Sorry to hear that, but yeah, exactly, the laptop is just some $$ and a trip to the store. It's the data that you really care about. So returning the data is like, the thief got what he wanted, but the thing he doesn't care about and you do you get back. Still le suck, but still strangely considerate.
Heh. Now I'm imagining him giving a presentation to an audience of beakers, one full of powdered sulfur, another with a 1-molar HCL solution, and so on.
And oh, Mr. Sulfur is very offended by the salacious content in this presentation! The good Professor won't be getting tenure at Schizo U.!
It's equiv to getting your sons bloody shirt back from the killer, after your son's been murdered. You just stand there thinking, WTF is WRONG with you?
No, it's actually the complete opposite. It'd be like having your son kidnapped, but then he's returned unharmed only missing his expensive shirt.*
Losing your material possession in the form of the laptop isn't cool, but it's ultimately just an annoyance.
It's the ten years of data that is irreplaceable. It's losing that data that would make the loss of the laptop heartbreaking. Getting it back means the thing you actually care about was returned.**
* Which, granted, would still be a WTF moment, just a different kind.
** And hopefully teaching you the lesson to back the things you care about. Which gives me an idea for my son...
Uh, that doesn't sound all that creepy to me. Yeah, someone who stole my laptop looked at its contents. Yeah it's an invasion of privacy, but you have to assume it happened regardless. Getting the data back at that point is pure positive IMO.
To make it more creepy to get your data back, it'd have to be something like all your pr0n, only sorted by type and quality or with photoshopped annotations. Or your non-pr0n data like your documents but with pr0n inserted into them. That'd be both creepy and potentially devastating... "Oh good I got my data back just in time for my presentation to the reagents tomorrow!"
Fox appeals to a balanced audience while the others heavily favor liberal viewership.
Seems to go perfectly with the other study: Fox News is watched by diverse audience, and that audience is as a consequence of watching more poorly informed than others of the same demographics who do not watch Fox.
I take issue with assumption that balanced viewership means balanced reporting (Howard Stern's audience was famously split between those who loved and hated him, but you wouldn't say Howard was "balanced" on the issue of Howard).
But that's not really the point. Point is: Left, right, center... Who cares... Whatever their angle, Fox News misleads their viewers in support of it.
So McCain likely wasn't eligible to be President, or might have been
If McCain had won, I suspect that a group of the same size would exist as a "birthers".
Maybe, and it'd be just as dumb. McCain's parents were citizens, so it doesn't matter where he was born. Obama was born in Hawaii, so it doesn't matter if his parents were citizens.
This wasn't Euler's "notation". It's the current proof as given in Calculus books for Euler's Formula, which is still a formally-correct equation using equals in a formal sense. Look it up, because you obviously have no idea what I'm talking about, or you're talking about for that matter.
FFS, I don't care that your understanding of how limits work means you think it must be "informal". You're wrong, and need to learn. According to you, the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, which depends on taking smaller and smaller pieces of a function to the limit of infinitely small, is wrong to formally use "equals" in describing the relationship between a function's integral and its anti-derivative. Which means you're clueless about the basis of calculus (which I guessed because you repeatedly avoiding even addressing the issue of the FToC). So it's pretty hilarious to hear you saying I should try going beyond intro. I have, and this concept remains important and is never contradicted. You haven't, and need to go back to Calc I, where they'll teach you more about limits than what you learned in pre-calc.
No, you're not, it's a bad idea all around. The worst part is, a lot of Home Owner's Associations (*spit*) actually won't let you install roofs that aren't black shingles. Now there are some cases where say your highly reflective roof is reflecting late afternoon sunlight right into your neighbor's windows which could be a legitimate issue, but many of them have banned them (or anything else odd, like mostly-blackish solar panels) for aesthetic reasons.
However there's a pretty easy way to mostly fix this issue without getting rid of your existing roof (or pissing off the HOA if you're unlucky enough to have one; thankfully I'm not): Radiant barriers. Installed on the underside of the roof, it still serves the same function and prevents the energy absorbed from the sun from being radiated into your attic. So your shingles will end up a little hotter, but your cooling bill goes way down.
Also part of the reason of the panic about CO2 is the heat trapping it helps create. So while you may be helping yourself you may be making the overall problem worse. So now instead of absorbing the heat you are reflecting it back out to be absorbed somewhere else.
It doesn't make the problem worse; it can't because there is no additional energy in the system. It will lessen it some, because some of the energy reflected off the roof will not be absorbed by the atmosphere and will escape. So the total energy in the atmosphere will be less.
However, it is not in any way a solution for having that energy hit the earth in the first place, or be contained by atmospheric CO2.
Reflective roofing helps by reducing the amount of energy needed for air conditioning. Which is nothing to scoff at, and (if in the likely case your energy comes from fossil fuels) indirectly attacks global warming.
Do a scientific study and you'll find that those others are just as bad as, if not worse than Fox News.
Someone did a study, and found that viewers of Fox News were much more likely to believe things that were factually false independent of the viewers' education level, political alignment, or other media consumed.
All media outlets slant, but there is one that goes above and beyond when it comes to misleading viewers.
Sorry if that goes against your "everything is the same so distinguishing just reveals bias" (aka the "yeah well everyone does it") ideology.
It's hardly surprising or noteworthy that a hundred-ton train moving at 200 mph has more kinetic energy than a particle accelerator, because the accelerator manipulates extremely small masses and doesn't rely on kinetic energy to propel them. As far as I know the only kinetic energy involved is that of the tiny masses moving under magnetic propulsion and then crashing into things (or each other) at really high speed. So why is the above statement relevant or interesting in the least?
Um, yeah, that 15 TeV you keep hearing about wrt the LHC is the kinetic energy at impact (i.e. twice the energy of a single particle). Total beam kinetic energy is much higher. Of course they don't use another form of kinetic energy to propel the particles, but really trains don't either, they're using st. It's a perfectly legitimate comparison to compare the kinetic energy of a train to the kinetic energy of the LHC beams.
The 'Gravity tractor' method requires just as much energy as pushing the asteroid, but you need LOTS of mass to make it work.
If you detect it early enough, then you really don't. A ton or two would be more than sufficient, and is easily liftable. I prefer this method if at all possible because it avoids all the problems of impactors, which also include having to make sure you hit it dead-on in the direction you want with no tangential deflection and at the center of mass.
The actual missions to deflect asteroids are important, and I'm glad people are thinking about them (and the Russians iirc planning on testing them in the next decade or so), but I really want as much effort as possible on detection. Regardless of what kind of mission we are planning, early detection is key. And the earlier we detect, the more options we will have and the better chances we will have.
It has to do with infinity being a proper subset of infinity. The 1:1 mapping doesn't matter so much - technically you might empty the second container (if you're pulling ping pong balls out at random you could very well pull 1, 2, 3 and so on in order) but it's unlikely.
I see, it makes sense looking at it from a set theory perspective. In one case, you're subtracting set of positive integers from the set of positive integers. In the other you're subtracting an infinitely large set of random positive integers from the set of positive integers.
Yeah, well, -Werror means I notice the warning when I'm running a large parallel make and a hundred files go flying by. With -Werror, if the link completes I'm off to the races without worrying if there was a warning I missed. Works for me.
Carmack likely would have stuck with what he was familiar with unless he saw a need. Having seen code for Quake and Quake3, I am quite sure that they didn't avoid C++ because they were worried about their code being hard to read. Remember the inverse-square-root function that used integer bit manipulation of floating point values which nobody else could figure out how it actually worked until years later?:)
Well, I'm not sure this argument can be settled, but I don't see how you can say that dropping the limit operator from math is anything but informal shorthand.
Because in cases of convergence you can mathematically prove that the value of the limit is in fact the sum at the limit, and instead of talking only of a limit use the infinite sequence itself in place of the sum, and vice versa. If it doesn't converge, then the answer is infinity, and then you can only talk about approaching that infinity. However an infinite number of additions that sum up to 2, or cos(x), can be spoken of without the limit.
The way for this non-argument to be settled is for you to pick up a Calculus book so you can understand how this is actualy done, formally. Look up the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, Taylor Series and other infinite series, Euler's Formula, and other proven aspects of mathematics that depend on convergent limits. Look how it is proven that e^(i*x) = cos(x) + i*sin(x). That thing you didn't like with how I wrote the Taylor Series? Integral to the proof, and I assure you Euler's proof was quite formal.
You cannot take the sum of an infinite series. The "sum of the Taylor series" is a nonsense statement. You're either using shorthand for what's really true (which is fine if the long form is understood), or you're just flat wrong. (Much like pretending "infinity" is a number: handy shorthand, but formally nonsense.)
Saying that the sum of the Taylor Series for sin(x) is equal to sin(x) is neither nonsense nor a shorthand for something that isn't precisely "equals" in a formal sense. It's is in fact formal mathematical truth, using the "=" sign as you'll see in any calculus book when it says "sin(x) = x - (x^3)/3! + (x^5)/5! - (x^7)/7! +...". Not "the limit of the sum from 1 to n as n approaches infinity", but literally that infinite series is equivalent to the sine function. You can even do normal algebra, like dividing one side by x to say "sin(x)/x = 1 - (x^2)/3! +...", or grouping terms of this series with terms of another infinite series, like for cos(x), which is how things like Euler's Formula were proven. It's how calculus works.
I bolded what you said about infinity not being a number because it's highly relevant and you're 100% right. Infinity is not a number, and it's only used as one as a shorthand for situations where there actually is no number because of discontinuities or divergence. These are the situations where you can only speak of approaching the limit. 1/x at x=0 is not equal to infinity. However when there is an actual answer, like the sum of 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 +..., which equals 2, the fact that it takes an infinite number of steps to get there isn't necessarily a problem, if you don't have to actually perform them to know what the answer would be. You don't have to actually add up infinitely many tiny strips under a curve every time to know that the area is equal to the anti-derivative plus a constant, even though that's how you prove that this is true.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry to hear that, but yeah, exactly, the laptop is just some $$ and a trip to the store. It's the data that you really care about. So returning the data is like, the thief got what he wanted, but the thing he doesn't care about and you do you get back. Still le suck, but still strangely considerate.
Wish all thieves were so kind. :)
Heh. Now I'm imagining him giving a presentation to an audience of beakers, one full of powdered sulfur, another with a 1-molar HCL solution, and so on.
And oh, Mr. Sulfur is very offended by the salacious content in this presentation! The good Professor won't be getting tenure at Schizo U.!
It's equiv to getting your sons bloody shirt back from the killer, after your son's been murdered.
You just stand there thinking, WTF is WRONG with you?
No, it's actually the complete opposite. It'd be like having your son kidnapped, but then he's returned unharmed only missing his expensive shirt.*
Losing your material possession in the form of the laptop isn't cool, but it's ultimately just an annoyance.
It's the ten years of data that is irreplaceable. It's losing that data that would make the loss of the laptop heartbreaking. Getting it back means the thing you actually care about was returned.**
* Which, granted, would still be a WTF moment, just a different kind.
** And hopefully teaching you the lesson to back the things you care about. Which gives me an idea for my son...
Uh, that doesn't sound all that creepy to me. Yeah, someone who stole my laptop looked at its contents. Yeah it's an invasion of privacy, but you have to assume it happened regardless. Getting the data back at that point is pure positive IMO.
To make it more creepy to get your data back, it'd have to be something like all your pr0n, only sorted by type and quality or with photoshopped annotations. Or your non-pr0n data like your documents but with pr0n inserted into them. That'd be both creepy and potentially devastating... "Oh good I got my data back just in time for my presentation to the reagents tomorrow!"
How about this study?
Fox appeals to a balanced audience while the others heavily favor liberal viewership.
Seems to go perfectly with the other study: Fox News is watched by diverse audience, and that audience is as a consequence of watching more poorly informed than others of the same demographics who do not watch Fox.
I take issue with assumption that balanced viewership means balanced reporting (Howard Stern's audience was famously split between those who loved and hated him, but you wouldn't say Howard was "balanced" on the issue of Howard).
But that's not really the point. Point is: Left, right, center... Who cares... Whatever their angle, Fox News misleads their viewers in support of it.
Chiropractic health professionals either deal with the skeletal system or with bullshit.
Well where can I find the latter? Because my skeleton is just fine, but I'm dealing with some serious bullshit issues!
It's true, I'm pretty stupid, and my head especially so. Maybe if I wasn't, I could overcome your resistance to education.
So McCain likely wasn't eligible to be President, or might have been
If McCain had won, I suspect that a group of the same size would exist as a "birthers".
Maybe, and it'd be just as dumb. McCain's parents were citizens, so it doesn't matter where he was born. Obama was born in Hawaii, so it doesn't matter if his parents were citizens.
This wasn't Euler's "notation". It's the current proof as given in Calculus books for Euler's Formula, which is still a formally-correct equation using equals in a formal sense. Look it up, because you obviously have no idea what I'm talking about, or you're talking about for that matter.
FFS, I don't care that your understanding of how limits work means you think it must be "informal". You're wrong, and need to learn. According to you, the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, which depends on taking smaller and smaller pieces of a function to the limit of infinitely small, is wrong to formally use "equals" in describing the relationship between a function's integral and its anti-derivative. Which means you're clueless about the basis of calculus (which I guessed because you repeatedly avoiding even addressing the issue of the FToC). So it's pretty hilarious to hear you saying I should try going beyond intro. I have, and this concept remains important and is never contradicted. You haven't, and need to go back to Calc I, where they'll teach you more about limits than what you learned in pre-calc.
No, you're not, it's a bad idea all around. The worst part is, a lot of Home Owner's Associations (*spit*) actually won't let you install roofs that aren't black shingles. Now there are some cases where say your highly reflective roof is reflecting late afternoon sunlight right into your neighbor's windows which could be a legitimate issue, but many of them have banned them (or anything else odd, like mostly-blackish solar panels) for aesthetic reasons.
However there's a pretty easy way to mostly fix this issue without getting rid of your existing roof (or pissing off the HOA if you're unlucky enough to have one; thankfully I'm not): Radiant barriers. Installed on the underside of the roof, it still serves the same function and prevents the energy absorbed from the sun from being radiated into your attic. So your shingles will end up a little hotter, but your cooling bill goes way down.
Also part of the reason of the panic about CO2 is the heat trapping it helps create. So while you may be helping yourself you may be making the overall problem worse. So now instead of absorbing the heat you are reflecting it back out to be absorbed somewhere else.
It doesn't make the problem worse; it can't because there is no additional energy in the system. It will lessen it some, because some of the energy reflected off the roof will not be absorbed by the atmosphere and will escape. So the total energy in the atmosphere will be less.
However, it is not in any way a solution for having that energy hit the earth in the first place, or be contained by atmospheric CO2.
Reflective roofing helps by reducing the amount of energy needed for air conditioning. Which is nothing to scoff at, and (if in the likely case your energy comes from fossil fuels) indirectly attacks global warming.
For some reason this reminds me of the Onion headline: "Black Man Given Worst Job In Country".
Do a scientific study and you'll find that those others are just as bad as, if not worse than Fox News.
Someone did a study, and found that viewers of Fox News were much more likely to believe things that were factually false independent of the viewers' education level, political alignment, or other media consumed.
All media outlets slant, but there is one that goes above and beyond when it comes to misleading viewers.
Sorry if that goes against your "everything is the same so distinguishing just reveals bias" (aka the "yeah well everyone does it") ideology.
Slashdot: where everybody who disagrees with you is a shill. Because companies pour thousands of dollars on arguing with a half dozen slashdotters.
Yes, they do! And see a many-fold return on their investment as many independent analysis show!
(Seriously, shut the fuck up, I have a good thing going here alright?)
Just qualify it with "known" and be done with it, for pete's sake.
It's hardly surprising or noteworthy that a hundred-ton train moving at 200 mph has more kinetic energy than a particle accelerator, because the accelerator manipulates extremely small masses and doesn't rely on kinetic energy to propel them. As far as I know the only kinetic energy involved is that of the tiny masses moving under magnetic propulsion and then crashing into things (or each other) at really high speed. So why is the above statement relevant or interesting in the least?
Um, yeah, that 15 TeV you keep hearing about wrt the LHC is the kinetic energy at impact (i.e. twice the energy of a single particle). Total beam kinetic energy is much higher. Of course they don't use another form of kinetic energy to propel the particles, but really trains don't either, they're using st. It's a perfectly legitimate comparison to compare the kinetic energy of a train to the kinetic energy of the LHC beams.
Relevant or interesting? Sheesh, I don't know.
Well, some women made a tunnel 62km in length, so it's good to see the men stepping up.
The 'Gravity tractor' method requires just as much energy as pushing the asteroid, but you need LOTS of mass to make it work.
If you detect it early enough, then you really don't. A ton or two would be more than sufficient, and is easily liftable. I prefer this method if at all possible because it avoids all the problems of impactors, which also include having to make sure you hit it dead-on in the direction you want with no tangential deflection and at the center of mass.
The actual missions to deflect asteroids are important, and I'm glad people are thinking about them (and the Russians iirc planning on testing them in the next decade or so), but I really want as much effort as possible on detection. Regardless of what kind of mission we are planning, early detection is key. And the earlier we detect, the more options we will have and the better chances we will have.
It has to do with infinity being a proper subset of infinity. The 1:1 mapping doesn't matter so much - technically you might empty the second container (if you're pulling ping pong balls out at random you could very well pull 1, 2, 3 and so on in order) but it's unlikely.
I see, it makes sense looking at it from a set theory perspective. In one case, you're subtracting set of positive integers from the set of positive integers. In the other you're subtracting an infinitely large set of random positive integers from the set of positive integers.
Yeah, well, -Werror means I notice the warning when I'm running a large parallel make and a hundred files go flying by. With -Werror, if the link completes I'm off to the races without worrying if there was a warning I missed. Works for me.
Yeah, even then, though to a lesser extent.
Carmack likely would have stuck with what he was familiar with unless he saw a need. Having seen code for Quake and Quake3, I am quite sure that they didn't avoid C++ because they were worried about their code being hard to read. Remember the inverse-square-root function that used integer bit manipulation of floating point values which nobody else could figure out how it actually worked until years later? :)
Well, I'm not sure this argument can be settled, but I don't see how you can say that dropping the limit operator from math is anything but informal shorthand.
Because in cases of convergence you can mathematically prove that the value of the limit is in fact the sum at the limit, and instead of talking only of a limit use the infinite sequence itself in place of the sum, and vice versa. If it doesn't converge, then the answer is infinity, and then you can only talk about approaching that infinity. However an infinite number of additions that sum up to 2, or cos(x), can be spoken of without the limit.
The way for this non-argument to be settled is for you to pick up a Calculus book so you can understand how this is actualy done, formally. Look up the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, Taylor Series and other infinite series, Euler's Formula, and other proven aspects of mathematics that depend on convergent limits. Look how it is proven that e^(i*x) = cos(x) + i*sin(x). That thing you didn't like with how I wrote the Taylor Series? Integral to the proof, and I assure you Euler's proof was quite formal.
You cannot take the sum of an infinite series. The "sum of the Taylor series" is a nonsense statement. You're either using shorthand for what's really true (which is fine if the long form is understood), or you're just flat wrong. (Much like pretending "infinity" is a number: handy shorthand, but formally nonsense.)
Saying that the sum of the Taylor Series for sin(x) is equal to sin(x) is neither nonsense nor a shorthand for something that isn't precisely "equals" in a formal sense. It's is in fact formal mathematical truth, using the "=" sign as you'll see in any calculus book when it says "sin(x) = x - (x^3)/3! + (x^5)/5! - (x^7)/7! +...". Not "the limit of the sum from 1 to n as n approaches infinity", but literally that infinite series is equivalent to the sine function. You can even do normal algebra, like dividing one side by x to say "sin(x)/x = 1 - (x^2)/3! +...", or grouping terms of this series with terms of another infinite series, like for cos(x), which is how things like Euler's Formula were proven. It's how calculus works.
I bolded what you said about infinity not being a number because it's highly relevant and you're 100% right. Infinity is not a number, and it's only used as one as a shorthand for situations where there actually is no number because of discontinuities or divergence. These are the situations where you can only speak of approaching the limit. 1/x at x=0 is not equal to infinity. However when there is an actual answer, like the sum of 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ..., which equals 2, the fact that it takes an infinite number of steps to get there isn't necessarily a problem, if you don't have to actually perform them to know what the answer would be. You don't have to actually add up infinitely many tiny strips under a curve every time to know that the area is equal to the anti-derivative plus a constant, even though that's how you prove that this is true.
This almost sounds like a plausible analogy!
No, it's patently ridiculous.
You may be able to do anything at Zombo.com, but at Slashdot.org I apparently can't even link urls right.