Funny -- in my view justice isn't being served here. The crimes that this man is responsible for went unpunished (and, in fact, were given the unofficial okay) at the time they were carried out.
As if being consistent is more important than human life!
I keep hearing this argument, and I don't think that I will ever understand it.
An Afghan-American teenager named Hyder Akbar went back to Afghanistan to visit his father. He witnessed massacres, rocket attacks and ambushes and kept a radio diary.
Listen for the part where a family friend is on the American's most wanted terrorist list. The man flees in fear of his life but Akbar senior persuades this man to return and face an investigation to prove his innocence.
The man later dies in prison. Hopefully it was a rare incident, but Hyder describes the prison conditions as terrible.
Speaking as a person who attends conferences and has also had to help students with presentations.
Transparencies are fine. Infact they much easier to read than PP files because the resolution is soooo much higher. Of course you need to switch your style to "Slides" in LaTeX so that it will...
1) Use a large font size 2) Use a sans serif like ariel font and NOT a serif font like times
Those rules should be held when using PP too, also
a) use the highest resolution that the projector allows b) turn the font smoothing on c) avoid using colored backgrounds as they make it hard to read
As for your number (2) I find that text is fine as long as it is limited to consise statements. Too many students put paragraphs of text on their slides and read them right off the screen.
The particular reason that I prefer transparencies to PP in my field of study is that equations look horrid in PP, graphs don't look good, and none of their fancy features are needed. I wouldn't go as far as recommending them to everyone though, as you did with PP. I think it really depends on your field of study.
What it means in the final analysis is that I can (almost) tar up the/etc directory from a NetBSD 1.6 Sparc machine and expand it into the/etc directory of any x86 or 68000 or MIPS or PPC NetBSD 1.6 machine and it will just work
NetBSD doesn't use fstab?
XF86Config is portable to different videocards/monitors?
Not being a NetBSD user, I didn't gain any understanding of what I am missing from that statement. Could you please elaborate.
Last time I upgraded from 2.2 to 2.4 on a base install the alsa module configuration and the lilo configuration got severely screwed up.
I had to manually fudge with my lilo.conf (ok so that only took 5 min) but then I spent days on my alsa modules before I figured out that the create sound devices script had moved directories, but the old one was still around.
I don't call that handled well. Both of those things should have been seamless.
Actually discontinuous potentials don't perform so well in Quantum Mechanics. If you try and take the classical limit (h -> 0) with solutions of such potentials you can get absurd results that don't match reality. For example, the simple square well potential in 1D does not give the correct classical limit (if I remember correctly).
Discontinuous potentials, like the infinite circular well in this example are only good as models. In terms of the mathematics of a simple model, you are correct; but in reality the parent is correct.
Well, the analogy was that you would fill up with explosives and then blast your self around, quickly running out of fuel. I should have been a bit more descriptive.
This is why capacitors are used for things like camera flash and not regular batteries.
I'd like to add that most FORTRAN programmers debug with print statements because, FORTRAN was a simple language and most programs written in it were simple. Also most of the programmers are not programmers by trade or didn't have the proper tools back in the stone age when they learned.
As for portability I don't really follow you. C is the most portable language I know of, far more portable than F77 and even Java is today. I'm probably not getting what you are saying.
As for converting F90/95 to F77, I find that to be a bit odd. F90 has pointers, structures, and all kinds of other modern language features. F95 has special stuff for parallel processing. I really don't see how it is possible to convert F95 to F77, especially with the pointers. But this may be my ignorance. I just can't imagine faking a pointer in F77.
I won't argue that M$ doesn't know what the COBOL or FORTRAN community need or want.
Have you ever tried to debug it? I think it just rewrites the code in C with ugly variable names and compiles it from there. It's all messy for some reason.
Sati's name gave away the entire ending. I don't think there was anything more to her than that.
Sati is when a hindu widow throws herself onto her husbands funeral pyre. I'm not Hindu, but I would never name my kid that. The practice of sati is frowned upon today, except by greedy relatives of the dead husband that don't want to support the widow. Fun fact: some times the greedy relatives burn the widow to death and claim that it was sati!
So once I heard her name was Sati, I immediately knew that
1) Neo was going to die 2) Trinity would die along side him for kicks
and sure enough it happened, though not exactly in the correct order.
This is because scientists are people and people are imperfect. However, science as a whole is pretty effective at discarding bad theories, even if scientists aren't. It just takes a generation or two.
It's also important to remember that bad theories, once established, do not die until a theory that is clearly better comes along. Until then, the bad theory is kept, and patched to fit the evidence
I think you are mixing things in your head.
Bad theories still get used because they can still have utility. Today we still use Netwonian Gravity, because it works fairly well and its a million times easier than GR. But we know that NG is wrong. And we know that Newtonian mechanics is wrong. But its easy to understand and its easy to calculate.
I'll give you an even better example. We know (physics) that every single theory we have is wrong. GR is classical, QED is bad at small distances, QCD is bad at large distances,... They are all wrong. We know they are wrong. And like you said, we won't stop using them until a better theory comes along. And like in the case of NG/GR we may still use the old theory.
If we all put our calculators down everytime we figured out how one of the fundamental theories was wrong, then we would never get anywhere.
Now aside from that there are old foggy scientists that will never convert from aether theory to that new fangled relativity. But this is a completely different process, and it is much less important - because those old grey physicists don't publish much and they don't have nearly as much impact on the community as the young guns. Physics today is a young man's science (peak at 30), and this is why we are focusing/wasting so many minds on completely unfounded things like string theory.
The main problem you state lies in long time rivalries between semi-unproven theories. Right now Quantum Loop Gravity is a rival to String Theory. String people say "hey you're not Lorentz invariant". And the Loop people say "so what, Poincare sucks, we use an A/DS universe. you're using a background metric, you can't quantize gravity with that, duh" to which the string people reply "er, um, its perturbative quantum gravity" or "we believe classical gravity only gets the waves right perturbatively anyhow"
Perhaps in the future, after we have quantized gravity, things will settle down once again and the old people will rule.
In a civilian setting, this gets reused in the reactor, but here, in the US, we must be concerned with them gosh darn Ter'rists.
Actually I think you have it slightly backwards.
GWBushJr is for breeder reactors, but anti-war people concerned with the US using the plutonium for nuclear weapons are against it!
But neither of these anti-breeder reactor stances are valid at all!!! Every design for a breeder reactor I know of produces a mixture of Plutonium 239,240,241... which will make nothing but a dirty bomb. The effort needed to seperate the correct isotope is better spent on making a completely different bomb!!
Maybe he switched stances lately, but that was the white house opinion. The pres and VP have atypical opinions on energy (good and bad) because of their respective backgrounds. GW is also a big proponent of fuel cell technology btw.
given that the absorption percentage can't be zero (real world materials), and that the laser weapon has a much greater intensity than a radar beam, I would imagine that the material would still melt, just more slowly at first.
Doesnt matter seeing as a Laser will travel back along the exact same geodesic as the light used to sight it. In other words you point it at what you see and it hits it.
Not if the target is moving or if the index of refraction is wavelength dependent.
So you're saying that the accuracy of a laser over, certainly no more than, 100 miles is almost the same magnatude as a host of radio signals traveling many thousands of miles, with sources that are traveling thousands of miles an hour?
no
but, 2 meter accuracy isn't near enough to shoot down missiles!
The GPS sattilites aren't the sharks in this Dr. Evil plot.
I was making an analogy. Perhaps I was not clear enough.
Would a gravity-free weapon (even with light) defy General Relativity?
Gravity is the curving of space-time and light travels through space-time - curved or not.
If space-time is curved, then light travels a curved path.
The entire near-instantaneous, gravity-free line is fluff. You can't send a beam faster than light and as long as the beam has momentum (which light does) then it will feel the effects of gravity..
Will the enemy start using mirrors?
It depends on the frequency. Regular mirrors work for visible light. Doing optics at other frequencies can be very tricky.
For instance, your see through microwave door is opaque to the microwaves.
Slashdot Mirror
and her allies
Saddam has publically funded terrorism against Israel for a very long time. This is well known.
At one point if you would suicide bomb Israel then Saddam would write a fat check that would support your family for life.
Personally I think that at this point Israel is just as bad as everybody else, but in all honesty the poster wasn't as incorrect as you interpreted.
Funny -- in my view justice isn't being served here. The crimes that this man is responsible for went unpunished (and, in fact, were given the unofficial okay) at the time they were carried out.
As if being consistent is more important than human life!
I keep hearing this argument, and I don't think that I will ever understand it.
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=15452 88
An Afghan-American teenager named Hyder Akbar went back to Afghanistan to visit his father. He witnessed massacres, rocket attacks and ambushes and kept a radio diary.
Listen for the part where a family friend is on the American's most wanted terrorist list. The man flees in fear of his life but Akbar senior persuades this man to return and face an investigation to prove his innocence.
The man later dies in prison. Hopefully it was a rare incident, but Hyder describes the prison conditions as terrible.
Speaking as a person who attends conferences and has also had to help students with presentations.
...
Transparencies are fine. Infact they much easier to read than PP files because the resolution is soooo much higher. Of course you need to switch your style to "Slides" in LaTeX so that it will
1) Use a large font size
2) Use a sans serif like ariel font and NOT a serif font like times
Those rules should be held when using PP too, also
a) use the highest resolution that the projector allows
b) turn the font smoothing on
c) avoid using colored backgrounds as they make it hard to read
As for your number (2) I find that text is fine as long as it is limited to consise statements. Too many students put paragraphs of text on their slides and read them right off the screen.
The particular reason that I prefer transparencies to PP in my field of study is that equations look horrid in PP, graphs don't look good, and none of their fancy features are needed. I wouldn't go as far as recommending them to everyone though, as you did with PP. I think it really depends on your field of study.
What it means in the final analysis is that I can (almost) tar up the /etc directory from a NetBSD 1.6 Sparc machine and expand it into the /etc directory of any x86 or 68000 or MIPS or PPC NetBSD 1.6 machine and it will just work
NetBSD doesn't use fstab?
XF86Config is portable to different videocards/monitors?
Not being a NetBSD user, I didn't gain any understanding of what I am missing from that statement. Could you please elaborate.
Last time I upgraded from 2.2 to 2.4 on a base install the alsa module configuration and the lilo configuration got severely screwed up.
I had to manually fudge with my lilo.conf (ok so that only took 5 min) but then I spent days on my alsa modules before I figured out that the create sound devices script had moved directories, but the old one was still around.
I don't call that handled well. Both of those things should have been seamless.
Have a fun time playing on a remote server without a unique registration code.
Actually discontinuous potentials don't perform so well in Quantum Mechanics. If you try and take the classical limit (h -> 0) with solutions of such potentials you can get absurd results that don't match reality. For example, the simple square well potential in 1D does not give the correct classical limit (if I remember correctly).
Discontinuous potentials, like the infinite circular well in this example are only good as models. In terms of the mathematics of a simple model, you are correct; but in reality the parent is correct.
Or even easier and less noticable, you could cut the scenes just a fraction of a second differently.
That wouldn't require any extra acting and would survive reencoding as well.
Well, the analogy was that you would fill up with explosives and then blast your self around, quickly running out of fuel. I should have been a bit more descriptive.
This is why capacitors are used for things like camera flash and not regular batteries.
Capacitors make really bad batteries.
It would be like using a bomb to push your car.
Yes let's make BBC more like FOX!
I'd like to add that most FORTRAN programmers debug with print statements because, FORTRAN was a simple language and most programs written in it were simple. Also most of the programmers are not programmers by trade or didn't have the proper tools back in the stone age when they learned.
As for portability I don't really follow you. C is the most portable language I know of, far more portable than F77 and even Java is today. I'm probably not getting what you are saying.
As for converting F90/95 to F77, I find that to be a bit odd. F90 has pointers, structures, and all kinds of other modern language features. F95 has special stuff for parallel processing. I really don't see how it is possible to convert F95 to F77, especially with the pointers. But this may be my ignorance. I just can't imagine faking a pointer in F77.
I won't argue that M$ doesn't know what the COBOL or FORTRAN community need or want.
The gnu fortran compiler sucks?
Where is support for F90/95?
Have you ever tried to debug it? I think it just rewrites the code in C with ugly variable names and compiles it from there. It's all messy for some reason.
But if you have old, working code it's great.
Sati's name gave away the entire ending. I don't think there was anything more to her than that.
Sati is when a hindu widow throws herself onto her husbands funeral pyre. I'm not Hindu, but I would never name my kid that. The practice of sati is frowned upon today, except by greedy relatives of the dead husband that don't want to support the widow. Fun fact: some times the greedy relatives burn the widow to death and claim that it was sati!
So once I heard her name was Sati, I immediately knew that
1) Neo was going to die
2) Trinity would die along side him for kicks
and sure enough it happened, though not exactly in the correct order.
This is because scientists are people and people are imperfect. However, science as a whole is pretty effective at discarding bad theories, even if scientists aren't. It just takes a generation or two.
... They are all wrong. We know they are wrong. And like you said, we won't stop using them until a better theory comes along. And like in the case of NG/GR we may still use the old theory.
It's also important to remember that bad theories, once established, do not die until a theory that is clearly better comes along. Until then, the bad theory is kept, and patched to fit the evidence
I think you are mixing things in your head.
Bad theories still get used because they can still have utility. Today we still use Netwonian Gravity, because it works fairly well and its a million times easier than GR. But we know that NG is wrong. And we know that Newtonian mechanics is wrong. But its easy to understand and its easy to calculate.
I'll give you an even better example. We know (physics) that every single theory we have is wrong. GR is classical, QED is bad at small distances, QCD is bad at large distances,
If we all put our calculators down everytime we figured out how one of the fundamental theories was wrong, then we would never get anywhere.
Now aside from that there are old foggy scientists that will never convert from aether theory to that new fangled relativity. But this is a completely different process, and it is much less important - because those old grey physicists don't publish much and they don't have nearly as much impact on the community as the young guns. Physics today is a young man's science (peak at 30), and this is why we are focusing/wasting so many minds on completely unfounded things like string theory.
The main problem you state lies in long time rivalries between semi-unproven theories. Right now Quantum Loop Gravity is a rival to String Theory. String people say "hey you're not Lorentz invariant". And the Loop people say "so what, Poincare sucks, we use an A/DS universe. you're using a background metric, you can't quantize gravity with that, duh" to which the string people reply "er, um, its perturbative quantum gravity" or "we believe classical gravity only gets the waves right perturbatively anyhow"
Perhaps in the future, after we have quantized gravity, things will settle down once again and the old people will rule.
a continous two-dimensional line
how many dimensions are your lines?
you're blowing my mind man! are they fractals?
(lanoisnemid-eno era senil)
If that is the case, you must live in a disjoint section of the physics community from myself.
What country are you in?
yes, "straight" across the surface of the earth, it will be very small.
The gravitational potential energy must change a bit for the effects to be felt.
but given that the circumference of the earth is only 40,000 kilometers, I don't know how you plan on doing that?
In a civilian setting, this gets reused in the reactor, but here, in the US, we must be concerned with them gosh darn Ter'rists.
Actually I think you have it slightly backwards.
GWBushJr is for breeder reactors, but anti-war people concerned with the US using the plutonium for nuclear weapons are against it!
But neither of these anti-breeder reactor stances are valid at all!!! Every design for a breeder reactor I know of produces a mixture of Plutonium 239,240,241... which will make nothing but a dirty bomb. The effort needed to seperate the correct isotope is better spent on making a completely different bomb!!
Maybe he switched stances lately, but that was the white house opinion. The pres and VP have atypical opinions on energy (good and bad) because of their respective backgrounds. GW is also a big proponent of fuel cell technology btw.
given that the absorption percentage can't be zero (real world materials), and that the laser weapon has a much greater intensity than a radar beam, I would imagine that the material would still melt, just more slowly at first.
Doesnt matter seeing as a Laser will travel back along the exact same geodesic as the light used to sight it. In other words you point it at what you see and it hits it.
Not if the target is moving or if the index of refraction is wavelength dependent.
So you're saying that the accuracy of a laser over, certainly no more than, 100 miles is almost the same magnatude as a host of radio signals traveling many thousands of miles, with sources that are traveling thousands of miles an hour?
no
but, 2 meter accuracy isn't near enough to shoot down missiles!
The GPS sattilites aren't the sharks in this Dr. Evil plot.
I was making an analogy. Perhaps I was not clear enough.
That's because you are correlating timing between objects with different frames of reference.
2 things: relativity of simultaneity and moving targets
Any gravitational affects on the weapon beam would have affected the light coming from the target in the same fashion.
only if they are the same path (still object) and the same frequency (index of refraction is wavelength dependent)
Would a gravity-free weapon (even with light) defy General Relativity?
Gravity is the curving of space-time and light travels through space-time - curved or not.
If space-time is curved, then light travels a curved path.
The entire near-instantaneous, gravity-free line is fluff. You can't send a beam faster than light and as long as the beam has momentum (which light does) then it will feel the effects of gravity..
Will the enemy start using mirrors?
It depends on the frequency. Regular mirrors work for visible light. Doing optics at other frequencies can be very tricky.
For instance, your see through microwave door is opaque to the microwaves.