It doesn't yet. Presumably you'd need to fire a bunch of the patrollers whose job is done better by one guy with a drone before you saw any financial savings. That's likely to be unpopular though, so instead you argue increased efficacy.
The formula you've quoted is for a particular set of observers in flat spacetime (spacetime near a black hole isn't flat). The Wikipedia article is unclear about what H is, and the link to the Rindler coordinates article doesn't specify either. Also, you have to be careful with the Td(h) formula because it's not giving a simple, straightforwardly intuitive measure of time dilation.
If you look lower down at the "Outside a Non-Rotating Sphere" section, they give another formula:
t0 = tf * sqrt[1-(2GM)/(rc^2)]. The time dilation would be t0/tf, the ratio of time passed for a close observer over a far away observer. The r coordinate isn't quite a classical height (it's a coordinate in the Schwarzschild coordinate system) but it's close enough for intuitive purposes. That function is nonlinear. There's a picture of the curve for Earth's surface and orbit in the Confirmation section, a bit further down. For a black hole the shape would be similar, but the values on the y axis would of course be quite a bit bigger.
You missed the fuel gauge showing the shuttles running out of fuel, detaching, and the main engine still having fuel. There are lots of things in movies to pick on without exercising your nerd rage on the things they got right.
It is pretty close to an on/off thing. Relativistic time dilation is highly non-linear. IIRC it was even in the dialogue that the ship would stay far enough away that the time dilation wasn't too bad, while the shuttle would go down to the planet, where it was severe.
The ship clearly had the engines on when it ditched the shuttles. Disconnecting boosters or fuel tanks when they're expended is a rather well established technique for increasing delta v. They even showed shots of the fuel gauges and the shuttle engines cutting out.
If you mean the scene near the end where they skim the event horizon, you don't need much delta v at all to get out. You're in orbit. If you mean the bit where they stop on the high tau planet and then leave, that's not realistic and various people, including Throne IIRC, have pointed it out and said that bit of a artistic license had to be included - like the the ability of a ship with chemical engines to get to Saturn in a reasonable amount of time and then wander around another planetary system.
There are two popular types of deep ANN at the moment: restricted Boltzmann machines and auto-encoders. RBMs are generative. Autoencoders can also be generative if you train them in a particular way, which works much better so most people train them that way anyway. So you can take an ANN and ask it to draw you a picture of a guitar.
I disagree with the authors of that paper. It seems more likely to me that they've cherry picked particular examples that fool their particular ANN. That's pretty easy to do for humans too - Google "optical illusion." As you point out, there's also the white noise trick. Show a group of people an image of white noise and they'll find all sorts of things in it. Particularly if you ask "you guys don't see the dragon?"
There wasn't a good algorithm for training general deep ANNs until 2006, although convolutional neural networks were an exception to that. It's likely nobody tried it before because computers weren't fast enough and the discovery of layer-wise unsupervised training hadn't made deep networks popular yet.
Your examples are all of established colonies that were longstanding, self-sufficient and successfully rebelled. If you unsuccessfully rebel you end up very much under the jurisdiction of the parent government. Also, you're presumably talking about crimes committed in the colonies by the colonists, not negligence committed by the organizing group who stayed at home.
Sure, if Mars One managed to actually put settlers on Mars, they lived there independently for an extended period of time (decades at least) and then declared their independence both from any Earthly nations AND the Mars One organization, that colony could reasonably be considered under it's own jurisdiction. If a Mars colony member murdered another, since there's no way to ship him home to stand trial, the colonists could basically make up their own legal system.
The real situation is more like a cruise ship sailing into international waters (or an international airline flight). The cruise ship is governed by the laws of it's registry nation and nobody is going to take it the least bit seriously if it declares independence. If that ship sinks due to the negligence of the owning corporation, that corporation and its officials are likely to find themselves under the jurisdiction of any and all nations where they maintain a presence.
Columbus spent a long time gathering and presenting evidence to several monarchs that he had a good chance to succeed. Even then, it wasn't a one way mission. Only after Columbus had gone and returned, and reported that it was possible to survive in the new world, did colonization voyages begin.
I don't know about the US, but you can't do so in Canada. Waivers are more proof that you were informed of the risks, rather than actual waivers of your rights.
That's unlikely to be true. The Outer Space Treaty includes references to UN international law and if it became an issue before a more formal declaration was written up, maritime conventions would probably apply. For private vessels not subject to other jurisdictions, the law of the country they're registered in usually applies. That's usually gotten around with a flag of convenience, so maybe you could register your spaceship in Kiribati or something, after getting them to pass laws in your favour. But then you have to figure out where to launch it from: the countries that have launch facilities generally also have fairly strict laws about space launches, especially when humans are involved.
With the maritime law justification, I don't think there would be many objections if, for example, the US government took legal action against a US company that had sent a bunch of people to die on or enroute to Mars. Particularly not after it was broadcast to the world.
There are lots of ways to compile Python to C. You can just give your code a pyx extension and compile it with Cython, for example. If you want to distribute it to platforms without Python you'll have to use one of the static package makers as well.
You just went off the deep end. In your original post you went on about people misusing the term "exponential." People do misuse it. You're one of them.
I work with physicians. They quite often have to look things up in databases - patient records, imaging, test results, etc. Simple SQL queries would let them find exactly what they're looking for. Since they can't do that, they have to use a basic search interface somebody made (which they paid an arm and a leg for) and then look through individual records. Even more painful is watching them collect charts for some purpose. A simple script with a little SQL would do nicely, but instead the job is so painful they usually hire someone to sift through everything. That someone invariably can't write the simple script either, so does the whole thing by hand.
Similarly, our research coordinator needs things like lists of patients with missing data. Compiling that is a two line Python program (I did it for her once) or a day of clicking. Guess which she has to do?
I have a friend who's a due diligence type accountant. Her job is to sift through accounting records looking for stuff. There are some programs for doing that kind of thing, but only if the data happens to be in the right format. So she spends a lot of time wading through things by hand. The ability to write simple scripts wouldn't make the job automatic, but it would help a lot in searching and organizing.
I know a secretary who is supposed to keep the boss's CV in order. She has to take new publications and enter them on a couple of web pages and End Note. The citation records themselves are online and easily accessible. If she could write some basic code it would be pretty much automatic, but instead she just types them all by hand, repeatedly.
A friend of mine wants to make a webpage with some photos. She doesn't want anything complicated, and most of it can be done with existing open source stuff, but she wants a couple of custom tweaks. She can't do that. Actually, she can't even do the setup for the site, because she can't follow a bit of basic HTML or tweak some javascript.
There's an immense amount of busywork that gets done because people can't write a bit of special purpose code for themselves. Not to mention the problems caused by people who don't possess the logic or problem solving skills that they'd pick up in an intro coding class.
I don't have the reference on hand, but somewhere I've got a paper (an actual scientific one published in a journal and everything) where they estimated that about 80% of workers in a modern economy could benefit from being able to write simple programs.
Just because lots of people who use computers can't begin to program them doesn't mean that's a good idea. A generation ago you could have said the same thing about typing. A generation before that, writing.
We have more than enough shitty apps. What we're lacking is accountants who can write a basic program in something more sane than Excel, doctors who can write an SQL query and mechanics who can tweak a simple billing program for their needs.
Most people don't need to write "professional" code. They need to write a few simple things. Just like most people don't need to be able to cook a hundred meals an evening, but it's awfully handy to be able to make yourself lunch.
It's also a better model for the growth of a developing economy, where the first world is somewhere in the latter half of development. Something to keep in mind.
I don't think you understand what growth/interest/etc. rates are. There's a silly exercise they sometimes make you do in junior high or intro business courses where you calculate "simple interest." Basically that takes the form of amount = principle + principle*interestRate*time. That is linear growth (it's easy to see the y=mx+b form) and your comments make a certain amount of sense in that light.
Nobody who's not trying to rip you off uses "simple interest." If Google's year over year growth rate is 20% that means in 2014 they grew by 20% of their 2013 size, not 20% of their 1995 (or whatever reference year) size. That gives you the sum of a series where:
amount = SUM( lastYear*(1+rate))
as opposed to "simple interest" which is:
amount = SUM(firstYear*(1+rate)).
If you work out the analytical form of that series (hint: it's a simple geometric series) you end up with the exponential growth formula I gave you in my previous post.
I've always been a little surprised that people don't see the problem with expecting the value of their house, their savings, or the economy to grow by a certain percent every year. Perhaps it's because they didn't ever get past that "simple interest" exercise and really think that growth rates are linear as opposed to exponential.
Want the graphical gut check? Here's a graph of US GDP:
Search doesn't make Google money directly. Ads do. Search is their loss leader to get you in the store. Sure, everyone loves it, but it doesn't pay the bills.
It's worked like that since people expected a percentage return on investment. Formally since the east india companies in the 1700s, probably less formally since well before that. Even regular savings account bank interest, provided it's greater than 0% implies exponential growth. The US economy, which everyone keeps complaining about, is growing exponentially.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't yet. Presumably you'd need to fire a bunch of the patrollers whose job is done better by one guy with a drone before you saw any financial savings. That's likely to be unpopular though, so instead you argue increased efficacy.
The formula you've quoted is for a particular set of observers in flat spacetime (spacetime near a black hole isn't flat). The Wikipedia article is unclear about what H is, and the link to the Rindler coordinates article doesn't specify either. Also, you have to be careful with the Td(h) formula because it's not giving a simple, straightforwardly intuitive measure of time dilation.
If you look lower down at the "Outside a Non-Rotating Sphere" section, they give another formula:
t0 = tf * sqrt[1-(2GM)/(rc^2)]. The time dilation would be t0/tf, the ratio of time passed for a close observer over a far away observer. The r coordinate isn't quite a classical height (it's a coordinate in the Schwarzschild coordinate system) but it's close enough for intuitive purposes. That function is nonlinear. There's a picture of the curve for Earth's surface and orbit in the Confirmation section, a bit further down. For a black hole the shape would be similar, but the values on the y axis would of course be quite a bit bigger.
You missed the fuel gauge showing the shuttles running out of fuel, detaching, and the main engine still having fuel. There are lots of things in movies to pick on without exercising your nerd rage on the things they got right.
It is pretty close to an on/off thing. Relativistic time dilation is highly non-linear. IIRC it was even in the dialogue that the ship would stay far enough away that the time dilation wasn't too bad, while the shuttle would go down to the planet, where it was severe.
The ship clearly had the engines on when it ditched the shuttles. Disconnecting boosters or fuel tanks when they're expended is a rather well established technique for increasing delta v. They even showed shots of the fuel gauges and the shuttle engines cutting out.
If you mean the scene near the end where they skim the event horizon, you don't need much delta v at all to get out. You're in orbit. If you mean the bit where they stop on the high tau planet and then leave, that's not realistic and various people, including Throne IIRC, have pointed it out and said that bit of a artistic license had to be included - like the the ability of a ship with chemical engines to get to Saturn in a reasonable amount of time and then wander around another planetary system.
Neither have electrons.
There are two popular types of deep ANN at the moment: restricted Boltzmann machines and auto-encoders. RBMs are generative. Autoencoders can also be generative if you train them in a particular way, which works much better so most people train them that way anyway. So you can take an ANN and ask it to draw you a picture of a guitar.
I disagree with the authors of that paper. It seems more likely to me that they've cherry picked particular examples that fool their particular ANN. That's pretty easy to do for humans too - Google "optical illusion." As you point out, there's also the white noise trick. Show a group of people an image of white noise and they'll find all sorts of things in it. Particularly if you ask "you guys don't see the dragon?"
There wasn't a good algorithm for training general deep ANNs until 2006, although convolutional neural networks were an exception to that. It's likely nobody tried it before because computers weren't fast enough and the discovery of layer-wise unsupervised training hadn't made deep networks popular yet.
Your examples are all of established colonies that were longstanding, self-sufficient and successfully rebelled. If you unsuccessfully rebel you end up very much under the jurisdiction of the parent government. Also, you're presumably talking about crimes committed in the colonies by the colonists, not negligence committed by the organizing group who stayed at home.
Sure, if Mars One managed to actually put settlers on Mars, they lived there independently for an extended period of time (decades at least) and then declared their independence both from any Earthly nations AND the Mars One organization, that colony could reasonably be considered under it's own jurisdiction. If a Mars colony member murdered another, since there's no way to ship him home to stand trial, the colonists could basically make up their own legal system.
The real situation is more like a cruise ship sailing into international waters (or an international airline flight). The cruise ship is governed by the laws of it's registry nation and nobody is going to take it the least bit seriously if it declares independence. If that ship sinks due to the negligence of the owning corporation, that corporation and its officials are likely to find themselves under the jurisdiction of any and all nations where they maintain a presence.
Columbus spent a long time gathering and presenting evidence to several monarchs that he had a good chance to succeed. Even then, it wasn't a one way mission. Only after Columbus had gone and returned, and reported that it was possible to survive in the new world, did colonization voyages begin.
I don't know about the US, but you can't do so in Canada. Waivers are more proof that you were informed of the risks, rather than actual waivers of your rights.
That's unlikely to be true. The Outer Space Treaty includes references to UN international law and if it became an issue before a more formal declaration was written up, maritime conventions would probably apply. For private vessels not subject to other jurisdictions, the law of the country they're registered in usually applies. That's usually gotten around with a flag of convenience, so maybe you could register your spaceship in Kiribati or something, after getting them to pass laws in your favour. But then you have to figure out where to launch it from: the countries that have launch facilities generally also have fairly strict laws about space launches, especially when humans are involved.
With the maritime law justification, I don't think there would be many objections if, for example, the US government took legal action against a US company that had sent a bunch of people to die on or enroute to Mars. Particularly not after it was broadcast to the world.
There are lots of ways to compile Python to C. You can just give your code a pyx extension and compile it with Cython, for example. If you want to distribute it to platforms without Python you'll have to use one of the static package makers as well.
I've always thought that was the point.
You just went off the deep end. In your original post you went on about people misusing the term "exponential." People do misuse it. You're one of them.
I work with physicians. They quite often have to look things up in databases - patient records, imaging, test results, etc. Simple SQL queries would let them find exactly what they're looking for. Since they can't do that, they have to use a basic search interface somebody made (which they paid an arm and a leg for) and then look through individual records. Even more painful is watching them collect charts for some purpose. A simple script with a little SQL would do nicely, but instead the job is so painful they usually hire someone to sift through everything. That someone invariably can't write the simple script either, so does the whole thing by hand.
Similarly, our research coordinator needs things like lists of patients with missing data. Compiling that is a two line Python program (I did it for her once) or a day of clicking. Guess which she has to do?
I have a friend who's a due diligence type accountant. Her job is to sift through accounting records looking for stuff. There are some programs for doing that kind of thing, but only if the data happens to be in the right format. So she spends a lot of time wading through things by hand. The ability to write simple scripts wouldn't make the job automatic, but it would help a lot in searching and organizing.
I know a secretary who is supposed to keep the boss's CV in order. She has to take new publications and enter them on a couple of web pages and End Note. The citation records themselves are online and easily accessible. If she could write some basic code it would be pretty much automatic, but instead she just types them all by hand, repeatedly.
A friend of mine wants to make a webpage with some photos. She doesn't want anything complicated, and most of it can be done with existing open source stuff, but she wants a couple of custom tweaks. She can't do that. Actually, she can't even do the setup for the site, because she can't follow a bit of basic HTML or tweak some javascript.
There's an immense amount of busywork that gets done because people can't write a bit of special purpose code for themselves. Not to mention the problems caused by people who don't possess the logic or problem solving skills that they'd pick up in an intro coding class.
I don't have the reference on hand, but somewhere I've got a paper (an actual scientific one published in a journal and everything) where they estimated that about 80% of workers in a modern economy could benefit from being able to write simple programs.
Just because lots of people who use computers can't begin to program them doesn't mean that's a good idea. A generation ago you could have said the same thing about typing. A generation before that, writing.
And yet for some reason we teach everyone to write. Weird.
We have more than enough shitty apps. What we're lacking is accountants who can write a basic program in something more sane than Excel, doctors who can write an SQL query and mechanics who can tweak a simple billing program for their needs.
Most people don't need to write "professional" code. They need to write a few simple things. Just like most people don't need to be able to cook a hundred meals an evening, but it's awfully handy to be able to make yourself lunch.
Yes, it is: http://static1.businessinsider...
It's also a better model for the growth of a developing economy, where the first world is somewhere in the latter half of development. Something to keep in mind.
I don't think you understand what growth/interest/etc. rates are. There's a silly exercise they sometimes make you do in junior high or intro business courses where you calculate "simple interest." Basically that takes the form of amount = principle + principle*interestRate*time. That is linear growth (it's easy to see the y=mx+b form) and your comments make a certain amount of sense in that light.
Nobody who's not trying to rip you off uses "simple interest." If Google's year over year growth rate is 20% that means in 2014 they grew by 20% of their 2013 size, not 20% of their 1995 (or whatever reference year) size. That gives you the sum of a series where:
amount = SUM( lastYear*(1+rate))
as opposed to "simple interest" which is:
amount = SUM(firstYear*(1+rate)).
If you work out the analytical form of that series (hint: it's a simple geometric series) you end up with the exponential growth formula I gave you in my previous post.
I've always been a little surprised that people don't see the problem with expecting the value of their house, their savings, or the economy to grow by a certain percent every year. Perhaps it's because they didn't ever get past that "simple interest" exercise and really think that growth rates are linear as opposed to exponential.
Want the graphical gut check? Here's a graph of US GDP:
https://andrewjohnharrison.fil...
Here's Google and Facebook's growth:
https://businessmodelinnovatio...
All are clearly exponential.
Search doesn't make Google money directly. Ads do. Search is their loss leader to get you in the store. Sure, everyone loves it, but it doesn't pay the bills.
It's worked like that since people expected a percentage return on investment. Formally since the east india companies in the 1700s, probably less formally since well before that. Even regular savings account bank interest, provided it's greater than 0% implies exponential growth. The US economy, which everyone keeps complaining about, is growing exponentially.
If you want to predict a peak in the future you need to look at the second derivative.