases the same results as the old one AND describes previously unexplainable observations.
And if you want to start with "formally proveable", may I give you Gödel? Any system complex enough to reference itself (like mathematics) is by definition incomplete AND contains provably unprovable sentences which are nonetheless valid within this system.
If that were the case, we'd better tell the permafrost that it should stay frozen. Because, if you haven't heard, it is melting right now.
And if you ask if that is bad, well, scientists estimate that fourteen percent of the worlds carbon is stored in permafrost. Fourteen percent of ALL carbon, not only of the CO2 and methane in the atmosphere. And it is mostly in the form of methane, which upon release, would increase the greenhouse effect considerably. See also positive feedback loop.
To give another story on working from home:
At my company, we have two groups working on different products (software). For one group development was split between two locations, to make commute easier. But in that group that lead to immense problems. People didn't communicate with the other location, rivalries (the bad kind) crept into the relationship and the product suffered as as result. Now they are in one location, and things are going much better.
The second group (where I am) on the other hand, had its members split into all directions from the beginning. Half of it was working from home, and the other half is now as well. Some are on the road almost always, doing support or installations, sometimes assisting sales people. We meet each other rarely in person. But we work together without trouble, and are as efficient as ever. That is for two reasons: First, we stay in contact closely via all means possible: IM, VoIP, phone, EMail, discussion boards, aso. Second, we were friends and working together at other companies before the current one and know each other well.
So, to sum it up: As others have written, only being in contact electronically can be problematic, as you have trouble building up trust and the kind of relationship that is necessary for well-oiled development.
But if you have all of that already, you can make it work just fine.
Be nice to each other and do not forget that in electronic communications (of all kinds) a lot gets lost. Words alone make it difficult to get what the other wants to say, so it is better to assume the thing he just said was just a joke, not an insult. That the phrasing was just harsh out of not having much time, not because the other side disklikes you.
If you intend to do contract work, that makes it difficult, but if you've worked together for years, go for it.
The EU has currently 450 Million inhabitants, and this number will increase to 500 Million in 2 years, when Bulgaria and Romania join (increasing the number of members to 27). If you haven't got the memo, the EU is currently the biggest econonmy on this nice planet. Oh, and Turkey is not part of the EU (yet).
What may help Wikipedia is to adapt some of Everything2's ideas. Namely, to allow several concurring writeups for one topic. This would allow for many different viewpoints to coexist. For some topics it is simply not possible to condensate all the opinions and views into *one* coherent body of text.
Of course you'd still have the problem that a potential reader does not know which of these writeups he can rely on. So you could add 2 mechanisms. First, highlight articles from experts somehow, and second, have one 'main writeup' that is maintained exactly as it is now.
This would yield a consenus view on the subject AND additional personal viewpoints.
And the nice thing is, you could simply implement it by adding the possibility of writeups ('comments') to the existing articles and some sort of registered users who have proven credibility for certain subjects.
What about holding politicians or managers liable for their misjudgements and mistakes? Or maybe hold journalists/reporters liable for their spelling and grammar mistakes?
If the software is in some sort life-endagering system, that is already the case. But for a security breach? That would be like sueing a lock-maker for not being able to produce an unpickable lock.
If someone were obviously negligent, we could talk about it. But for a bug? People make mistakes. Software is more complex than any other tool ever invented. Combine those two, and it is inevitable that mistakes occur, unless you spend A LOT of ressources for testing and/or prooving the code correct. And that does not proove the design and requirements to be correct, only that the implementation matches the design.
Indeed it is. I like it even more, when the silent music comes in after you have killed all hostiles. You are right, WC did the same thing. But X-Wing did it as well as Tie Fighter (my favorite of the whole series).
I have X-Wing Alliance installed, and it uses dynamic music. Partly it seems to be scripted (when certain ships arrive or mission goals are achieved) and partly it chooses music depending on your current state (fighting, loosing, winning, ...).
Just my 0,02
"640 NES games ought to be enought for everyone."
Although it states the obvious, it is still nice to read...
http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=050621
How could they possibly simulate bacteria, if they are not completely understood yet? You would have to simulate every single molecule of the bacteria. A quick guess is, that bacteria have several billion molecules (a bacteria has a size of about 1 micrometer; that are 1000 to 10000 atoms, which taken to the third power are 10^9 - 10^12. roughly).
Fully calculating all those parts' movement in all 3 degrees of freedom could prove tricky. Especially taking quantum effects into account.
Even if they do simulate it on a higher level (proteins, rna and dna) it is too complicated and not fully understood.
And here we are talking about one individual bacterium. To calculate whole colony of those AND their interactions (wich are even less understood): that is a little bit much for me to believe.
They might have a framework, which is able to simulate several "agents" and their interactions in a 3D-world. But it still needs to be fed with a complete description of a bacteria. A _formal_ description. But we are as far away from knowing that as a chemical rocket is from achieving interstellar travel.
I do not doubt it will help researchers all over the world to understand certain aspects and test some theories, but it is only a first step, and a very small one at that.
But IANAMB, so YMMV. Is there a module somewhere in there, that says "mysterious stuff"
*ducks*
Sorry, couldn't help myself. *g*
If you've got a laptop and you've got a cell phone, is there any need for a PDA?
Well, if you do not want to drag a laptop around and still have some computing power with you, there is a need. Besides the obvious (calendering, address book, todos, ...) I use my iPAQ as MP3 Player (1 GB SD card), for running emulators (NES, SNES, GameBoy, Atari, ScummVM, ...), as mobile storage device and to check EMails (in combination with my mobile).
Yes, I could do that with my mobile, a Gameboy, a MP3Player and with a portable HDD, but why not have all in one device?
And Smartphones are, at least IMHO, the worst of the bunch. Why? I have a phone to make calls and maybe to send/recieve SMS'. If I wanted it to be a PDA, I'd buy one (what I did). Smartphones either have a large display and are too bulky to have them on you all the time OR have display far too small to be useful as PDA-replacement. Also, my mobile (a Siemens M45 - outdoor) is nearly indestructible and has a long battery life. If it had a high-res display and a 200Mhz CPU that would change.
I wonder: Did they use the "Chinese Lottery" to break it? *g*
You know that without DOS there would have been no Linux, right? Linus worked on a PC and DOS was the only viable OS. Without an existing OS and compiler you have a very hard time developing anything, except you like writing machine code.
...). They in turn got the money by selling software and services.
And I just assume that Linus used an unlizensed copy of MS-DOS, just like we all did back then. Also, I seriosly doubt that the compiler and text editor used by him were legally purchased.
Also, part of the money and manpower donated to open source projects (and Linux in particular) in the past few years came from the industry (IBM, Sun,
Please stop telling that Linux was developed by a small group of heroic people. It was built using existing commercial tools and the time open source developers worldwide donated. But this time was bought by commercial software as well (how do you think they pay for food, clothing and shelter?).
So one could say that Linux was developed by a fraction of the money we paid when purchasing our hard- and software for the past 15 years. You could even call it a tax.
Seems to be a play on the german word "verklemmt" which can be translated as "uptight". Just my 0,02...
500 Terrawatts
Terawatts, not Terra, dammit!
No, it is NOT a dupe. If you read the summary it states quite clearly, that this is a follow-up on yesterdays story.
know to mankind as "wind" which sometimes is able to "blow" dust "around".
And if it was an unsigned short day, it could hold not 65536, but 65535 seconds.
Go and find some USB products that are similarly 'innovative' and contact their manufacturer.
See here for some examples. Companies already producing an USB aquarium or coffee warmer may be a good start.
Try to get your hands on some programming exams. The programs there are usually designed and written within one or two hours (to fit into a typical lesson). Also they touch all subjects that are of interest in your case, for example the 8-queen-problem for recursion, simple algebra (prime numbers) for number handling, pointers, etc without going to deep into details not necessary if you are not writing productive software.
Some more detailled data about the meaning of the word monad. Especially the first three seem apropriate somehow.
Monad The word monad comes from the Greek word (from the word , which means "one", "single", "unique") and has had many meanings in different contexts: