Mathematics doesn't "blow up" at singularities -- it's merely a place where every known equation we have that deals with GR gives us an answer of infinity
Puh-lease! "Blow up" is a technical term that means exactly what your "correction" says. If you wanna correct this guy, you're also going to have to do some heavy eraser work on Feynman's writing, since he seems to be a fan of that expression as well.
Anyway, you're either feigning ignorance or you haven't read very much pop-physics (which this is). even authors in PT (physics today) like to talk about equations "blowing up" at certain places.
my excuse is that napster will always be cheaper and who can stop me? who the hell should i try to impress by taking the moral high ground? if it so happens that i still want the CD, and it's worth the price, then i'll also buy the CD, but i won't stop using napster, whatever the price of CD's drops to, thank you very much.
incidentally, i just downloaded 10 metallica songs i never intend to listen to as a way of showing metallica that i think they're number 1, if you know what i mean.
there's a really good LaTeX front end called Scientific Workplace, though it's for windoze and it's not free. but it's really good--infinitely better than any version of word ever. in fact, i'd go so far as to say that it's a pleasure to work with--really! the downside is that i don't actually know LaTeX; want to learn it tho...
sure, it could, if it weren't the case that g has an uncertainty about 1/1000 of G.
Anyway, G is a fundamental constant reguarding one of the 3 fundamental forces in the universe. How is this a "waste"? We are on slashdot right? Not rnc.org!
i never said it wasn't interesting, for cryin' out loud! what kind of words are you putting in my mouth? i was pointing out that it wasn't important in an engineering sense, as the previous poster claimed. the JPL boys aren't going back to their drafting boards over this, OKAY?
you can calculate the gravitational field without knowing either G *or* the mass of the planet. and even now you can make much more precise calculations about energy needed to put a sattelite into geosynchronous orbit "4.215x10^7m" away based on g than G.
your example of star masses is the first one you got right. however, the significance is purely scientific at that point, and has little to do with engineering, as your first post claimed.
i maintain that G has little engineering significance (if it had engineering significance, it wouldn't be so hard to measure!)
actually, for all your equations and explanations, you didn't hit a single situation for which you need G. for *every* case above, if you adjusted the earth's mass by 1/2 and G by 2, say, you'd end up with the exact same accelerations due to gravity everywhere.
that is to say, for sattelite trajectories, gravitational potential energy, you get everything you need to know just by measuring little g right here.
no, but the cosmological constant was measured to be 42 a couple of years back, in whatever units it's usually reporte in (like nanometers of red-shift per megaparsec of space, or something like that). i thought that was pretty cool:)
yes, let's see indeed! i see you GPL'ers chomping at the bit to sue some corporation. last time it was when mr. perens had a few library mods used by the folks at Be. what you don't understand is that while you might be technically right about your license being violated, the circumstances are so mitigating for the corp. (nvidia in this case) that you would never win.
the only way anyone's going to win with GPL is to have a well-documented case of somebody releasing offending code after having been warned *far* in advance. GPL is, by some accounts, utterly unenforceable, so someone had best pick a much better case than this to sue over, lest one finds out that it is.
Maybe I have been missing out, but with a choice between Linux and Mac OS X and BeOs is there even 100000 BeOS users who don't use one of the other OS'S for their primary work?
there must be one other popular OS out there... gosh, what could it be? i'm sure i'll think of it once i stop reading slashdot...
There would then have to be some law against using a.com address for adult material. (I'm sure that won't fly!)
on the contrary, once a.xxx and/or.sex TLD was established, such a law would be virtually inevitable, at least in the U.S. the more open question is whether any sort of world regulation could happen by such methods as international treaties and ISP's refusing to carry content from offending domains. actually, this dosen't sound very appetizing, but something like that will probably happen anyway, eventually...
The law would also have to prohibit domain pointing or meta-refreshing to a.sex or.xxx domain. (Once again, not gonna fly.)
actually, neither of those would be a problem at all for the simple client-side TLD filters we're talking about. the link would simply not work, or the refresh would simply fail.
i'm not against porn by any stretch, but i think this would be a good thing for the health of the internet.
another random thought: i wonder if there are any kids out there who don't have access to the internet because their parents' fear of porn pushed them to not buying a computer...
cheers,
sh_mmer
netscape is irrelevant. (moderate this down)
on
Suck On Skins And UI
·
· Score: 1
The first thing I do after each Windows setup is to go into Appearance and reduce the size of scrollbars and menu bars
or nix the buttons altogether and use keyboard shortcuts. but anyway, that is closer to rudimentary customization than it is to theming. personally, i think hideable toolbars are great, and MSIE has the right ammount of customizability.
i would like to say the following thing: "the mozilla guys should stop screwing around with stuff that dosen't matter and just make something as stable and fast as IE4.01." i would like to say that, but actually, i don't care at all. it is as painful to websurf in unix as it is to use the DOS command prompt. as far as i'm concerned, mozilla is so far behind that i don't expect it to become really relevant ever, ever again.
oh yeah, and one more thing: don't tell me why MS could only do it because they integrated IE with the OS, because i don't really care. as far as i'm concerned, that's a teriffic reason why they should be allowed to do it.
If you pick the Copenhagen interpretation, there is that "observer" figure and the consciousness of that observer seems to mean something.
consciousness is not a necessary quality of the observer. if you shoot an electron at a wall through a strong magnetic field (properly directed) the electron will choose a direction and its spin will certainly have been 'observed' regardless of whether some conscious entity watched it.
in other words, something dosen't have to be conscious to play the role of the observer in QM.
even without the problems of quantum error correction and instruction registers, my copy of MATLAB can factor any 30 bit number in between 0.05 and 0.3 seconds (primes took the longest).
also, the poster hanging on my wall suggests that it will take "hundreds+" of qubits to make a quantum factoring engine. somewhat arbitrary, but perhaps as reasonable a guess as anyone on slashdot is likely to make.
i suppose "unattackable" means there's no good way to prove the theroem, its converse, or anything about existence of such proofs. after all, those are all nice ways of attacking the problem.
just imagine, nobody even knows how to construct any infinite family of prime numbers, though we know that they're infinite! (the sieve of eratosthenes is of course not a construction). mersenne thought he had one, but we now know he didn't.
and this is a problem with some history. all of the simple approaches are likely to have been tried. i remember doing a project on prime numbers in high school, and it was just frustrating how few real results there were out there.
so, all i can do is appeal to history, authority, and personal experience. i can't prove a damn thing. but then again, that was my original point wasn't it:)
whereas fermat may or more likely may not have had a proof to his conjecture, i am fairly certain that you don't have such a proof.
after all, this is one of the four problems that Landau called unattackable. in fact, i almost think it's disingenuous of them to offer the prize for this particular problem. they know they're never gonna part with that cash.
okay, i am looking at the 1999 1040 schedule a and line 24 appears to say:
enter ammount from 1040, line 34. (but nevermind)
but look, let's say that the schedule is a little bit jagged. that's still not the reason that they want the write-off. in other words, if i took a sander to the tax-schedule, the incentive to write off 5B is still there; people who made a lot of money in other places are going to want to take the loss just so they can have that much less income taxed in the top income bracket.
so it's not that i'm disagreeing with your conclusion. it's just that it dosen't follow from your argument, see?
not really. at least not in any normal way. if $10 per year puts you into a new tax bracket, it's at most $10 that's taxed in the higher bracket. IRS may be stupid, but not so stupid as to make the tax schedule jagged, as you seem to think.
hehe, yea, glad u agree... incidentally, i would be interested to know which OS would get higher TCSEC security rating, EROS or openBSD. seems like EROS should, based on what i heard, but i donno if either one got an official one right now...
If they can recover information after eight formats, do you really think that encrypting your HD will stop them?
um, yes.
i could leave it at that, but what makes you think that the ability to read old stuff on a HDD has anything to do with breaking cryptography? of course, it may be the case that NSA can in fact break all of the known ciphers, but their ability to read old drives hardly provides evidence of this.
informative? i can just see some moderator who's never read the onion going "gee, that seems like an important point. i wonder how they let that slip by".
(in case anyone missed the joke, the supposably fictional Zweibel writes a column as the editor of the onion--just follow the link. hence, the only appropriate moderation would have been 'funny')
Slashdot Mirror
Mathematics doesn't "blow up" at singularities -- it's merely a place where every known equation we have that deals with GR gives us an answer of infinity
Puh-lease! "Blow up" is a technical term that means exactly what your "correction" says. If you wanna correct this guy, you're also going to have to do some heavy eraser work on Feynman's writing, since he seems to be a fan of that expression as well.
Anyway, you're either feigning ignorance or you haven't read very much pop-physics (which this is). even authors in PT (physics today) like to talk about equations "blowing up" at certain places.
cheers,
sh_
my excuse is that napster will always be cheaper and who can stop me? who the hell should i try to impress by taking the moral high ground? if it so happens that i still want the CD, and it's worth the price, then i'll also buy the CD, but i won't stop using napster, whatever the price of CD's drops to, thank you very much.
incidentally, i just downloaded 10 metallica songs i never intend to listen to as a way of showing metallica that i think they're number 1, if you know what i mean.
love,
sh_
there's a really good LaTeX front end called Scientific Workplace, though it's for windoze and it's not free. but it's really good--infinitely better than any version of word ever. in fact, i'd go so far as to say that it's a pleasure to work with--really! the downside is that i don't actually know LaTeX; want to learn it tho...
cheers,
sh_
g = (GMe/Re^2). Better G can lead to a better g.
sure, it could, if it weren't the case that g has an uncertainty about 1/1000 of G.
Anyway, G is a fundamental constant reguarding one of the 3 fundamental forces in the universe. How is this a "waste"? We are on slashdot right? Not rnc.org!
i never said it wasn't interesting, for cryin' out loud! what kind of words are you putting in my mouth? i was pointing out that it wasn't important in an engineering sense, as the previous poster claimed. the JPL boys aren't going back to their drafting boards over this, OKAY?
sh_
you can calculate the gravitational field without knowing either G *or* the mass of the planet. and even now you can make much more precise calculations about energy needed to put a sattelite into geosynchronous orbit "4.215x10^7m" away based on g than G.
your example of star masses is the first one you got right. however, the significance is purely scientific at that point, and has little to do with engineering, as your first post claimed.
i maintain that G has little engineering significance (if it had engineering significance, it wouldn't be so hard to measure!)
cheers,
sh_
actually, for all your equations and explanations, you didn't hit a single situation for which you need G. for *every* case above, if you adjusted the earth's mass by 1/2 and G by 2, say, you'd end up with the exact same accelerations due to gravity everywhere.
:-)
that is to say, for sattelite trajectories, gravitational potential energy, you get everything you need to know just by measuring little g right here.
I could go on forever[...]
but you didn't even start
cheers,
sh_
no, but the cosmological constant was measured to be 42 a couple of years back, in whatever units it's usually reporte in (like nanometers of red-shift per megaparsec of space, or something like that). i thought that was pretty cool
cheers,
sh_
Let's see if the GPL has teeth.
yes, let's see indeed! i see you GPL'ers chomping at the bit to sue some corporation. last time it was when mr. perens had a few library mods used by the folks at Be. what you don't understand is that while you might be technically right about your license being violated, the circumstances are so mitigating for the corp. (nvidia in this case) that you would never win.
the only way anyone's going to win with GPL is to have a well-documented case of somebody releasing offending code after having been warned *far* in advance. GPL is, by some accounts, utterly unenforceable, so someone had best pick a much better case than this to sue over, lest one finds out that it is.
cheers,
sh_
Maybe I have been missing out, but with a choice between Linux and Mac OS X and BeOs is there even 100000 BeOS users who don't use one of the other OS'S for their primary work?
there must be one other popular OS out there... gosh, what could it be? i'm sure i'll think of it once i stop reading slashdot...
There would then have to be some law against using a .com address for adult material. (I'm sure that won't fly!)
.xxx and/or .sex TLD was established, such a law would be virtually inevitable, at least in the U.S. the more open question is whether any sort of world regulation could happen by such methods as international treaties and ISP's refusing to carry content from offending domains. actually, this dosen't sound very appetizing, but something like that will probably happen anyway, eventually...
.sex or .xxx domain. (Once again, not gonna fly.)
on the contrary, once a
The law would also have to prohibit domain pointing or meta-refreshing to a
actually, neither of those would be a problem at all for the simple client-side TLD filters we're talking about. the link would simply not work, or the refresh would simply fail.
i'm not against porn by any stretch, but i think this would be a good thing for the health of the internet.
another random thought: i wonder if there are any kids out there who don't have access to the internet because their parents' fear of porn pushed them to not buying a computer...
cheers,
sh_mmer
The first thing I do after each Windows setup is to go into Appearance and reduce the size of scrollbars and menu bars
or nix the buttons altogether and use keyboard shortcuts. but anyway, that is closer to rudimentary customization than it is to theming. personally, i think hideable toolbars are great, and MSIE has the right ammount of customizability.
i would like to say the following thing: "the mozilla guys should stop screwing around with stuff that dosen't matter and just make something as stable and fast as IE4.01." i would like to say that, but actually, i don't care at all. it is as painful to websurf in unix as it is to use the DOS command prompt. as far as i'm concerned, mozilla is so far behind that i don't expect it to become really relevant ever, ever again.
oh yeah, and one more thing: don't tell me why MS could only do it because they integrated IE with the OS, because i don't really care. as far as i'm concerned, that's a teriffic reason why they should be allowed to do it.
cheers,
sh_
If you pick the Copenhagen interpretation, there is that "observer" figure and the consciousness of that observer seems to mean something.
consciousness is not a necessary quality of the observer. if you shoot an electron at a wall through a strong magnetic field (properly directed) the electron will choose a direction and its spin will certainly have been 'observed' regardless of whether some conscious entity watched it.
in other words, something dosen't have to be conscious to play the role of the observer in QM.
do you agree?
sh_
ha! these are exactly the two sites i have linked off my own homepage
great minds think alike (so, apparently, do ours)
cheers,
sh_
even without the problems of quantum error correction and instruction registers, my copy of MATLAB can factor any 30 bit number in between 0.05 and 0.3 seconds (primes took the longest).
also, the poster hanging on my wall suggests that it will take "hundreds+" of qubits to make a quantum factoring engine. somewhat arbitrary, but perhaps as reasonable a guess as anyone on slashdot is likely to make.
cheers,
sh_
i suppose "unattackable" means there's no good way to prove the theroem, its converse, or anything about existence of such proofs. after all, those are all nice ways of attacking the problem.
just imagine, nobody even knows how to construct any infinite family of prime numbers, though we know that they're infinite! (the sieve of eratosthenes is of course not a construction). mersenne thought he had one, but we now know he didn't.
and this is a problem with some history. all of the simple approaches are likely to have been tried. i remember doing a project on prime numbers in high school, and it was just frustrating how few real results there were out there.
so, all i can do is appeal to history, authority, and personal experience. i can't prove a damn thing. but then again, that was my original point wasn't it
cheers,
sh_
whereas fermat may or more likely may not have had a proof to his conjecture, i am fairly certain that you don't have such a proof.
after all, this is one of the four problems that Landau called unattackable. in fact, i almost think it's disingenuous of them to offer the prize for this particular problem. they know they're never gonna part with that cash.
cheers,
sh_
okay, i am looking at the 1999 1040 schedule a and line 24 appears to say:
enter ammount from 1040, line 34. (but nevermind)
but look, let's say that the schedule is a little bit jagged. that's still not the reason that they want the write-off. in other words, if i took a sander to the tax-schedule, the incentive to write off 5B is still there; people who made a lot of money in other places are going to want to take the loss just so they can have that much less income taxed in the top income bracket.
so it's not that i'm disagreeing with your conclusion. it's just that it dosen't follow from your argument, see?
sh_
not really. at least not in any normal way. if $10 per year puts you into a new tax bracket, it's at most $10 that's taxed in the higher bracket. IRS may be stupid, but not so stupid as to make the tax schedule jagged, as you seem to think.
sh_
hehe, yea, glad u agree... incidentally, i would be interested to know which OS would get higher TCSEC security rating, EROS or openBSD. seems like EROS should, based on what i heard, but i donno if either one got an official one right now...
sh_
you forgot:
and one for playing games
Read: http://www.microsoft.com/windows95/
The fact that you choose to help them rob you is not relevant.
Don't be absurd.
you sound pretty absurd to me.
furthermore, this isn't even the kind of funny troll post that i'm looking for down here. no, it's just strictly lame.
:)
sh_
ps. moderators, could we just stick to leaving the top level post at 0? -1 is far too generous.
If they can recover information after eight formats, do you really think that encrypting your HD will stop them?
um, yes.
i could leave it at that, but what makes you think that the ability to read old stuff on a HDD has anything to do with breaking cryptography? of course, it may be the case that NSA can in fact break all of the known ciphers, but their ability to read old drives hardly provides evidence of this.
cheers,
sh_
why don't they let you write fake scores anymore... was it confusing somebody?
i will never ever start coding with something that's GPL, because no matter what, i can never make my work free. see my sig, thanx.
sh_mmer
informative? i can just see some moderator who's never read the onion going "gee, that seems like an important point. i wonder how they let that slip by".
(in case anyone missed the joke, the supposably fictional Zweibel writes a column as the editor of the onion--just follow the link. hence, the only appropriate moderation would have been 'funny')
cheers,
sh_