One MMORPG I play, A Tale in the Desert, operates an official server and a 'hackme' server (yes, that's its actual name). There's no combat in the game and attended macros are legal on the official server, unlike most OGs.
That doesn't work for 5^2 (6*4+1=25). Let's extend that by saying primes greater than 5 are in the form 30n-13, 30n-11, 30n-7, 30n-1, 30n+1, 30n+7, 30n+11, or 30n+13, where n is an integer. Surely we've now got a working method!
But that doesn't work for 7^2 (2*30-11), so we'll modify that to : Primes greater than 7 are in the form 210(=2*3*5*7) plus or minus one or (any of the prime numbers less than 105 and greater than 7).
But that doesn't work for 11^2(210-89), so...
Repeat this process for all the prime numbers and you'll have a formula you can use to to determine all the prime numbers!
I was channel surfing, turned to it just as they said '... and the Oscar goes to the Twin Towers!'
I was torn between happiness the LOTR won whatever category they were announcing, and annoyance at the tackiness of the announcer for getting the name wrong. When the winners started talking about tragedy I realized what was actually going on...
No, we're moving away from the sun at the moment. The Earth reaches perihelion (the point along Earth's orbital path closest to the sun) in early January every year, so at this particular moment we're getting slightly farther away from the sun, but we will start getting closer again in July. Earth's orbit is quite stable, though not quite a circle.
If the scientists involved weren't taking this into account there would be problems, as the earth-to-sun distance varies by about 3% (when squared, still greater than 0.05%) each year, and the 11-year solar sunspot cycle also imparts significant variance in solar output. But the earth-sun distance averages out in the long term and sunspot patterns are predictable; according to this study, after taking this into account there's a 0.05%/decade difference left.
Due to America using non-metric standards he says the density of water is 62.4 lb/ft^3 where as all of our learning to this point in highschool has made it out to be one kg/m^3 (I think my units are correct, if not I am sure I will be corrected).
You are correct in thinking that you will be corrected:)
Water is roughly 1000 kg/m^3; it's also roughly 1 g/cm^3 which is how I originally learned the ratio (there are 10^6 cm^3 in a m^3).
I went to public US junior and senior high schools, all the science I learned there was taught using the metric system. Imperial-metric conversions were the very first thing we were taught in junior high school science. The only exception I recall was for temperature, in which Celcius was usually used but we occasionally slipped into degrees Fahrenheit early on. High school Chemistry and Physics were taught only in degrees Celcius or in Kelvins. This was in the 1980s, if that matters.
Diamond is like aluminum, an exposed surface oxidises almost immediately, but the oxidized coating stays tightly bound to the pure substance underneath.
A kilogram is a unit of mass and a liter is a unit of volume. (You probably knew that...)
Water expands and contracts as the temperature and pressure around it change, even in the range where it is still liquid.
It turns out that liquid water at 1 atmosphere pressure is most dense at about 4 degrees Centigrade, where its density is 0.9999750 g/cm^3. at closer to room temperature- at 22 degrees C- its density is only.9977735 g/cm^3. It never actually gets up to 1 g/cm^3 the unit system was originally designed to use, I think because of the limits of accuracy of measurements when the current definitions of individual units were set. In defining a unit, all those significant figures are relevant, so for these purposes the above are unacceptably big differences.
Measuring mass by what the volume of water is would be more complicated and less accurate than the current system. Besides, a liter is trickier to define than a kilogram, so it'd likely be the other way around if defined in terms of each other.
No, I think it's have to be a Bose-Einstein Condensate. The waveform would be spherical, with none of those pesky particle-like properties. I expect it'd be expensive to make, maintain and, well, somewhat difficult to weigh.
No you don't get two years, you can drive drunk and kill someone and get off with no punishment at all! In fact, you can consistently get elected Senator afterwards and currently sit the Judiciary Committee!
Oops, sorry, I read the words 'liberal ass' in your sig, I thought you were talking about someone in particular.
I think that would be a good definition, and perhaps once was that way- but it's often not true now. There exist colleges which offer postgraduate degrees (Boston College, for example) and many 'community colleges' which are basically glorified trade schools and don't even offer bachelor's degrees. There are grey areas in what is considered a 'University' as well- for example, the University of Wisconsin at Whitewater doesn't have a graduate program, but it's nominally affiliated with several other campuses (Madison and Milwalkee) which do... but the interaction between the different UW campuses is minimal, making UW-Whitewater in practice a college named a University.
Yes, I was aware of the existence of Ru(bpy)3(2+), though I didn't know about its catalytic photochemistry with water.
This isn't an energetically free lunch, in order to split water you must pump energy into the system with light. You caught my interest, I did look up a recent paper on this. There are a lot of other things the photolytically excited complex can do- in this case the quantum yield was measured at.016 (1.6 percent) and the catalyst itself has about a 70% turnover? Oh, and the catalyst must be in very low concentration or it will react with itself and quench. And were you aware that Ruthenium is about 1/40 as naturally abundant as Gold? It's far far more efficient to use standard photocells and then split water with the resulting electricity.
It would be very cool to find a catalyst that did this cheaply and efficiently, which is why people have been working on it for 30 years or so. But we're far from there yet, and Ru(bpy)3(2+) isn't it.
Let's apply this definition to the solar system, given existing definitions of star (in this case Sol) and Pluto, but before defining anything as a planet.
First, we choose to consider the Moon. It orbits the sun, it does not orbit a planet(Earth not yet evaluated as such by this definition), and its radius is greater than that of Pluto. It's a planet.
When we later evaluate Earth, we find it orbits the planet Luna and is therefore not a planet.
It's a bad idea to use a word in its own definition...
The question is, what if it's eventually determined that Charon (presently considered Pluto's satellite) is as large or larger than Pluto?
At that point, we smack the astronomer and switch the name labels back so 'Pluto' refers to the larger one.
Seriously, isn't Pluto defined as the larger of the two? How else are we distinguishing the two? It's not like we've placed a marker on one of the two declaring it to be the one called 'Pluto'...
It's very unlikely we'd experience much because of that, as like our galaxy Andromeda is mostly empty space.
The actual journal article
on
The Big Rip
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The journal article that the New Scientist article has made a journalistic hack job of is here. The actual article is not presented as future history; it presents a possibility, a consequence of making an explicitly stated assumption about the nature of dark energy (about which very little is known.)
I also wish to point out that extrapolation can be useful for precisely the reason many are criticizing it: it can reveal where current theories are wrong.
That's the great part about retro. And the retro cycle is getting shorter and shorter.
It seems like a good thing until you extend it to its logical conclusion- we're rapidly approaching a retro singularity, when retro converges on the present day! See this shocking news article.
Well the thing is no processor can exhibit better than linear scaling with mhz, it's just a physical impossability. If you double the mhz of a chip, and leave everything else the same you will at BEST double the performace. Realistically, you won't actually get double for a number of reasons. So AMD's PR system is rather misleading.
It comes down to what the PR rating is supposed to represent. Intel processors don't scale in speed with respect to MHz rating for exactly the reasons you state- is Intel therefore misleading customers by telling them the MHz rating of a processor? Perhaps customers are mislead, but Intel is making a factual statement about the processor, and the consumer is responsible for knowing what it means.
Given that MHz don't scale linearly with the speed of processors, why should PR ratings? We all know, even if it's not officially the case, that the PR ratings are intended to be used for direct comparison with MHz ratings of Intel processors. If an AMD processor scales better than an intel processor (though, obviously, still not perfectly), shouldn't its PR rating scale better as well?
It may be true that particular PR labels are inflated, but that doesn't invalidate the general trend of scaling a rating intended for making a comparison to Intel's MHz rating- which doesn't scale well either- at other than a 1 to 1 ratio.
On a personal benchmarking note, my FORTRAN code runs much faster on an Athlon XP 1700+ than on one 2.4 GHz processor on a Xeon.
Slashdot Mirror
One MMORPG I play, A Tale in the Desert, operates an official server and a 'hackme' server (yes, that's its actual name). There's no combat in the game and attended macros are legal on the official server, unlike most OGs.
Arbitrage. They're buying from players for cash low, selling to other players for cash high.
{insert joke about a mathematician, a physicist, and an engineer here}
But that doesn't work for 7^2 (2*30-11), so we'll modify that to : Primes greater than 7 are in the form 210(=2*3*5*7) plus or minus one or (any of the prime numbers less than 105 and greater than 7).
But that doesn't work for 11^2(210-89), so...
Repeat this process for all the prime numbers and you'll have a formula you can use to to determine all the prime numbers!
I was torn between happiness the LOTR won whatever category they were announcing, and annoyance at the tackiness of the announcer for getting the name wrong. When the winners started talking about tragedy I realized what was actually going on...
BUT- he was born and raised in England, and lived there most of his life, which makes him a very odd choice '...to put an American spin on the movie.'
He does currently live in the US, for whatever that's worth.
If the scientists involved weren't taking this into account there would be problems, as the earth-to-sun distance varies by about 3% (when squared, still greater than 0.05%) each year, and the 11-year solar sunspot cycle also imparts significant variance in solar output. But the earth-sun distance averages out in the long term and sunspot patterns are predictable; according to this study, after taking this into account there's a 0.05%/decade difference left.
Water is roughly 1000 kg/m^3; it's also roughly 1 g/cm^3 which is how I originally learned the ratio (there are 10^6 cm^3 in a m^3).
I went to public US junior and senior high schools, all the science I learned there was taught using the metric system. Imperial-metric conversions were the very first thing we were taught in junior high school science. The only exception I recall was for temperature, in which Celcius was usually used but we occasionally slipped into degrees Fahrenheit early on. High school Chemistry and Physics were taught only in degrees Celcius or in Kelvins. This was in the 1980s, if that matters.
Diamond is like aluminum, an exposed surface oxidises almost immediately, but the oxidized coating stays tightly bound to the pure substance underneath.
Water expands and contracts as the temperature and pressure around it change, even in the range where it is still liquid.
It turns out that liquid water at 1 atmosphere pressure is most dense at about 4 degrees Centigrade, where its density is 0.9999750 g/cm^3. at closer to room temperature- at 22 degrees C- its density is only .9977735 g/cm^3. It never actually gets up to 1 g/cm^3 the unit system was originally designed to use, I think because of the limits of accuracy of measurements when the current definitions of individual units were set. In defining a unit, all those significant figures are relevant, so for these purposes the above are unacceptably big differences.
Measuring mass by what the volume of water is would be more complicated and less accurate than the current system. Besides, a liter is trickier to define than a kilogram, so it'd likely be the other way around if defined in terms of each other.
No, I think it's have to be a Bose-Einstein Condensate. The waveform would be spherical, with none of those pesky particle-like properties. I expect it'd be expensive to make, maintain and, well, somewhat difficult to weigh.
Oops, sorry, I read the words 'liberal ass' in your sig, I thought you were talking about someone in particular.
Does it count if it has just one hit but three sponsored ads? Like, for example, Tintinnabulation and Oolong?
But I went to an Institute, so what do I know?
This isn't an energetically free lunch, in order to split water you must pump energy into the system with light. You caught my interest, I did look up a recent paper on this. There are a lot of other things the photolytically excited complex can do- in this case the quantum yield was measured at .016 (1.6 percent) and the catalyst itself has about a 70% turnover? Oh, and the catalyst must be in very low concentration or it will react with itself and quench. And were you aware that Ruthenium is about 1/40 as naturally abundant as Gold? It's far far more efficient to use standard photocells and then split water with the resulting electricity.
It would be very cool to find a catalyst that did this cheaply and efficiently, which is why people have been working on it for 30 years or so. But we're far from there yet, and Ru(bpy)3(2+) isn't it.
Mathematicians do know, it's been proven irrational.
First, we choose to consider the Moon. It orbits the sun, it does not orbit a planet(Earth not yet evaluated as such by this definition), and its radius is greater than that of Pluto. It's a planet.
When we later evaluate Earth, we find it orbits the planet Luna and is therefore not a planet.
It's a bad idea to use a word in its own definition...
Seriously, isn't Pluto defined as the larger of the two? How else are we distinguishing the two? It's not like we've placed a marker on one of the two declaring it to be the one called 'Pluto'...
It's very unlikely we'd experience much because of that, as like our galaxy Andromeda is mostly empty space.
I also wish to point out that extrapolation can be useful for precisely the reason many are criticizing it: it can reveal where current theories are wrong.
It was tried- the spinoff Raven only lasted one season.
I rot-13 all my posts twice. You can't be too safe.
Given that MHz don't scale linearly with the speed of processors, why should PR ratings? We all know, even if it's not officially the case, that the PR ratings are intended to be used for direct comparison with MHz ratings of Intel processors. If an AMD processor scales better than an intel processor (though, obviously, still not perfectly), shouldn't its PR rating scale better as well?
It may be true that particular PR labels are inflated, but that doesn't invalidate the general trend of scaling a rating intended for making a comparison to Intel's MHz rating- which doesn't scale well either- at other than a 1 to 1 ratio.
On a personal benchmarking note, my FORTRAN code runs much faster on an Athlon XP 1700+ than on one 2.4 GHz processor on a Xeon.