I took it as American, as the article speaks of having just pushed something from (large number) billion to (small number) trillion. Not of an enormous leap between (large number) billion to (small number) trillion.
If you, like me, are not accustomed to seeing electron volts in this dumbed down prefix-less format, you'll be grateful to find that I've translated the orders of magnitude in the article into a more conventional form:
1 trillion electron volts = 1 TeV 1 billion electron volts = 1 GeV
Ah, but I found the solution to global warming. If we model people as an ideal gas confined to a box, increasing the number of people while keeping volume and pressure constant will decrease the temperature!
The analogy works pretty well, actually, if you let not leaving google correspond to confessing, and leaving google correspond to hoping nobody else confesses.
If a small group of newspapers remain on google after a bulk of them "escape", they will get a humongous market advantage over the escaping newspapers. If no newspapers leave google, they are at a suboptimal stalemate. If every single newspaper escapes, they reach an unstable optimal situation.
Though in the end, the only newspapers that benefit from leaving google are newspapers with established brands. But in doing so, they would hand over large quantities of readership to smaller newspapers with no established trademark that would not benefit from leaving google. The prisoner analogy would be that 5 guys are brought in for questioning with regards to a bank heist, and 3 of them did the actual bank job and face serious jail time, one guy drove the car and face less jail time, and one guy was marginally involved and faces a fine and community service -- the price for confessing and keeping quiet are unevenly distributed, which changes the dynamics of the game significantly. It isn't even really a dilemma any more, as the guy facing a fine will walk if he confesses.
They do actually correspond pretty well, but that is only when you ignore the states of matter that occur at very low temperatures (superfluids, superconductors, Bose-Einstein condensates) and at very high temperatures (quark-gluon plasma).
The most laughable example of conceptual plagiarism is the space-ships Stargate SG-1. Almost every single technology on those ships has an equivalent in Star Trek TNG.
Though, the real problem is bigger than the clicheification. New science fiction needs new basic science. In the first half of the 20th century, we had a ton of new scientific advances just becoming available in computing, electronics, etc. The latter half of the century was spent mostly refining and implementing theories and techniques that already existed.
The scientific landscape today doesn't really look all that different from the scientific landscape 50 years ago. Until there is some sort of paradigm shift in basic science, there really isn't a whole lot new sci-fi to be written.
The problem is the sci-fi cliches. At some point, there was enough sci-fi for certain elements to become staple.
At that point, writing new sci-fi was a matter of rearranging these cliches into something that appeared to be novel. Unfortunately, you can only do this for so long, before the cliches become exhausted.
The recoil has the momentum of the projected laser. Photons, like atoms, have mass-energy which, along with velocity determines momentum. But a lot of energy gives very little mass. So photons have a lot of velocity (C) and hardly any mass, so they have hardly any momentum for a lot of energy.
The atoms in normal rocket exhaust have less velocity but heaps more mass-energy, most of which is just dead weight.
Photons have no mass at all. If they did, they couldn't travel at the speed of light. Now they can't travel in any speed -but- the speed of light.
They still have momentum though, but it is not classical momentum in the sense of "mass times speed", but it's like momentum every way that counts though. The equation for momentum of a photon is p=E/c, where p is momentum, E is photon energy and c is the speed of light.
Not only is it overcast, it's FOGGY and rainy as well. And that's the forecast for the entire week. Damn you britain, your weather has escaped and is wrecking havoc in Sweden.
. But that's because the professor (or rather, the TA:s) need to quickly read through 50 or so computer lab reports every couple of weeks, and doing so without comments takes ages
However in the business world we have all the time in the world?
In the business world you have hopefully more experienced programmers than the average undergrad. (Okay, some undergrads are pretty good, but the bulk of them are mediocre.) And as such, the code can be expected to be of higher quality.
Furthermore, it is important in studying computer science to show that you actually understand the assignment, beyond managing to get the code to work as expected through trial and error or lifting examples from the internet / literature. Comments are integral to demonstrating that, knowledge, but there is no need for doing that in actual application development.
Archive.org offers the full.avi file for download (the AVI version is about 4000 times more awesome than the flash version), and it's in public domain, so you are perfectly within your rights to go do it yourself.
This is a good practice. Comments very seldom keep up with changes in the code base, so more often than not, they end up being misleading at some point in the future.
The reason people think they need to cluster bomb their code with comments is generally because they have a degree in CS, and CS classes often require such code. But that's because the professor (or rather, the TA:s) need to quickly read through 50 or so computer lab reports every couple of weeks, and doing so without comments takes ages (especially what with the more dubious code that occasionally gets handed in.)
Documenting module interfaces is generally a good thing, but actually littering the implementation with comments is quite another (unless there is some outstanding reason to do so).
While not a pure mandelbrot, but a buddhabrot rendering: For the curious, here's a nice 2D projection of such a (rotating) 4D fractal I whipped up a while back.
If your own URL shortener becomes popular (it won't), it will have to serve at least a million clicks per day. bit.ly is currently at around 4-5 per day, I think.
I don't know why bit.ly is even up for discussion though. A site that only gets 4 hits per day is obscure by any standard.
I'd be more alarmed to find someone who wasn't afraid to pass a checkpoint like this. How can you defend yourself from the allegation of some machine saying that you exhibit fear, and therefore is a terrorist? Furthermore, sociopaths and psychopaths will have little trouble passing these checkpoints.
So you'll get plenty of false positives, and plenty of false negatives.
Pets don't have the instincts to cope with an urban environment. Cars certainly aren't a part of their natural environment. Neither are snow blowers.
Cats that grow up in an urban environment develops instincts to cope with an urban environment. Animals aren't mindless hard-coded robots. They are quite good at adapting to most any environment you throw at them. Sure, some don't make it, but some cats don't make it in deep forest untouched by man either.
Slashdot Mirror
I took it as American, as the article speaks of having just pushed something from (large number) billion to (small number) trillion. Not of an enormous leap between (large number) billion to (small number) trillion.
You've got to keep in mind that this is the energy PER PARTICLE. For reference, 1 gram of matter has something like 10^23 nucleons.
In particle physics, a trillion electron volts is absolutely HUMONGOUS. It is 500 times the energy you get from neutron-antineutron annihilation.
If you, like me, are not accustomed to seeing electron volts in this dumbed down prefix-less format, you'll be grateful to find that I've translated the orders of magnitude in the article into a more conventional form:
1 trillion electron volts = 1 TeV
1 billion electron volts = 1 GeV
Ah, but I found the solution to global warming. If we model people as an ideal gas confined to a box, increasing the number of people while keeping volume and pressure constant will decrease the temperature!
The analogy works pretty well, actually, if you let not leaving google correspond to confessing, and leaving google correspond to hoping nobody else confesses.
If a small group of newspapers remain on google after a bulk of them "escape", they will get a humongous market advantage over the escaping newspapers. If no newspapers leave google, they are at a suboptimal stalemate. If every single newspaper escapes, they reach an unstable optimal situation.
Though in the end, the only newspapers that benefit from leaving google are newspapers with established brands. But in doing so, they would hand over large quantities of readership to smaller newspapers with no established trademark that would not benefit from leaving google. The prisoner analogy would be that 5 guys are brought in for questioning with regards to a bank heist, and 3 of them did the actual bank job and face serious jail time, one guy drove the car and face less jail time, and one guy was marginally involved and faces a fine and community service -- the price for confessing and keeping quiet are unevenly distributed, which changes the dynamics of the game significantly. It isn't even really a dilemma any more, as the guy facing a fine will walk if he confesses.
They do actually correspond pretty well, but that is only when you ignore the states of matter that occur at very low temperatures (superfluids, superconductors, Bose-Einstein condensates) and at very high temperatures (quark-gluon plasma).
The most laughable example of conceptual plagiarism is the space-ships Stargate SG-1. Almost every single technology on those ships has an equivalent in Star Trek TNG.
Though, the real problem is bigger than the clicheification. New science fiction needs new basic science. In the first half of the 20th century, we had a ton of new scientific advances just becoming available in computing, electronics, etc. The latter half of the century was spent mostly refining and implementing theories and techniques that already existed.
The scientific landscape today doesn't really look all that different from the scientific landscape 50 years ago. Until there is some sort of paradigm shift in basic science, there really isn't a whole lot new sci-fi to be written.
The problem is the sci-fi cliches. At some point, there was enough sci-fi for certain elements to become staple.
At that point, writing new sci-fi was a matter of rearranging these cliches into something that appeared to be novel. Unfortunately, you can only do this for so long, before the cliches become exhausted.
Naturally this is only being used to break encryption on computers seized with a warrant and suspected of harboring child pornography.
... suuuuuure.
Bad Soup of Death?
Eric XIV of Sweden will vouch for this issue.
The recoil has the momentum of the projected laser. Photons, like atoms, have mass-energy which, along with velocity determines momentum. But a lot of energy gives very little mass. So photons have a lot of velocity (C) and hardly any mass, so they have hardly any momentum for a lot of energy.
The atoms in normal rocket exhaust have less velocity but heaps more mass-energy, most of which is just dead weight.
Photons have no mass at all. If they did, they couldn't travel at the speed of light. Now they can't travel in any speed -but- the speed of light.
They still have momentum though, but it is not classical momentum in the sense of "mass times speed", but it's like momentum every way that counts though. The equation for momentum of a photon is p=E/c, where p is momentum, E is photon energy and c is the speed of light.
It would alter "it's" adds?!
It should use the preview button.
Not only is it overcast, it's FOGGY and rainy as well. And that's the forecast for the entire week. Damn you britain, your weather has escaped and is wrecking havoc in Sweden.
. But that's because the professor (or rather, the TA:s) need to quickly read through 50 or so computer lab reports every couple of weeks, and doing so without comments takes ages
However in the business world we have all the time in the world?
In the business world you have hopefully more experienced programmers than the average undergrad. (Okay, some undergrads are pretty good, but the bulk of them are mediocre.) And as such, the code can be expected to be of higher quality.
Furthermore, it is important in studying computer science to show that you actually understand the assignment, beyond managing to get the code to work as expected through trial and error or lifting examples from the internet / literature.
Comments are integral to demonstrating that, knowledge, but there is no need for doing that in actual application development.
Archive.org offers the full .avi file for download (the AVI version is about 4000 times more awesome than the flash version), and it's in public domain, so you are perfectly within your rights to go do it yourself.
That's also why I don't comment my code.
This is a good practice. Comments very seldom keep up with changes in the code base, so more often than not, they end up being misleading at some point in the future.
The reason people think they need to cluster bomb their code with comments is generally because they have a degree in CS, and CS classes often require such code. But that's because the professor (or rather, the TA:s) need to quickly read through 50 or so computer lab reports every couple of weeks, and doing so without comments takes ages (especially what with the more dubious code that occasionally gets handed in.)
Documenting module interfaces is generally a good thing, but actually littering the implementation with comments is quite another (unless there is some outstanding reason to do so).
While not a pure mandelbrot, but a buddhabrot rendering: For the curious, here's a nice 2D projection of such a (rotating) 4D fractal I whipped up a while back.
If your own URL shortener becomes popular (it won't), it will have to serve at least a million clicks per day. bit.ly is currently at around 4-5 per day, I think.
I don't know why bit.ly is even up for discussion though. A site that only gets 4 hits per day is obscure by any standard.
You sir are and moron.
you sir, made my day. ;)
"You sir, are a mormon" is also an accepted variation.
Furthermore, sociopaths and psychopaths will have little trouble passing these checkpoints.
I don't know about that, I don't sociopaths and psychopaths don't have fear; they just don't have empathy or morality.
At least psychopaths also characteristically possess fearlessness (as well as some other traits).
I'd be more alarmed to find someone who wasn't afraid to pass a checkpoint like this. How can you defend yourself from the allegation of some machine saying that you exhibit fear, and therefore is a terrorist? Furthermore, sociopaths and psychopaths will have little trouble passing these checkpoints.
So you'll get plenty of false positives, and plenty of false negatives.
The article links to apps.facebook.com/herd-it/?refcode=slashdot
So I'm thinking this is payed advertisement disguised as an article. That's just low.
Pets don't have the instincts to cope with an urban environment. Cars certainly aren't a part of their natural environment. Neither are snow blowers.
Cats that grow up in an urban environment develops instincts to cope with an urban environment. Animals aren't mindless hard-coded robots. They are quite good at adapting to most any environment you throw at them. Sure, some don't make it, but some cats don't make it in deep forest untouched by man either.
I've always felt EQ and "street smart" was people with average IQ going "Fine! I'll build my own intelligence scale... with blackjack... and hookers!"
Eh, both 2.0 and 1.0 have exact representations in binary floating point, so there is really no reason why you should see an error.
2.1 / 0.7, however (both lacking exact representations), is likely to produce a significant error.