We also have the law of conservation of mass. Oh yeah, we had a nice demonstration of breaking that one in 1945. Then there's Kepler's laws of planetary motion: the first and second are pretty close, but not quite true (even if you're not looking at Mercury) and the third was only a statement of proportionality until it was refined later.
Notice that all the physics "laws" originate before the 20th century. They were exactly as I described: statements, preferably mathematical, that fit the data of the time but didn't offer the explanatory power that most modern theories do. Some of them have been proven to be untrue. Some of them were approximate. Some of them were later refined.
Actually, conservation of energy is about the only one that immediately comes to mind that is both exact and we still believe is universally true. I guess maybe you could put Newton's first and third laws in that category, but as you yourself point out, Newton's second law isn't really universally true unless you change it.
You might want to talk to some of the people who actually do the work porting things before imagining it will be easy. Introducing a brand new processor (along with a brand new motherboard) is hard enough. It's a lot harder if there's no software that will run on it.
When I was a kid I would have loved to live on a bookshelf. Then they made Toy Story and it looked as awesome as I remembered from imagining it as a kid.
I said slot machines that ran faster would be more efficient at taking your money. You said no, because people prefer to play slots that are slower. I cited a scientific paper where they actually tried the experiment and found that people preferred faster slots. Your speculation is not a valid rebuttal.
Have you ever proved the correctness of a program? I have. It took a long time. And it was a very simple program. From that we learned that correctness proofs are for when you're doing very simple embedded programming with lives on the line. For everything else there's sanity checking, exception handling and debugging.
Hey, it's a refreshing change to have a Slashdot discussion dominated by snide, pedantic comments pointing out an error in the summary, as opposed to a discussion dominated by snide comments making wild extrapolations after assuming an error in the summary is indeed correct.
Oh, that would be fantastic. Unfortunately it's just not true. Physics intervenes. Well, that and not making patients smoke (because they're on fire, not because they crave nicotine).
Moore's law was coined by an engineer to describe a series of observations. That is, it's a mathematical function that seems to fit some data, without any explanatory power. Just like various other "laws" such as the laws of thermodynamics, and, your favourite, Newton's laws, including his law of universal gravitation.
Moore's law states that the number of components on an integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years.
I actually have qualifications for ordinary and celestial navigation aboard non-commercial vessels. But your point is well taken. Every house, particularly those with children, should have a globe. Mine are next to each other on the book shelf, about ten feet away at the moment.
Delfabbro, Paul; Falzon, Katya and Ingram, Tania. The Effects of Parameter Variations in Electronic Gambling Simulations: Results of a Laboratory-based Pilot Investigation. Gambling Research: Journal of the National Association for Gambling Studies (Australia), Vol. 17, No. 1, May 2005: 7-25.
"[subjects preferred] a faster rather than a slower play speed"
Uh, yeah, that's great. Irrelevant, but online great circle calculators are cool. I'm kind of curious what kind of projection you're familiar with that DOES have trips from Shanghai to Alaska going over Tennessee though.
You're suggesting that an actual study, looking at many elections, actual spending, and the success rate of the candidates, is wrong because Obama used open source?
"I'm not trying to claim those billions had no effect"
Stats suggest that is indeed the case. I think it was in Freakonomics, but there was a study that showed, beyond a certain base investment required to get yourself known to the electorate, investing more didn't really help a candidate.
Caps on betting are almost always to prevent addicts or the stupid from losing more than they can afford. That's why slot machines still take the time to spin the pretty (digital) dials. They'd be much more efficient (in terms of taking your money faster) if you just pushed the button and they told you whether you won or lost. Predictions markets are pure betting. They're NOT like the stock market. Stock markets have a positive expected value: on average, they go up because things of value are being produced. Predictions markets, just like the casino, have a negative expected value because they are zero sum games with a rake for the house.
The author does seem to make a basic mistake - everything he wrote assumes that there is no barrier to the flow of "goods" from one market to the other. If a prediction "market" is banned for many investors because it has no caps, there will be a significant barrier to arbitrage investment. Take for example his hypothetical example of a Saudi prince manipulating US elections through predictions markets. The prince may invest in the banned-to-the-US no-cap market but the US-approved capped market will not be affected as much because most of it's investors can't invest in the no-cap market. The no-cap market will just be some international scam while the US-available market will be seen as reliable.
All of this is stupid anyway - if people are dumb enough to change the way they vote based on organized gambling then they're probably dumb enough to be swayed by much more direct manipulation.
If you raise the price of a certain company's stock by a significant amount through manipulation, that company can and probably should sell more stock, so they will get money. Essentially, you're offering the company money. You're right, they do have the option of declining, but they may very well accept.
I've personally ordered four Macs, all build to order, over the last ten years. They've all been FedExed from Shanghai (to Alaska, flying over my head to Tennessee, then back to me). Ditto iPods, including some that were engraved.
It's also very unlikely that the kind of BTO options Apple provides would qualify for an "Assembled in the USA" marking. Adding memory, changing the hard drive, etc. are not sufficient.
The science undoubtedly reported "perchlorates" which the journalist then translated into "an intriguing compound called perchlorate" because he remembered vaguely from high school chemistry that "chemical" is kind of like "compound" and apparently this perchlorate stuff is some kind of chemical.
Because he's got better things to do than argue with ACs on Slashdot? Really? The guy has kids. I wouldn't bother arguing with ACs on Slashdot either if I had kids to troll.
Yes. If NASA, a trusted scientific source, blew it out of proportion, shame on NASA. If the media (which includes Slashdot), a known non-scientific hype factory, blew something out of proportion and you believed it, shame on you.
Slashdot Mirror
We also have the law of conservation of mass. Oh yeah, we had a nice demonstration of breaking that one in 1945. Then there's Kepler's laws of planetary motion: the first and second are pretty close, but not quite true (even if you're not looking at Mercury) and the third was only a statement of proportionality until it was refined later.
Notice that all the physics "laws" originate before the 20th century. They were exactly as I described: statements, preferably mathematical, that fit the data of the time but didn't offer the explanatory power that most modern theories do. Some of them have been proven to be untrue. Some of them were approximate. Some of them were later refined.
Actually, conservation of energy is about the only one that immediately comes to mind that is both exact and we still believe is universally true. I guess maybe you could put Newton's first and third laws in that category, but as you yourself point out, Newton's second law isn't really universally true unless you change it.
You might want to talk to some of the people who actually do the work porting things before imagining it will be easy. Introducing a brand new processor (along with a brand new motherboard) is hard enough. It's a lot harder if there's no software that will run on it.
So you're volunteering to write the compiler, right? And porting Linux to a completely new architecture?
Right, except that last time this happened Iran was telling the truth (well, part of it at least) and the US was lying.
When I was a kid I would have loved to live on a bookshelf. Then they made Toy Story and it looked as awesome as I remembered from imagining it as a kid.
I said slot machines that ran faster would be more efficient at taking your money. You said no, because people prefer to play slots that are slower. I cited a scientific paper where they actually tried the experiment and found that people preferred faster slots. Your speculation is not a valid rebuttal.
"From everything I've read about threading"
I think you just made his point for him.
Have you ever proved the correctness of a program? I have. It took a long time. And it was a very simple program. From that we learned that correctness proofs are for when you're doing very simple embedded programming with lives on the line. For everything else there's sanity checking, exception handling and debugging.
Hey, it's a refreshing change to have a Slashdot discussion dominated by snide, pedantic comments pointing out an error in the summary, as opposed to a discussion dominated by snide comments making wild extrapolations after assuming an error in the summary is indeed correct.
"resolution of brain scanning technology"
Oh, that would be fantastic. Unfortunately it's just not true. Physics intervenes. Well, that and not making patients smoke (because they're on fire, not because they crave nicotine).
Ssh. You're going to hurt some poor web programmer's feelings.
I know nobody knows how to write low level code anymore but displaying something involves writing to memory.
Moore's law was coined by an engineer to describe a series of observations. That is, it's a mathematical function that seems to fit some data, without any explanatory power. Just like various other "laws" such as the laws of thermodynamics, and, your favourite, Newton's laws, including his law of universal gravitation.
Moore's law states that the number of components on an integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years.
I actually have qualifications for ordinary and celestial navigation aboard non-commercial vessels. But your point is well taken. Every house, particularly those with children, should have a globe. Mine are next to each other on the book shelf, about ten feet away at the moment.
Delfabbro, Paul; Falzon, Katya and Ingram, Tania. The Effects of Parameter Variations in Electronic Gambling Simulations: Results of a Laboratory-based Pilot Investigation. Gambling Research: Journal of the National Association for Gambling Studies (Australia), Vol. 17, No. 1, May 2005: 7-25.
"[subjects preferred] a faster rather than a slower play speed"
Uh, yeah, that's great. Irrelevant, but online great circle calculators are cool. I'm kind of curious what kind of projection you're familiar with that DOES have trips from Shanghai to Alaska going over Tennessee though.
You're suggesting that an actual study, looking at many elections, actual spending, and the success rate of the candidates, is wrong because Obama used open source?
"I'm not trying to claim those billions had no effect"
Stats suggest that is indeed the case. I think it was in Freakonomics, but there was a study that showed, beyond a certain base investment required to get yourself known to the electorate, investing more didn't really help a candidate.
Caps on betting are almost always to prevent addicts or the stupid from losing more than they can afford. That's why slot machines still take the time to spin the pretty (digital) dials. They'd be much more efficient (in terms of taking your money faster) if you just pushed the button and they told you whether you won or lost. Predictions markets are pure betting. They're NOT like the stock market. Stock markets have a positive expected value: on average, they go up because things of value are being produced. Predictions markets, just like the casino, have a negative expected value because they are zero sum games with a rake for the house.
The author does seem to make a basic mistake - everything he wrote assumes that there is no barrier to the flow of "goods" from one market to the other. If a prediction "market" is banned for many investors because it has no caps, there will be a significant barrier to arbitrage investment. Take for example his hypothetical example of a Saudi prince manipulating US elections through predictions markets. The prince may invest in the banned-to-the-US no-cap market but the US-approved capped market will not be affected as much because most of it's investors can't invest in the no-cap market. The no-cap market will just be some international scam while the US-available market will be seen as reliable.
All of this is stupid anyway - if people are dumb enough to change the way they vote based on organized gambling then they're probably dumb enough to be swayed by much more direct manipulation.
If you raise the price of a certain company's stock by a significant amount through manipulation, that company can and probably should sell more stock, so they will get money. Essentially, you're offering the company money. You're right, they do have the option of declining, but they may very well accept.
I've personally ordered four Macs, all build to order, over the last ten years. They've all been FedExed from Shanghai (to Alaska, flying over my head to Tennessee, then back to me). Ditto iPods, including some that were engraved.
It's also very unlikely that the kind of BTO options Apple provides would qualify for an "Assembled in the USA" marking. Adding memory, changing the hard drive, etc. are not sufficient.
What do you mean large multinationals? It's pretty difficult to buy diverse electronic parts manufactured outside Asia no matter who you are.
The science undoubtedly reported "perchlorates" which the journalist then translated into "an intriguing compound called perchlorate" because he remembered vaguely from high school chemistry that "chemical" is kind of like "compound" and apparently this perchlorate stuff is some kind of chemical.
Because he's got better things to do than argue with ACs on Slashdot? Really? The guy has kids. I wouldn't bother arguing with ACs on Slashdot either if I had kids to troll.
Yes. If NASA, a trusted scientific source, blew it out of proportion, shame on NASA. If the media (which includes Slashdot), a known non-scientific hype factory, blew something out of proportion and you believed it, shame on you.
I see the problem. You're confusing Slashdot with NASA. While there are some rocket scientists who contribute to Slashdot, the vast majority... ain't.