Not that you couldn't conceivably calibrate any other kind of thermometer, the point is that the two values you are using for your calibration are separated by a power of 10 divisions for maximum easy of drawing the lines.
If someone asks when your birthday is, you tell them month/day. If they ask you when you were born you give them year/month/day in accordance with the idea that you are going from the general time frame to the more specific, bearing in mind that *just* the year doesn't give them your current age. Same with V-J day. If treated like a holiday (like your birthday), month/day is sufficient. If treated like an event (like your birth) then year/month/day is the way.
Basically in any case year/month/day omitting the unnecessary conveys information in a better order than month/day/year.
Also, Celsius is better than Fahrenheit because aside from at least being related to physical properties (if you're standing on an ocean beach, you could calibrate your Celsius thermometer right there), it also is translatable into Kelvin through simple subtraction. "Standard outdoor temperatures fall in the range 0-100" doesn't hold any weight with me -- even if I hadn't I've spent my entire life in places where that was not true. I mean, so what? Negative Fahrenheit doesn't mean anything other than "fucking cold". Negative Celcius means "There will be ice."
Um the American convention is Month/Day/Year. So "in order of significance to the listener, leaving out the parts that are implied/unimportant" doesn't work. If the year is important then it's in the wrong place. Assuming that if the year matters nothing else does is not a safe assumption. "When you were born?" First you should tell me roughly how old you are, then when I should send you the birthday card. "When was V-J Day?" again the year is most important, but the month and date are as well.
The best convention is Year/Month/Day. It matches the idea of ordering them in terms of importance (decreasing significance) and is the best for sorting.
For what I know if you randomize, you don't necessarily know that you end up with a dictionary word, right? So you see if your randomly generated password looks like a dictionary word and you discard it. Where's that "minus" sign in all this math?
In the noise. Negligible second-order effect. Not worth even accounting for. Around ten orders of magnitude smaller than the total search space. Probably worth eye-balling your randomly generated password just to be safe, but probably not worth designing the password gen algorithm to detect it.
I might be more inclined to believe the claim if "give a crap about communicating" didn't fly out the window as soon as the medium was the written word. Not that there's anything wrong with being lax about communication in/. posts, but if you treat casual writing that way I'm not about to believe casual conversation is not treated similarly and suddenly it's 100% focus on clear communication (especially since conversation is generally a more forgiving medium which is why most people are *more* lax).
Um, the latter, definitely. Because it would be more successful. Targeting those who are least likely to be convinced by your viewpoint is going to net you the least converts.
Haha, no. Not everything is a heat engine. You need to look up what that means again.
But if you insist on maintaining this completely incorrect view, please answer: How can the earth act as a cold sink for the 3K CMBR if such is required for heat energy to be converted into light, and how exactly does the fusion reaction going on at the temperature and pressures present in the core of a star depend on it being colder somewhere else? Or how wood in the center of a forest fire still burns even though everything around it is just as hot?
Not a single damn actor in that movie did well. After watching the prequels I had to go peruse some of Natalie Portman's other films. Because I had thought she was a good actor, but was starting to doubt it. Turns out that yes, indeed, she has acting chops. But there's only so much an actor can do with a terrible script, nothing but a green screen to act against, and a director who isn't happy until the actor does exactly what he wants and what he wants is retarded.
Same with Ewan McGregor. To a lesser extent Liam Neeson, Samuel Jackson, and Christopher Lee, but that's because they had less screentime to erase memories of other things they've done.
So, I don't recall seeing Hayden Christiansen in anything else, but my default assumption is that he can probably act but looked horrible in those movies just like everyone else did.
Movies = entertainment. Science = not entertainment.
Movies = art (yes even crappy ones that's why the phrase 'crappy artwork' exists)
And yes, other posters may have assumed you weren't good enough to be an artist.
I'm saying something much worse about you: That you're too myopic to appreciate the value of art.
And since you did basically suggest that anyone trying to learn a skill involving "entertainment" should do something useful like learn calculus instead, this isn't a baseless assumption.
Casting everyone who replied as saying the exact opposite -- that you're worthless if you're not an artist -- just further reinforces this implication.
He abandoned it when Einstein discovered that time is relative.
Ha ha?
Watches are more important than ever in a Relativistic universe, since to accurately track time in your reference frame you need a clock in your reference frame. Okay technically it could be calculated using a reference clock and intimate knowledge of your frame's relationship to the frame the reference clock is in but owning a watch is easier!
The goal wasn't to make the prequels not suck. He's learning about editing film, and used the prequels as a medium to do so (and probably make a great test case to show both the potential and limitations of post-production editing).
Calculus and science are great, but I don't think everyone should do that and nobody should do art. Once you accept that the entire concept of movies aren't pointless, then learning about editing is a useful skill.
Yeah, they should have ditched the stupid metaphor that implies we need to be preparing for war right now (if it was 10 minutes 'til midnight on New Year's Eve, you'd be breaking out the champagne glasses if they weren't out already).
Instead let's just use a simple qualitative scale with no physical metaphor at all.
Like right now we're at "HOLY FUCK WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!", which means there's only a small chance for war.
OK- OK- so we have no Star Trek like teleportation yet... we also don't have space-trains yet either.
But a space train could theoretically be built with things that exist today, and that's what they mean.
A space elevator could not be built with things that exist today. It requires hypothetical advancements in material technology to create something that could be used to build a space elevator.
A teleporter is even farther out there.
Kinda obvious, right? I mean you wouldn't have said that an iPad could not be made using existing technology because iPads didn't already exist, right? It would imply that the iPad could never be built.
Where have you been for the last 5 weeks? Didn't you get the tweet? The term "NP-hard" has been superseded by "NP-cloud-based-social-media-hipster". Keep up!
An "NP-cloud-based-social-media-hipster" would be proof that P=NP, since you're saying this cloud-based-social-media-hipster is in NP(Non-Pretentious), when it has already been proven that all hipsters are in P.
Yes but the point is it's a valid comparison. What you care about as the purchaser of a heater is how much it is going to cost you in electricity for a given amount of heating. You, the customer, don't give a fuck about the 'cost' in lost heat from the outside. Other than if you become curios as to whether the heat pump's claimed efficiency (which is correct for what it is talking about) is also claiming a violation of the 1st law in which case the answer is no.
What you said was to suggest it could be violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics, so no.
"Turning heat into light at high efficiency should not be sustainable."
It's sustainable only as long as there is sufficient energy input into the system. So as long as something else is heating the environment -- a heater, or the sun -- it is sustainable. That's not a problem for the 2nd law. So probably not what you meant.
What's interesting here is that while you can create a heat engine that extracts work from heat transfer from a hot bath to a cold bath, I've never seen a case where the energy being sent to the cold bath is highly organized (light) as opposed to heat. I'm not sure that is possible. So in this case what is the cold bath?
This is not a heat engine. There need not be a cold bath.
Ordinary objects convert heat energy into light energy constantly at a rate proportional to their temperature. Not the temperature delta relative to somewhere else. Temperature. Even at only a few degrees above absolute zero, objects emit (tiny amounts of low frequency) light.
This LED isn't a blackbody effect, but the point is that converting heat energy into light without a 'cold sink' is not a fundamental problem for the 2nd law.
Slashdot Mirror
You got me there.
Mathematically equivalent values are equivalent mathematically.
This is even sillier than getting upset over the current convention.
I'm going to spin in circles on the ground like Curly where my hips are the axis and my body the diameter of the circle. As the Ancients would.
Not that you couldn't conceivably calibrate any other kind of thermometer, the point is that the two values you are using for your calibration are separated by a power of 10 divisions for maximum easy of drawing the lines.
If someone asks when your birthday is, you tell them month/day. If they ask you when you were born you give them year/month/day in accordance with the idea that you are going from the general time frame to the more specific, bearing in mind that *just* the year doesn't give them your current age. Same with V-J day. If treated like a holiday (like your birthday), month/day is sufficient. If treated like an event (like your birth) then year/month/day is the way.
Basically in any case year/month/day omitting the unnecessary conveys information in a better order than month/day/year.
Also, Celsius is better than Fahrenheit because aside from at least being related to physical properties (if you're standing on an ocean beach, you could calibrate your Celsius thermometer right there), it also is translatable into Kelvin through simple subtraction. "Standard outdoor temperatures fall in the range 0-100" doesn't hold any weight with me -- even if I hadn't I've spent my entire life in places where that was not true. I mean, so what? Negative Fahrenheit doesn't mean anything other than "fucking cold". Negative Celcius means "There will be ice."
Um the American convention is Month/Day/Year. So "in order of significance to the listener, leaving out the parts that are implied/unimportant" doesn't work. If the year is important then it's in the wrong place. Assuming that if the year matters nothing else does is not a safe assumption. "When you were born?" First you should tell me roughly how old you are, then when I should send you the birthday card. "When was V-J Day?" again the year is most important, but the month and date are as well.
The best convention is Year/Month/Day. It matches the idea of ordering them in terms of importance (decreasing significance) and is the best for sorting.
For what I know if you randomize, you don't necessarily know that you end up with a dictionary word, right? So you see if your randomly generated password looks like a dictionary word and you discard it. Where's that "minus" sign in all this math?
In the noise. Negligible second-order effect. Not worth even accounting for. Around ten orders of magnitude smaller than the total search space. Probably worth eye-balling your randomly generated password just to be safe, but probably not worth designing the password gen algorithm to detect it.
If so, how did you do this?
It's a simple process.
Step one: Lie.
I might be more inclined to believe the claim if "give a crap about communicating" didn't fly out the window as soon as the medium was the written word. Not that there's anything wrong with being lax about communication in /. posts, but if you treat casual writing that way I'm not about to believe casual conversation is not treated similarly and suddenly it's 100% focus on clear communication (especially since conversation is generally a more forgiving medium which is why most people are *more* lax).
Um, the latter, definitely. Because it would be more successful. Targeting those who are least likely to be convinced by your viewpoint is going to net you the least converts.
Haha, no. Not everything is a heat engine. You need to look up what that means again.
But if you insist on maintaining this completely incorrect view, please answer: How can the earth act as a cold sink for the 3K CMBR if such is required for heat energy to be converted into light, and how exactly does the fusion reaction going on at the temperature and pressures present in the core of a star depend on it being colder somewhere else? Or how wood in the center of a forest fire still burns even though everything around it is just as hot?
But now Iran did it, so we have to attack them.... omg..
Iran has always been responsible for 9/11. Stop spreading your crimethink.
Without the grenade-pause bug? That'd be very impressive actually.
Not a single damn actor in that movie did well. After watching the prequels I had to go peruse some of Natalie Portman's other films. Because I had thought she was a good actor, but was starting to doubt it. Turns out that yes, indeed, she has acting chops. But there's only so much an actor can do with a terrible script, nothing but a green screen to act against, and a director who isn't happy until the actor does exactly what he wants and what he wants is retarded.
Same with Ewan McGregor. To a lesser extent Liam Neeson, Samuel Jackson, and Christopher Lee, but that's because they had less screentime to erase memories of other things they've done.
So, I don't recall seeing Hayden Christiansen in anything else, but my default assumption is that he can probably act but looked horrible in those movies just like everyone else did.
Movies = entertainment. Science = not entertainment.
Movies = art (yes even crappy ones that's why the phrase 'crappy artwork' exists)
And yes, other posters may have assumed you weren't good enough to be an artist.
I'm saying something much worse about you: That you're too myopic to appreciate the value of art.
And since you did basically suggest that anyone trying to learn a skill involving "entertainment" should do something useful like learn calculus instead, this isn't a baseless assumption.
Casting everyone who replied as saying the exact opposite -- that you're worthless if you're not an artist -- just further reinforces this implication.
He watched some film student sit at a Mac cutting shit together in Final Cut Pro.
Who are you talking about?
"He" is the film student who was learning about editing by doing it.
He abandoned it when Einstein discovered that time is relative.
Ha ha?
Watches are more important than ever in a Relativistic universe, since to accurately track time in your reference frame you need a clock in your reference frame. Okay technically it could be calculated using a reference clock and intimate knowledge of your frame's relationship to the frame the reference clock is in but owning a watch is easier!
Those femtoseconds add up, eventually!
Yeah, an 11 gallon drum of crud and a dropper full of water -- a significantly higher concentration of water.
P.S. don't mistake "better" for "good". :)
The goal wasn't to make the prequels not suck. He's learning about editing film, and used the prequels as a medium to do so (and probably make a great test case to show both the potential and limitations of post-production editing).
Calculus and science are great, but I don't think everyone should do that and nobody should do art. Once you accept that the entire concept of movies aren't pointless, then learning about editing is a useful skill.
Without Being Prevented From Doing So By Lucas
would have been the name of the Star Wars movie about an alternate reality where the prequels were substantially better.
Meh. The Republican primaries are all about appealing to the core Republicans, since they're the ones you have to make happy to win the nomination.
Whoever comes out of the primaries is going to be in for a shock if they keep beating the drums of war in the run-up to the general election.
But I'm betting it'll be Romney and he's smarter than that.
Yeah, they should have ditched the stupid metaphor that implies we need to be preparing for war right now (if it was 10 minutes 'til midnight on New Year's Eve, you'd be breaking out the champagne glasses if they weren't out already).
Instead let's just use a simple qualitative scale with no physical metaphor at all.
Like right now we're at "HOLY FUCK WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!", which means there's only a small chance for war.
OK- OK- so we have no Star Trek like teleportation yet... we also don't have space-trains yet either.
But a space train could theoretically be built with things that exist today, and that's what they mean.
A space elevator could not be built with things that exist today. It requires hypothetical advancements in material technology to create something that could be used to build a space elevator.
A teleporter is even farther out there.
Kinda obvious, right? I mean you wouldn't have said that an iPad could not be made using existing technology because iPads didn't already exist, right? It would imply that the iPad could never be built.
Where have you been for the last 5 weeks? Didn't you get the tweet? The term "NP-hard" has been superseded by "NP-cloud-based-social-media-hipster". Keep up!
An "NP-cloud-based-social-media-hipster" would be proof that P=NP, since you're saying this cloud-based-social-media-hipster is in NP(Non-Pretentious), when it has already been proven that all hipsters are in P.
Yes but the point is it's a valid comparison. What you care about as the purchaser of a heater is how much it is going to cost you in electricity for a given amount of heating. You, the customer, don't give a fuck about the 'cost' in lost heat from the outside. Other than if you become curios as to whether the heat pump's claimed efficiency (which is correct for what it is talking about) is also claiming a violation of the 1st law in which case the answer is no.
Well that's what I said isn't it.
What you said was to suggest it could be violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics, so no.
"Turning heat into light at high efficiency should not be sustainable."
It's sustainable only as long as there is sufficient energy input into the system. So as long as something else is heating the environment -- a heater, or the sun -- it is sustainable. That's not a problem for the 2nd law. So probably not what you meant.
What's interesting here is that while you can create a heat engine that extracts work from heat transfer from a hot bath to a cold bath, I've never seen a case where the energy being sent to the cold bath is highly organized (light) as opposed to heat. I'm not sure that is possible. So in this case what is the cold bath?
This is not a heat engine. There need not be a cold bath.
Ordinary objects convert heat energy into light energy constantly at a rate proportional to their temperature. Not the temperature delta relative to somewhere else. Temperature. Even at only a few degrees above absolute zero, objects emit (tiny amounts of low frequency) light.
This LED isn't a blackbody effect, but the point is that converting heat energy into light without a 'cold sink' is not a fundamental problem for the 2nd law.