The previous 1.5-2 ppm peaks would be just as invisible as the current one.
Even more so, the chart seems to have less high frequency noise the further back in time it goes. I wonder why. My initial guess is diffusion of stuff trapped in the ice.
You don't use a cone. It's probably trapped in hydrates that can be "processed" to get the methane out all at once instead of letting it escape gradually and try to collect it.
I've had enough of software folks looking for requirements and now good "bug reports". Users/Customers do not have requirements they have PROBLEMS. It is up to the developers to create tools that solve those problems. The user doesn't even know what's possible or easy or hard to implement, so they can't tell you what the requirements are. Same for bugs. The user can't tell you details about which internal parts of your code have a bug, they tell you (at best) what they were doing when something happened. They don't know a crash from accidentally closing a dialog box. The solution - especially for internally developed software - is to go visit the users and have a conversation. Talk to them. Understand how they view your software and you can then understand their explanation of what it did wrong. This will also give you insight into how to make it better. Stop expecting detailed bug reports and start understanding users.
The gigantic dynamo, which has taken researchers ten years to build, 'will generate a self-sustaining electromagnetic field that can be poked, prodded and coaxed for clues about Earth's dynamo, which is generated by the movement of liquid iron in the outer core.'
They probably know this physical model will exhibit a magnetic field because they did a FEA and CFD simulations of the thing. So why then did it have to be built?
Disclaimer: I do experimental searches for dark matter for a living
So if the "expected galactic rotation curve" is based on Keplers laws then we have a problem. My own calculations do not support a decline in velocity with radius based on simple newtonian gravity. Every time I google the topic Keplers laws come up, which simply do not apply to stars in a galaxy. Is this reliance on Kepler real, or does everyone dumb it down by referencing something we all learned in first year physics?
You know just about any compression algorithm will squash the hell out of a file containing only 4 letters. Zip them for archiving. And those 100GB files will fit on a small hard drive and can be thrown out once the pieces are all put together.
To be clear, the problem is this. The sequencing (cheap now) produces a lot of strips of a few DNA elements. They are overlapping, and its unknown from which position they are from.
So the difficulty is to arrange those strips to reproduce the original DNA sequence. It is a NP-hard problem, no wonder Moore's law doesn't outrun that!
I thought that was a solved problem. I don't see it as being too difficult. Certainly not NP-hard. If I can solve this problem, how do I cash in on it?
Pilots world wide are required to speak english. How do drones talk to ATC? Also, when one of these crashes they won't be able to blame the pilot so we'll have court battles between the companies who own/operate them and the manufacturer unless these are the same, in which case it's clear who to sue.
So with this type of threat, can we now spend the effort to develop a universal flu vaccine and eradicate the disease rather than continuously pump money into annual vaccines? This will immunize the populace against all variants, as well as this threat and many others derived from existing flu strains.
.Just fork your own version of GNOME then. Given the number of complainers about the direction GNOME is going, I'm surprised no slashdot stories covering GNOME forks have surfaced.
You know this discussion is going on under a slashdot story covering a new GNOME shell replacement from Linux Mint right?
Why do they call a swan a swan, but a black one is call a "black swan"? Because the definition of "swan" is a white bird. One that happens to be black is so rare that it warrants the exceptional name "black swan". Now have you seen the striped, blue, and yellow varieties that also exist?
You seem to be forgetting about SIMD and vectorization.
Dot product or vector multiply-add IS an SIMD instruction. I chose it because it does the most FLOPs of any instruction I'm aware of. If it can retire 2 of those per cycle then the FPU will have the claimed performance. Then I questioned the memory performance. And after recalling my own efforts to optimize the cache behavior of matrix operations I'm convinced they can do it with not too much cache per core.
there are lots of useful computations that are more flops-intensive (relative to memory footprint) than dot-products. matmul, fft, almost anything montecarlo, etc.
matmul IS dot products. FFT is dot products too. Most anything DSP is dot products. I chose dot product because it is the instruction that does the most floating point operations.
That's not how rights work. This would just mean the government couldn't restrict internet access without due process.
That doesn't make access an inalienable right. Let's use language that makes sense. For example, if "speech" includes all forms of communication, then the internet is covered. IMHO this would be the intent of what's already there. If someone wishes to interpret "speech" as verbal communication, they have an agenda.
You're an idiot.... The US constitution was important because it put YOUR RIGHTS in simple English on a sheet of paper.
Nope. The constitution doesn't say much directly about your rights. It says what the government can and can not do. An example would be "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." While it does indicate the people have a right, the purpose is to limit what the government can do. AFAIK it is impossible for a citizen or business to violate the constitution - that's why bars can have "ladies night" and not be charges with discrimination. Your right to discriminate is not spelled out in the constitution, only the governments requirement NOT to discriminate.
IMHO the internet should not be mentioned explicitly. At most, the first amendment might be extended to include electronic communications. Plain and simple language is important, and specifics should be avoided. In fact, speech and things should not be taken as literal "speaking", but communication - in that case, the internet is already covered.
The patent dates to 1998, so I seriously doubt that there's prior art.
I've got a http://www.ultradatasystems.com/products/ultraroadwhiz.html>Road Whiz that dates to the 1990's if I'm not mistaken. It's cool, you enter your location manually - typically by state, highway, and mile marker - and then what you're looking for, and it displays what's coming up at which exits for the next 20 miles or so. OK, it *was* cool, but the only thing Apple has done is move the database onto the internet. BIG FUCKING DEAL APPLE. Why is everything "new" when it involves the internet?
A 50 core chip at 1GHz is going to need to perform 20 double precision floating point ops per cycle per core to achieve 1Tflop performance. OK, so 1.2GHz cuts that down to 16flops/clock. Since when can anything Intel Architecture achieve that many flops per cycle? Two 4-element dot products is only 14 flops. I suppose if they did two vector-scaler multiply-adds that would get 16 flops per cycle. So I just answered my own question. But can they really keep the FP unit running continuously at that rate? On all 50 cores?
Well if I had the money he does I would do the same thing. It's not like I'm going to miss paying my bills because I'm dicking around on some old project.
Clearly Carmack gets personal satisfaction from these code releases - and I can't blame him, it's a very good thing. The time he's going to spend on this one patent workaround is relatively small for the amount of satisfaction he'll get from doing it. I do volunteer stuff at my own expense - time is the main cost - and it's more rewarding than my job and many of the things I would otherwise do on my personal time. I hope you can find the time to volunteer for something one of these days - it's worth it. Oh, crap I'm replying to an AC....
If they distribute the software as source code, can it still infringe? Lets not restrict this to id software, they have a license for this patent. But if software is distributed as source, one could claim it's a description of an algorithm much like the text of a patent application is a description of the algorithm ("invention"). Could people distributing software in source form then not have to worry? The infringing activity would then be left to those who compile and run the software. It's just a question...
Slashdot Mirror
Even more so, the chart seems to have less high frequency noise the further back in time it goes. I wonder why. My initial guess is diffusion of stuff trapped in the ice.
You don't use a cone. It's probably trapped in hydrates that can be "processed" to get the methane out all at once instead of letting it escape gradually and try to collect it.
You won't need a strobe light. Just make sure everyone brings one of these things. The cascade of flashes will blind everyone ;-)
I've had enough of software folks looking for requirements and now good "bug reports". Users/Customers do not have requirements they have PROBLEMS. It is up to the developers to create tools that solve those problems. The user doesn't even know what's possible or easy or hard to implement, so they can't tell you what the requirements are. Same for bugs. The user can't tell you details about which internal parts of your code have a bug, they tell you (at best) what they were doing when something happened. They don't know a crash from accidentally closing a dialog box. The solution - especially for internally developed software - is to go visit the users and have a conversation. Talk to them. Understand how they view your software and you can then understand their explanation of what it did wrong. This will also give you insight into how to make it better. Stop expecting detailed bug reports and start understanding users.
When SUN came to the one of the trade shows in Detroit and claimed a car was just "a browser on wheels".
They probably know this physical model will exhibit a magnetic field because they did a FEA and CFD simulations of the thing. So why then did it have to be built?
So if the "expected galactic rotation curve" is based on Keplers laws then we have a problem. My own calculations do not support a decline in velocity with radius based on simple newtonian gravity. Every time I google the topic Keplers laws come up, which simply do not apply to stars in a galaxy. Is this reliance on Kepler real, or does everyone dumb it down by referencing something we all learned in first year physics?
You know just about any compression algorithm will squash the hell out of a file containing only 4 letters. Zip them for archiving. And those 100GB files will fit on a small hard drive and can be thrown out once the pieces are all put together.
I thought that was a solved problem. I don't see it as being too difficult. Certainly not NP-hard. If I can solve this problem, how do I cash in on it?
Sure, it's like pay-per-view for everything.
Is this a bot posting in response to the word "fungible"?
Pilots world wide are required to speak english. How do drones talk to ATC? Also, when one of these crashes they won't be able to blame the pilot so we'll have court battles between the companies who own/operate them and the manufacturer unless these are the same, in which case it's clear who to sue.
So with this type of threat, can we now spend the effort to develop a universal flu vaccine and eradicate the disease rather than continuously pump money into annual vaccines? This will immunize the populace against all variants, as well as this threat and many others derived from existing flu strains.
You know this discussion is going on under a slashdot story covering a new GNOME shell replacement from Linux Mint right?
Why do they call a swan a swan, but a black one is call a "black swan"? Because the definition of "swan" is a white bird. One that happens to be black is so rare that it warrants the exceptional name "black swan". Now have you seen the striped, blue, and yellow varieties that also exist?
Dot product or vector multiply-add IS an SIMD instruction. I chose it because it does the most FLOPs of any instruction I'm aware of. If it can retire 2 of those per cycle then the FPU will have the claimed performance. Then I questioned the memory performance. And after recalling my own efforts to optimize the cache behavior of matrix operations I'm convinced they can do it with not too much cache per core.
matmul IS dot products. FFT is dot products too. Most anything DSP is dot products. I chose dot product because it is the instruction that does the most floating point operations.
PyPy implements Python in Python. Apparently it's a great way to test new features before undertaking an implementation in the C interpreter.
That doesn't make access an inalienable right. Let's use language that makes sense. For example, if "speech" includes all forms of communication, then the internet is covered. IMHO this would be the intent of what's already there. If someone wishes to interpret "speech" as verbal communication, they have an agenda.
Nope. The constitution doesn't say much directly about your rights. It says what the government can and can not do. An example would be "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." While it does indicate the people have a right, the purpose is to limit what the government can do. AFAIK it is impossible for a citizen or business to violate the constitution - that's why bars can have "ladies night" and not be charges with discrimination. Your right to discriminate is not spelled out in the constitution, only the governments requirement NOT to discriminate.
IMHO the internet should not be mentioned explicitly. At most, the first amendment might be extended to include electronic communications. Plain and simple language is important, and specifics should be avoided. In fact, speech and things should not be taken as literal "speaking", but communication - in that case, the internet is already covered.
ROAD WHIZ
I've got a http://www.ultradatasystems.com/products/ultraroadwhiz.html>Road Whiz that dates to the 1990's if I'm not mistaken. It's cool, you enter your location manually - typically by state, highway, and mile marker - and then what you're looking for, and it displays what's coming up at which exits for the next 20 miles or so. OK, it *was* cool, but the only thing Apple has done is move the database onto the internet. BIG FUCKING DEAL APPLE. Why is everything "new" when it involves the internet?
A 50 core chip at 1GHz is going to need to perform 20 double precision floating point ops per cycle per core to achieve 1Tflop performance. OK, so 1.2GHz cuts that down to 16flops/clock. Since when can anything Intel Architecture achieve that many flops per cycle? Two 4-element dot products is only 14 flops. I suppose if they did two vector-scaler multiply-adds that would get 16 flops per cycle. So I just answered my own question. But can they really keep the FP unit running continuously at that rate? On all 50 cores?
Clearly Carmack gets personal satisfaction from these code releases - and I can't blame him, it's a very good thing. The time he's going to spend on this one patent workaround is relatively small for the amount of satisfaction he'll get from doing it. I do volunteer stuff at my own expense - time is the main cost - and it's more rewarding than my job and many of the things I would otherwise do on my personal time. I hope you can find the time to volunteer for something one of these days - it's worth it. Oh, crap I'm replying to an AC....
If they distribute the software as source code, can it still infringe? Lets not restrict this to id software, they have a license for this patent. But if software is distributed as source, one could claim it's a description of an algorithm much like the text of a patent application is a description of the algorithm ("invention"). Could people distributing software in source form then not have to worry? The infringing activity would then be left to those who compile and run the software. It's just a question...