Suppose they weren't correct? The only way they KNOW they're correct is because the investigation had some actual statisticians look at the data.
That said, not having a statistician at your beck and call is obviously not shoddy research. However, when your results suggest that civilization is in big trouble and you go around advocating massive changes to the way everyone lives their lives, it was probably not a wise decision to forego having a statistician check over your work. It's not fraud, but it is a bit careless, the same as their being "disorganized," and is an excellent reason why any work of such importance should be open to scrutiny in all it's details.
Either way, the largest Kuwaiti and Saudi oilfields are each about two orders of magnitude larger than the field under discussion. And I was talking about Alberta/BC's conventional oilfields, which are about twice the size of the field under discussion. There are also many, many other verified fields that are larger, so the assertion that the Atlantis field is "one of the largest ever discovered" is false.
Or were you hijacking the thread to flog a horse of your own?
PS: the Alberta tarsands are estimated to hold somewhere around 2 trillion barrels of recoverable oil, more than all the world's known conventional reserves put together.
Well, the Saudis (or maybe the Kuwaitis, can't remember at midnight) have already pumped out and sold over sixty billion barrels out of one of those oil fields, so the estimates can't be off by more than a factor of two.
There are plenty of billion-barrel oil fields in non-OPEC countries anyway. I grew up on top of one in Canada.
I was once at a conference with my supervisor. I needed to demonstrate something at a particular workshop so he lent me his notebook. I walked into the workshop, sat down, decided to make sure everything was up and ready to go on the notebook, opened it up and, full screen, some actual porn of the young girl + oiled up guy with enormous schlong variety.
Glad I decided to get stuff ready before the demo.
You have to figure out how to build a reusable space vehicle first. The shuttles have to be pretty much rebuilt before being used again, so they're not really anymore reusable than a capsule.
Reentry from orbital velocity seems to be the problem. If you can find materials that can do that over and over again and still be light enough to fly, then you've got something. Until then, it's probably best to throw the thing away after use rather than pretend to reuse it.
What you say about GPUs was true a few years ago, but modern GPUs really are a bunch of special purpose processors that are designed to run fairly simple programs on a lot of data. GPUs still support the fixed function graphics pipeline for backwards compatibility, particularly with OpenGL, but the GPU manufacturers are really wishing they could drop that part completely and programmers are discouraged from using it.
It's exactly a "law," just like all the other "laws."
The law of gravity is a poor example because it's not actually a law. It sounds like a phrase made up by a journalist or something. What is the law of gravity? Can you state it? If you mean Newton's law of universal gravitation, then that works just as well as the example that follows.
Let's take a real example: the laws of thermodynamics. They are true, as far as we can tell, but they're simply an observed relationship. The laws themselves don't have any explanatory power or anything to say about their own universality or duration. Just like Moore's law.
Actually, the word "law" in Moore's Law is very closely in agreement with the way that word is generally used in science and engineering: an observed relationship.
Examples:
Kepler's laws of planetary motion Newton's laws of motion The ideal gas law The laws of thermodynamics Hooke's law
All or just statements of observed relationships that appeared to be true at the time. Some are idealized, some are approximate, some aren't actually true. None actually explain why the observed phenomenon should be, nor do they make statements on the universality or duration of the relationship.
The problem is, no website is going to ONLY serve over IPv6, so there's no incentive for ISPs to support it. The incentive HAS to come from something new. That can either be new websites (or ISP subscribers) that can't get an IPv4 address, in which case we have a crisis, or some new client-side application that people would like to use.
A nice regulation requiring that ISPs serve unique IP addresses to any subscriber device that asks for one would get them to switch to IPv6 in a hurry, and we'd all have easy remote access to all our machines.
The city I moved from last year upgraded all their meters to electronic ones. When you arrive you punch the spot number into a machine that takes coins or credit. You can also add money from your phone, so you don't need to return to fill up the meter. Enforcement is by a Google Streets-style car that drives around and records license plate numbers. There's no discretion. If your car is there when they go past and you haven't paid, you get a ticket.
I've never heard of a meter maid covering up a parking signs. I'm not American though. Perhaps you have more corruption than we do.
Better than a century or two, or the million years it would take to empty a really big oilfield, no?
As I said, it's potentially a big disaster, and may possibly end up being the biggest oil spill ever, but it's not going to extinguish all life in the oceans.
Nope. Google says a barrel of oil is about 159 litres. Other sources say fire hydrants usually have flow rates around 750 g/min or 3000 l/min. Upper estimates for the leak rate are 5000 barrels per day. That's a flow rate of about 550 l/min or less than 20% of a single fire hydrant.
Your estimate of the Arizona being a leaking helium balloon sounds pretty close though, provided it's a fast enough leak that the balloon is pretty much empty by the end of the day.
The Saudi and Kuwaiti fields are estimated somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 billion barrels remaining, each. They started somewhere north of 100. Nothing under 1 billion barrels makes Wikipedias list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_fields.
By the most pessimistic estimates this leak will take a couple of months to equal the Exxon Valdez spill.
It's a disaster, but the article is a scare piece.
There are lots of natural gas vehicles around, and also propane vehicles. In general it makes more sense in large fleet vehicles, for various reasons. Everybody where I grew up heated their houses with natural gas.
But do you know where natural gas comes from? Yup, oil fields.
The point is, MatLab is very slow. MatLab functions that are written in C are pretty much as fast as C (they really should be) but MatLab itself is very slow, just like any other interpreted language.
In general having a bigger loop is not faster than a smaller one. The overhead isn't in the loop, it's in the interpreter having to reinterpret each go around, unless it happens to be a hybrid interpreter that actually figures out the loop, compiles it, then runs it (like Java).
The speed of MatLab is only comparable to that of C if you're running canned MatLab C functions. If you have to write any sizeable amounts of code that MatLab actually has to interpret, it will be slow. That's most obvious with a loop but also plays a role even without loops, for large enough programs.
I doubt it's possible. The crater from a reasonably sized nuclear bomb wouldn't go down very far, and the reservoir is probably located quite a distance under the sea bed. Someone who knows the details would want to figure it out ahead of time, of course.
You're right, it's not like we've exploded any nuclear weapons under the ocean. Completely uncharted territory. I wonder what would happen? Probably destroy the world.
Slashdot Mirror
Suppose they weren't correct? The only way they KNOW they're correct is because the investigation had some actual statisticians look at the data.
That said, not having a statistician at your beck and call is obviously not shoddy research. However, when your results suggest that civilization is in big trouble and you go around advocating massive changes to the way everyone lives their lives, it was probably not a wise decision to forego having a statistician check over your work. It's not fraud, but it is a bit careless, the same as their being "disorganized," and is an excellent reason why any work of such importance should be open to scrutiny in all it's details.
Either way, the largest Kuwaiti and Saudi oilfields are each about two orders of magnitude larger than the field under discussion. And I was talking about Alberta/BC's conventional oilfields, which are about twice the size of the field under discussion. There are also many, many other verified fields that are larger, so the assertion that the Atlantis field is "one of the largest ever discovered" is false.
Or were you hijacking the thread to flog a horse of your own?
PS: the Alberta tarsands are estimated to hold somewhere around 2 trillion barrels of recoverable oil, more than all the world's known conventional reserves put together.
The large market in "back-to-my-PC" software suggests that many people want this capability.
"Wrong."
Magnificent debating style. Such useful and valuable comments. Bravo.
"Well, we've got those materials."
I guess that's why they use delicate and finicky tiles on the shuttle, some of which always have to be replaced after each flight.
Ever smelled certain of the Great Lakes? They're not exactly an ocean.
But then I guess you'd know all about it, since someone obviously pissed in your cornflakes this morning.
Well, the Saudis (or maybe the Kuwaitis, can't remember at midnight) have already pumped out and sold over sixty billion barrels out of one of those oil fields, so the estimates can't be off by more than a factor of two.
There are plenty of billion-barrel oil fields in non-OPEC countries anyway. I grew up on top of one in Canada.
I was once at a conference with my supervisor. I needed to demonstrate something at a particular workshop so he lent me his notebook. I walked into the workshop, sat down, decided to make sure everything was up and ready to go on the notebook, opened it up and, full screen, some actual porn of the young girl + oiled up guy with enormous schlong variety.
Glad I decided to get stuff ready before the demo.
That seal should be modified. That's the worst drawing of a female breast ever. Virginia should be ashamed.
Email #5: Crap. Can you just send it to my Hotmail/GMail account?
I'm not even sure there were bare breasts. At least one of them is definitely wearing a bikini top.
I'm shocked at Slashdot's porn standards.
Whew. Good thing we're more civilized in North America.
http://en.epochtimes.com/news/6-12-5/48967.html
You have to figure out how to build a reusable space vehicle first. The shuttles have to be pretty much rebuilt before being used again, so they're not really anymore reusable than a capsule.
Reentry from orbital velocity seems to be the problem. If you can find materials that can do that over and over again and still be light enough to fly, then you've got something. Until then, it's probably best to throw the thing away after use rather than pretend to reuse it.
What you say about GPUs was true a few years ago, but modern GPUs really are a bunch of special purpose processors that are designed to run fairly simple programs on a lot of data. GPUs still support the fixed function graphics pipeline for backwards compatibility, particularly with OpenGL, but the GPU manufacturers are really wishing they could drop that part completely and programmers are discouraged from using it.
It's exactly a "law," just like all the other "laws."
The law of gravity is a poor example because it's not actually a law. It sounds like a phrase made up by a journalist or something. What is the law of gravity? Can you state it? If you mean Newton's law of universal gravitation, then that works just as well as the example that follows.
Let's take a real example: the laws of thermodynamics. They are true, as far as we can tell, but they're simply an observed relationship. The laws themselves don't have any explanatory power or anything to say about their own universality or duration. Just like Moore's law.
Actually, the word "law" in Moore's Law is very closely in agreement with the way that word is generally used in science and engineering: an observed relationship.
Examples:
Kepler's laws of planetary motion
Newton's laws of motion
The ideal gas law
The laws of thermodynamics
Hooke's law
All or just statements of observed relationships that appeared to be true at the time. Some are idealized, some are approximate, some aren't actually true. None actually explain why the observed phenomenon should be, nor do they make statements on the universality or duration of the relationship.
The problem is, no website is going to ONLY serve over IPv6, so there's no incentive for ISPs to support it. The incentive HAS to come from something new. That can either be new websites (or ISP subscribers) that can't get an IPv4 address, in which case we have a crisis, or some new client-side application that people would like to use.
A nice regulation requiring that ISPs serve unique IP addresses to any subscriber device that asks for one would get them to switch to IPv6 in a hurry, and we'd all have easy remote access to all our machines.
The city I moved from last year upgraded all their meters to electronic ones. When you arrive you punch the spot number into a machine that takes coins or credit. You can also add money from your phone, so you don't need to return to fill up the meter. Enforcement is by a Google Streets-style car that drives around and records license plate numbers. There's no discretion. If your car is there when they go past and you haven't paid, you get a ticket.
I've never heard of a meter maid covering up a parking signs. I'm not American though. Perhaps you have more corruption than we do.
Because we're all going to get a Light Peak socket in our heads?
Better than a century or two, or the million years it would take to empty a really big oilfield, no?
As I said, it's potentially a big disaster, and may possibly end up being the biggest oil spill ever, but it's not going to extinguish all life in the oceans.
Nope. Google says a barrel of oil is about 159 litres. Other sources say fire hydrants usually have flow rates around 750 g/min or 3000 l/min. Upper estimates for the leak rate are 5000 barrels per day. That's a flow rate of about 550 l/min or less than 20% of a single fire hydrant.
Your estimate of the Arizona being a leaking helium balloon sounds pretty close though, provided it's a fast enough leak that the balloon is pretty much empty by the end of the day.
The Saudi and Kuwaiti fields are estimated somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 billion barrels remaining, each. They started somewhere north of 100. Nothing under 1 billion barrels makes Wikipedias list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_fields.
By the most pessimistic estimates this leak will take a couple of months to equal the Exxon Valdez spill.
It's a disaster, but the article is a scare piece.
There are lots of natural gas vehicles around, and also propane vehicles. In general it makes more sense in large fleet vehicles, for various reasons. Everybody where I grew up heated their houses with natural gas.
But do you know where natural gas comes from? Yup, oil fields.
The point is, MatLab is very slow. MatLab functions that are written in C are pretty much as fast as C (they really should be) but MatLab itself is very slow, just like any other interpreted language.
In general having a bigger loop is not faster than a smaller one. The overhead isn't in the loop, it's in the interpreter having to reinterpret each go around, unless it happens to be a hybrid interpreter that actually figures out the loop, compiles it, then runs it (like Java).
The speed of MatLab is only comparable to that of C if you're running canned MatLab C functions. If you have to write any sizeable amounts of code that MatLab actually has to interpret, it will be slow. That's most obvious with a loop but also plays a role even without loops, for large enough programs.
I doubt it's possible. The crater from a reasonably sized nuclear bomb wouldn't go down very far, and the reservoir is probably located quite a distance under the sea bed. Someone who knows the details would want to figure it out ahead of time, of course.
You're right, it's not like we've exploded any nuclear weapons under the ocean. Completely uncharted territory. I wonder what would happen? Probably destroy the world.