If v=c, you've got a chunk of matter moving at the speed of light, and energy has every right to be undefined when impossible things like that start happening.
Yes, I've heard you attempt to explain your philosophy already. Repeating it doesn't make it any clearer, and as I intended to point out, using nonsense phrases like "observation/participation kinda 6 and 2 threes" doesn't either.
If the preferential votes were counted by the Condorcet system (where the votes are tallied in contests between pairs of people), then putting the Nazi Party candidate last would not be a problem. It would just say "I want this guy to lose in every contest". If there are two such candidates, you have to rank one above the other, of course, but they'll still lose to everyone else.
In the Instant Runoff Voting system which Australia uses, though, there are often situations where you would rather have your vote go to nobody than go further down your preferences. That's just one of the many flaws in IRV. In that case, IRV with optional voting is a bit of an improvement.
The problem is that, under that system, people probably get lazy and only mark their top choice even when they do have preferences regarding the other people, and the result is the plurality system (and of course IRV, despite its flaws, is much much better than plurality). That's probably the reason for requiring people to rank every candidate.
Oh give me a clone, A clone of my own, With the Y chromosome changed to X. And when she's full grown, This clone of my own Will be thinking of nothing but sex.
If the things you're saying come from that book, I will bet you that the book was not written by a mathematician.
What is it about infinity that you're suggesting modern mathematics can't describe? There are ordinal numbers for naming different kinds of infinity. There's the countable/uncountable classification of infinite sets. There's the Continnuum Hypothesis, which describes the size of the set of real numbers, which incidentally can never be proven one way or the other. (This doesn't make it some big terrible insanity-inducing mystery; it means that you can assume it to be true or false, whichever way is convenient, as an axiom.)
There are of course many unknown results dealing with infinity, as there are in any area of math. There's nothing that indicates you have to be a rabbi to make any progress in these areas, though.
You give Cantor as your sole example of a mathematician who studied infinity and "didn't fare well". Yes, Cantor studied infinity, and yes, he went insane. But what proof do you have that one caused the other?
They're getting money from that intrusive type of Flash ad that sits over what you're trying to read. These have been far too common recently. If you go to the site and see the ad, you'll only encourage their use.
(They also rub it in by having an onClose popup ad, too. They're just as bad as a porn site!)
And yes, I know, "use Mozilla". If I were on my own computer, I would.
It wasn't an update that let iTunes play OGG files. Please mod the parent down so that people who have not read all/any of the comments in the other thread do not get confused.
iPhoto can't play Ogg files either. Please mod the parent down so that people who don't know the difference between pictures and sounds do not get confused. And because I said so.
There's one kind of "audio search" I'd really like to see: searches for a song by tune.
I've seen a couple of web sites which offer tune searches, but they all work on the index system used in fake-books: start from the first note, and then from there, say whether the next note is higher, lower, or the same. But this system has problems: a reasonably short search will match a whole lot of songs; it's often hard to tell whether certain extra notes are considered part of the tune; and some songs have an obscure beginning and an easily recognizable theme farther in, and you don't know which one is indexed.
These sites have also tended to only index very well-known tunes - usually, folk songs, show tunes, and a few jazz standards.
One site allows you to send them a recording of you whistling the tune, which seems like an improvement, but it actually just translates it into the up-down-repeat notation.
My ideal music search would be something that would take large quantities of music (let's ignore for the moment where it gets the large quantities of music without pissing off the RIAA) and scan each song for prominent tunes. You could then search these with perhaps the up-down-repeat notation, but also by inputting music notation, for people who know it. The search would have to be key-insensitive, and allow fairly fuzzy matches.
If it could give me the name of that pop song/jazz tune/classical piece I just heard on the radio, it'd be pretty good.
But if it works really well, it'd be a blessing for music composers - they could just search for that tune that just popped into their head, instead of worrying over whether they're subconsciously ripping off another song.
Let me get this straight. So you have a 12 PM ticket, and the sign tells you it's really for 12 AM, which is what you wanted in the first place. Or did you say that backwards?
Hydrogen: Have any significant pockets of atomic hydrogen been discovered yet? Do we know how to "drill" for hydrogen without the risk of a huge explosion?
Tides: The amount of energy tends to be insignificant unless the tides are really huge, like at the Bay of Fundy, in which case the power generators are already there.
Solar: The process of creating the solar panels tends to be harmful to the environment. And you need a _lot_ of solar panels to get a reasonable amount of energy. In the long run the benefits may outweigh the environmental cost, so solar isn't all bad, and more solar plants should be built -- but you could never build enough to replace fossil fuels.
Wind: you need lots of windmills.
We pretty much are going with these cleaner options where they are available, but they don't replace fossil fuels.
Oh, and nuclear waste isn't usable as a weapon. Most nuclear waste could in fact be reused in special reactors, but the reaction there would produce weapons-grade plutonium. So we bury it in the ground instead.
It pains me to see environmentalists ranting against nuclear power. Every effective mode of power generation we have produces harmful waste; but with nuclear, we know exactly where all of it goes.
The problem is a terrible lack of perspective. People would rather have tons of soot pumped into the air than be around any amount of (gasp) radiation, no matter how small. There was a case I heard about where workers involved in some nuclear meltdown - it might have been Three Mile Island - got taken to court, and one of them finally pointed out that everyone there was being exposed to more radioactive materials by sitting in a granite courthouse than the people living near the site of the meltdown got.
Unless you're intensely familiar with all parts of Beethoven's Ninth, you'll probably get the most recognition out of listening to section 5.2. That's the choral "Ode To Joy" section that most people know.
You think derivative names like "Litescape" are good? With a name like that, they might as well put a flashing red banner at the top of their Web page saying "THIS BROWSER WILL NEVER BE A SUCCESSFUL PROJECT IN ITS OWN RIGHT."
Incidentally, there's already an item in Phoenix's FAQ about why they will not call themselves "MozLite" or "MiniMoz" or anything of the sort. I assume that "Litescape" would fit squarely into this pattern.
I know that this has been done with Beethoven. Some composer took the musical scraps that Beethoven had left lying around when he died that he was planning to use in another symphony, and filled in the gaps to create Beethoven's Tenth.
I have never seen a 3D GUI which wasn't gimmicky and ultimately doomed. There's a couple of reasons for this, of course:
Our field of view is a 2D plane, so things in 3D tend to be hidden behind other things
Monitors are 2D
Input devices are 2D
Even if huge advances in technology allowed for output and input in 3D, I don't think that 3D would necessarily be any more efficient. The idea is that the user has total control over the interface. The way to make everything accessible is to put it in one dimension less than the one we exist in. It's the same reason that 3D chess boards (in all their various rulesets) tend to suck - things get in your way.
Did you look at the later pictures taken from other perspectives? At one point on the stairway, the Legos are actually much farther back, but since photographs are two-dimensional, the stairs look continuous when photographed from exactly the right angle.
Um, not to defend Microsoft, but your example is particularly bad. People do pay at least 100% more for another brand of clothing because it's "trendy" (Tommy Hilfiger, Abercrombie and Fitch, etc.)
Egad. Seeing two parallel comments referring to WeirdX and WiredX led me to believe that one of them had to be spelling it wrong, and it was only curiosity at where wiredx.net (what I thought was the wrong link) would lead that led me to click on the link and see that WiredX is indeed something different.
And I had the pointless spelling correction post all planned, too.
I remember when Google was first getting attention, and people were miffed that they couldn't use their "+wordone +wordtwo" syntax that AltaVista had hammered into them.
Slashdot Mirror
If v=c, you've got a chunk of matter moving at the speed of light, and energy has every right to be undefined when impossible things like that start happening.
Be sure not to confuse how the votes are cast with how they are counted.
They are cast with the "optional preferential" system in the case you describe; they are counted with Instant Runoff Voting.
God is the point in calling creation God. God is cake, too.
(Don't mind me, I'm just taking the "Then what about foo?" "God is foo." line of argument to its natural conclusion.)
Yes, I've heard you attempt to explain your philosophy already. Repeating it doesn't make it any clearer, and as I intended to point out, using nonsense phrases like "observation/participation kinda 6 and 2 threes" doesn't either.
If the preferential votes were counted by the Condorcet system (where the votes are tallied in contests between pairs of people), then putting the Nazi Party candidate last would not be a problem. It would just say "I want this guy to lose in every contest". If there are two such candidates, you have to rank one above the other, of course, but they'll still lose to everyone else.
In the Instant Runoff Voting system which Australia uses, though, there are often situations where you would rather have your vote go to nobody than go further down your preferences. That's just one of the many flaws in IRV. In that case, IRV with optional voting is a bit of an improvement.
The problem is that, under that system, people probably get lazy and only mark their top choice even when they do have preferences regarding the other people, and the result is the plurality system (and of course IRV, despite its flaws, is much much better than plurality). That's probably the reason for requiring people to rank every candidate.
From the fortune file:
Oh give me a clone,
A clone of my own,
With the Y chromosome changed to X.
And when she's full grown,
This clone of my own
Will be thinking of nothing but sex.
If the things you're saying come from that book, I will bet you that the book was not written by a mathematician.
What is it about infinity that you're suggesting modern mathematics can't describe? There are ordinal numbers for naming different kinds of infinity. There's the countable/uncountable classification of infinite sets. There's the Continnuum Hypothesis, which describes the size of the set of real numbers, which incidentally can never be proven one way or the other. (This doesn't make it some big terrible insanity-inducing mystery; it means that you can assume it to be true or false, whichever way is convenient, as an axiom.)
There are of course many unknown results dealing with infinity, as there are in any area of math. There's nothing that indicates you have to be a rabbi to make any progress in these areas, though.
You give Cantor as your sole example of a mathematician who studied infinity and "didn't fare well". Yes, Cantor studied infinity, and yes, he went insane. But what proof do you have that one caused the other?
observation/participation kinda 6 and 2 threes,
What the fuck?
Replace those numbers with 4 and 16 and you are the Time Cube guy.
Don't go to the site.
They're getting money from that intrusive type of Flash ad that sits over what you're trying to read. These have been far too common recently. If you go to the site and see the ad, you'll only encourage their use.
(They also rub it in by having an onClose popup ad, too. They're just as bad as a porn site!)
And yes, I know, "use Mozilla". If I were on my own computer, I would.
It wasn't an update that let iTunes play OGG files. Please mod the parent down so that people who have not read all/any of the comments in the other thread do not get confused.
iPhoto can't play Ogg files either. Please mod the parent down so that people who don't know the difference between pictures and sounds do not get confused. And because I said so.
copywritten
The word you are looking for is "copyrighted".
Sure, this is a useless, pedantic post, but at least this wrong has been written^W righted.
There's one kind of "audio search" I'd really like to see: searches for a song by tune.
I've seen a couple of web sites which offer tune searches, but they all work on the index system used in fake-books: start from the first note, and then from there, say whether the next note is higher, lower, or the same. But this system has problems: a reasonably short search will match a whole lot of songs; it's often hard to tell whether certain extra notes are considered part of the tune; and some songs have an obscure beginning and an easily recognizable theme farther in, and you don't know which one is indexed.
These sites have also tended to only index very well-known tunes - usually, folk songs, show tunes, and a few jazz standards.
One site allows you to send them a recording of you whistling the tune, which seems like an improvement, but it actually just translates it into the up-down-repeat notation.
My ideal music search would be something that would take large quantities of music (let's ignore for the moment where it gets the large quantities of music without pissing off the RIAA) and scan each song for prominent tunes. You could then search these with perhaps the up-down-repeat notation, but also by inputting music notation, for people who know it. The search would have to be key-insensitive, and allow fairly fuzzy matches.
If it could give me the name of that pop song/jazz tune/classical piece I just heard on the radio, it'd be pretty good.
But if it works really well, it'd be a blessing for music composers - they could just search for that tune that just popped into their head, instead of worrying over whether they're subconsciously ripping off another song.
Do you use the word "starcraft" in everyday conversation?
Let me get this straight. So you have a 12 PM ticket, and the sign tells you it's really for 12 AM, which is what you wanted in the first place. Or did you say that backwards?
Hydrogen: Have any significant pockets of atomic hydrogen been discovered yet? Do we know how to "drill" for hydrogen without the risk of a huge explosion?
Tides: The amount of energy tends to be insignificant unless the tides are really huge, like at the Bay of Fundy, in which case the power generators are already there.
Solar: The process of creating the solar panels tends to be harmful to the environment. And you need a _lot_ of solar panels to get a reasonable amount of energy. In the long run the benefits may outweigh the environmental cost, so solar isn't all bad, and more solar plants should be built -- but you could never build enough to replace fossil fuels.
Wind: you need lots of windmills.
We pretty much are going with these cleaner options where they are available, but they don't replace fossil fuels.
Oh, and nuclear waste isn't usable as a weapon. Most nuclear waste could in fact be reused in special reactors, but the reaction there would produce weapons-grade plutonium. So we bury it in the ground instead.
Right on.
It pains me to see environmentalists ranting against nuclear power. Every effective mode of power generation we have produces harmful waste; but with nuclear, we know exactly where all of it goes.
The problem is a terrible lack of perspective. People would rather have tons of soot pumped into the air than be around any amount of (gasp) radiation, no matter how small. There was a case I heard about where workers involved in some nuclear meltdown - it might have been Three Mile Island - got taken to court, and one of them finally pointed out that everyone there was being exposed to more radioactive materials by sitting in a granite courthouse than the people living near the site of the meltdown got.
Unless you're intensely familiar with all parts of Beethoven's Ninth, you'll probably get the most recognition out of listening to section 5.2. That's the choral "Ode To Joy" section that most people know.
Except that this particular physissist is a female. Imagine that.
Whoa there, let me get this straight.
You think derivative names like "Litescape" are good? With a name like that, they might as well put a flashing red banner at the top of their Web page saying "THIS BROWSER WILL NEVER BE A SUCCESSFUL PROJECT IN ITS OWN RIGHT."
Incidentally, there's already an item in Phoenix's FAQ about why they will not call themselves "MozLite" or "MiniMoz" or anything of the sort. I assume that "Litescape" would fit squarely into this pattern.
I know that this has been done with Beethoven. Some composer took the musical scraps that Beethoven had left lying around when he died that he was planning to use in another symphony, and filled in the gaps to create Beethoven's Tenth.
It wasn't bad.
Even if huge advances in technology allowed for output and input in 3D, I don't think that 3D would necessarily be any more efficient. The idea is that the user has total control over the interface. The way to make everything accessible is to put it in one dimension less than the one we exist in. It's the same reason that 3D chess boards (in all their various rulesets) tend to suck - things get in your way.
Did you look at the later pictures taken from other perspectives? At one point on the stairway, the Legos are actually much farther back, but since photographs are two-dimensional, the stairs look continuous when photographed from exactly the right angle.
Um, not to defend Microsoft, but your example is particularly bad. People do pay at least 100% more for another brand of clothing because it's "trendy" (Tommy Hilfiger, Abercrombie and Fitch, etc.)
Egad. Seeing two parallel comments referring to WeirdX and WiredX led me to believe that one of them had to be spelling it wrong, and it was only curiosity at where wiredx.net (what I thought was the wrong link) would lead that led me to click on the link and see that WiredX is indeed something different.
And I had the pointless spelling correction post all planned, too.
It's wonderful how times have changed.
I remember when Google was first getting attention, and people were miffed that they couldn't use their "+wordone +wordtwo" syntax that AltaVista had hammered into them.