Yes, I suppose if you have a fast connection you could use wifi. In the city I find Bluetooth is usually as fast as the 3G speed, and BT uses less power.
Take it as a lesson in why you shouldn't rely entirely on products from other countries. Particularly not countries that you treat as potential enemies.
The US should have identified rare earth minerals as critical resources and kept those mines running. It didn't. I suppose that would have been too close to socialism though.
Yes. "Made in" labels are stupid. They might mean something if you're manufacturing pencils and all the raw materials are made and processed in the same country. For electronics they're silly.
They can see an artistically choreographed fireworks show next year. They probably saw one last year. Around here they do one every Thursday, all summer. How often do you get to see what happens when all the fireworks go off at once?
"The only once in a lifetime experience I see here is that they can fondly look back at the year the 4th of July was a complete ripoff."
Strange how people getting a fireworks show for free can feel ripped off. Quite the sense of entitlement, hey?
The idea sounds awesome. The videos look awesome. They've all had probably a once in a lifetime experience. And the one guy in the article was complaining about having to pay for parking?
Bluetooth tethering. It works great. Perhaps you need to have a chat with your service provider and express your displeasure that you can't do this for free.
Most asteroid mining plans involve mining asteroids for things that are valuable in space. It's possible you might drop a few things down to the surface as a bonus, but not as your main business.
Seawater mining is expensive because the stuff in seawater is very dilute, all mixed up together, and dissolved. Seawater mining isn't economical with current technology and prices, but it might be in the future. Asteroid mining isn't either, but might be in the future. When either one becomes economical, it will happen. One possible difference is that we're working on rocket technology, which will lower the cost of asteroid mining, in order to do other things.
Oh please. Keeping their exchange rate low just means China is selling the US stuff cheap (and lending the US money cheap). Boo hoo. If you don't like it, don't buy it. "Manipulating supply" just means not selling you stuff. If you don't like it, go mine your own. It's a little bit nasty if China waits until US mines get up to speed, then floods the market, but if that happens slap a duty on Chinese rare earth's and be done.
It's harder to design the space telescope, but if you've got lots of money, it can be done, and is a much smaller burden than if it has to be done by a country with not as much money.
Your rationalization is silly. The US has a large population it has to care for, but it also has a high GDP. Providing care for 300 million rich people is NOT the same as providing care for 300 million poor people. It's much more like providing care for 5 million rich people.
Are you congratulating yourself that the US ranks well among third world or near third world countries in terms of care delivered (and paying more than anyone else, first or third world, for that care)?
No it didn't. Fully privatized health care (everywhere, not just in the US) used to be moderately expensive, so only the rich could afford it. That meant lots of people went without.
Most other governments in the western world decided that health care was the kind of critical service that society as a whole should provide and did so. Health care in many places got a bit cheaper due to economies of scale, but more importantly it got a LOT better, measured by the kind of care the average person received. The US got stuck with the worst of both worlds - mostly private health care for the average person, with subsidized care for certain people. Which brings us to today, where US health care is unbelievably expensive (IIRC it's at least twice as expensive as any other major western country), inaccessible to large blocks of the population, and consistently rated poorly in terms of average care received.
"Solutions to any desired precision is not the general case."
I didn't say it was. I said that solutions to any desired precision are quite sufficient for Laplace's requirements. As I said before, I specifically said that "under those conditions, the N body problem is solvable to any desired precision."
I'm not sure why you keep trying to put words in my mouth. It's annoying though. Please stop.
1) you read "no general solution" and only seemed to register the "no" and "solution"
2) "General solution" usually means "closed form solution that works for any example"
3) You assert that the general case has been proven to be unsolvable, which is not true. It has been proven that the general case cannot be solved to infinite precision with a finite number of calculations. I specifically said that "under those conditions, the N body problem is solvable to any desired precision."
No, I do not. The solution you find on a wall calendar is for the Earth-Moon-Sun system. If you download Celestia you will find solutions to problems involving nearby stars. Galactic cluster and collision studies often provide solutions (to a desired precision) to multi-galaxy systems.
There is no general solution to the N-body problem. That has no bearing on whether the problem is solvable, particularly given the assumptions Laplace (the actual person who said what the summary attributed to Newton) made.
Laplace assumed classical mechanics (because that was what was known at the time), arbitrarily precise measurements of initial conditions and infinite computing power. Under those conditions, the N body problem is solvable to any desired precision.
Laplace may have been wrong because quantum mechanics may forbid arbitrarily precise measurements and might specify a non-deterministic universe, and sufficient computing power may not be available, but NOT because the N-body problem has no general closed form solution.
Uh huh. How come nobody uses these magic polymers in, well, anything then? Watch faces, cell phone screens, computer monitors... none of them.
Many polymers are fairly break resistant, but scratch easily. Unless you drive around on gravel a lot, most of the damage to your windshield is probably due to small scratches and not actual cracks.
Glass is somewhat scratch resistant, but is brittle and does crack or break if hit hard enough.
Some new polymers promise to be both scratch and break resistant, better than glass, but they're expensive or nobody has figured out how to produce them in large enough pieces yet.
Materials like sapphire are very scratch resistant, although they might be brittle and break, but are too expensive to use for windshields anyway.
When someone comes up with the indestructible windshield we can build all the LCD screens in that we want. Until then, put the gadgets somewhere where they don't have to be replaced every time the windshield is.
"Personally, I think everyone should learn how to drive in the snow and rain in a RWD car with no traction control and a lot of torque."
Personally, I think that's exactly the wrong approach. Here's why: if my experience driving in the snow is with the worst possible equipment, when I get better equipment, as I inevitably will, I'll be LESS afraid of the conditions because I think the technology will help me. People need to drive, under controlled conditions, in the snow with all the bells and whistles and see that they DON'T help as much as they think.
The rest of your argument seems to rest on the idea that inexperienced drivers will be more cautious if they don't have assistive technology. That tends not to be the case. Inexperienced drivers in a RWD car with no traction control are still inexperienced drivers. A driver who outdrives his raindrop cancelling headlights would probably outdrive his non-raindrop cancelling headlights.
If you mean luminiferous aether, you're about fifty years too late. Quantum electrodynamics, the most successful theory ever, holds that there is an all pervading field, through which disturbances we call "photons" or "light" propagate.
That's right, idiots who hold up luminiferous aether as some kind of failing of science seem to be completely unaware that our current understanding of reality includes something that precisely matches the basic description of luminiferous aether.
And if you DON'T give this technology to an inexperienced driver, he may well drive too fast for conditions, etc. etc. It makes about as much sense to oppose windshield wipers or eyesglasses for the same reasons.
No, you misunderstand the concept of emergent phenomena. The very idea is that complex behavior isn't magic, it's the result of usually a few simple rules interacting to produce something that looks very complex. If you know the rules and the starting conditions in sufficient detail, you can predict the emergent phenomena... surprisingly easily.
Physics supported Laplace too. Right up until quantum mechanics said that you couldn't actually make measurements that accurately. Still, IF you could... but then von Neumann and Bell came along and said it doesn't even make sense to think about making measurements that accurate, and even if you could, the interactions themselves have a random element. The question is still open because Bohm disagreed.
Slashdot Mirror
MS researchers publish papers. The problem is, nothing they do ever seems to get transitioned into actual products.
So what? Anyone who says anything against web apps gets shouted down right here on Slashdot.
Yes, I suppose if you have a fast connection you could use wifi. In the city I find Bluetooth is usually as fast as the 3G speed, and BT uses less power.
Take it as a lesson in why you shouldn't rely entirely on products from other countries. Particularly not countries that you treat as potential enemies.
The US should have identified rare earth minerals as critical resources and kept those mines running. It didn't. I suppose that would have been too close to socialism though.
Manufacturing ICs isn't all that menial.
Yes. "Made in" labels are stupid. They might mean something if you're manufacturing pencils and all the raw materials are made and processed in the same country. For electronics they're silly.
They can see an artistically choreographed fireworks show next year. They probably saw one last year. Around here they do one every Thursday, all summer. How often do you get to see what happens when all the fireworks go off at once?
"The only once in a lifetime experience I see here is that they can fondly look back at the year the 4th of July was a complete ripoff."
Strange how people getting a fireworks show for free can feel ripped off. Quite the sense of entitlement, hey?
The physics involved are slightly different.
The idea sounds awesome. The videos look awesome. They've all had probably a once in a lifetime experience. And the one guy in the article was complaining about having to pay for parking?
Bluetooth tethering. It works great. Perhaps you need to have a chat with your service provider and express your displeasure that you can't do this for free.
Most asteroid mining plans involve mining asteroids for things that are valuable in space. It's possible you might drop a few things down to the surface as a bonus, but not as your main business.
Seawater mining is expensive because the stuff in seawater is very dilute, all mixed up together, and dissolved. Seawater mining isn't economical with current technology and prices, but it might be in the future. Asteroid mining isn't either, but might be in the future. When either one becomes economical, it will happen. One possible difference is that we're working on rocket technology, which will lower the cost of asteroid mining, in order to do other things.
Oh please. Keeping their exchange rate low just means China is selling the US stuff cheap (and lending the US money cheap). Boo hoo. If you don't like it, don't buy it. "Manipulating supply" just means not selling you stuff. If you don't like it, go mine your own. It's a little bit nasty if China waits until US mines get up to speed, then floods the market, but if that happens slap a duty on Chinese rare earth's and be done.
It's harder to design the space telescope, but if you've got lots of money, it can be done, and is a much smaller burden than if it has to be done by a country with not as much money.
Your rationalization is silly. The US has a large population it has to care for, but it also has a high GDP. Providing care for 300 million rich people is NOT the same as providing care for 300 million poor people. It's much more like providing care for 5 million rich people.
Are you congratulating yourself that the US ranks well among third world or near third world countries in terms of care delivered (and paying more than anyone else, first or third world, for that care)?
No it didn't. Fully privatized health care (everywhere, not just in the US) used to be moderately expensive, so only the rich could afford it. That meant lots of people went without.
Most other governments in the western world decided that health care was the kind of critical service that society as a whole should provide and did so. Health care in many places got a bit cheaper due to economies of scale, but more importantly it got a LOT better, measured by the kind of care the average person received. The US got stuck with the worst of both worlds - mostly private health care for the average person, with subsidized care for certain people. Which brings us to today, where US health care is unbelievably expensive (IIRC it's at least twice as expensive as any other major western country), inaccessible to large blocks of the population, and consistently rated poorly in terms of average care received.
"Solutions to any desired precision is not the general case."
I didn't say it was. I said that solutions to any desired precision are quite sufficient for Laplace's requirements. As I said before, I specifically said that "under those conditions, the N body problem is solvable to any desired precision."
I'm not sure why you keep trying to put words in my mouth. It's annoying though. Please stop.
1) you read "no general solution" and only seemed to register the "no" and "solution"
2) "General solution" usually means "closed form solution that works for any example"
3) You assert that the general case has been proven to be unsolvable, which is not true. It has been proven that the general case cannot be solved to infinite precision with a finite number of calculations. I specifically said that "under those conditions, the N body problem is solvable to any desired precision."
Strawman.
No, I do not. The solution you find on a wall calendar is for the Earth-Moon-Sun system. If you download Celestia you will find solutions to problems involving nearby stars. Galactic cluster and collision studies often provide solutions (to a desired precision) to multi-galaxy systems.
There is no general solution to the N-body problem. That has no bearing on whether the problem is solvable, particularly given the assumptions Laplace (the actual person who said what the summary attributed to Newton) made.
Laplace assumed classical mechanics (because that was what was known at the time), arbitrarily precise measurements of initial conditions and infinite computing power. Under those conditions, the N body problem is solvable to any desired precision.
Laplace may have been wrong because quantum mechanics may forbid arbitrarily precise measurements and might specify a non-deterministic universe, and sufficient computing power may not be available, but NOT because the N-body problem has no general closed form solution.
Uh huh. How come nobody uses these magic polymers in, well, anything then? Watch faces, cell phone screens, computer monitors... none of them.
Many polymers are fairly break resistant, but scratch easily. Unless you drive around on gravel a lot, most of the damage to your windshield is probably due to small scratches and not actual cracks.
Glass is somewhat scratch resistant, but is brittle and does crack or break if hit hard enough.
Some new polymers promise to be both scratch and break resistant, better than glass, but they're expensive or nobody has figured out how to produce them in large enough pieces yet.
Materials like sapphire are very scratch resistant, although they might be brittle and break, but are too expensive to use for windshields anyway.
When someone comes up with the indestructible windshield we can build all the LCD screens in that we want. Until then, put the gadgets somewhere where they don't have to be replaced every time the windshield is.
We solve multi body problems all the time as well. In fact, you can see some of those solutions on pretty much any standard wall calendar.
"Personally, I think everyone should learn how to drive in the snow and rain in a RWD car with no traction control and a lot of torque."
Personally, I think that's exactly the wrong approach. Here's why: if my experience driving in the snow is with the worst possible equipment, when I get better equipment, as I inevitably will, I'll be LESS afraid of the conditions because I think the technology will help me. People need to drive, under controlled conditions, in the snow with all the bells and whistles and see that they DON'T help as much as they think.
The rest of your argument seems to rest on the idea that inexperienced drivers will be more cautious if they don't have assistive technology. That tends not to be the case. Inexperienced drivers in a RWD car with no traction control are still inexperienced drivers. A driver who outdrives his raindrop cancelling headlights would probably outdrive his non-raindrop cancelling headlights.
If you mean luminiferous aether, you're about fifty years too late. Quantum electrodynamics, the most successful theory ever, holds that there is an all pervading field, through which disturbances we call "photons" or "light" propagate.
That's right, idiots who hold up luminiferous aether as some kind of failing of science seem to be completely unaware that our current understanding of reality includes something that precisely matches the basic description of luminiferous aether.
Whether or not there's a general solution to a problem only has bearing on how easy it is to solve, not whether or not it can be solved.
There's no general solution for the roots of a polynomial function either, but we somehow manage to solve them all the time.
And if you DON'T give this technology to an inexperienced driver, he may well drive too fast for conditions, etc. etc. It makes about as much sense to oppose windshield wipers or eyesglasses for the same reasons.
No, you misunderstand the concept of emergent phenomena. The very idea is that complex behavior isn't magic, it's the result of usually a few simple rules interacting to produce something that looks very complex. If you know the rules and the starting conditions in sufficient detail, you can predict the emergent phenomena... surprisingly easily.
Physics supported Laplace too. Right up until quantum mechanics said that you couldn't actually make measurements that accurately. Still, IF you could... but then von Neumann and Bell came along and said it doesn't even make sense to think about making measurements that accurate, and even if you could, the interactions themselves have a random element. The question is still open because Bohm disagreed.