By that reasoning, if I have an unregistered physics lab, is that "grounds for nuclear terrorism"?
(Answer: No.)
There are a whole hell of a lot of things you can do with a biolab, most of which have nothing to do with bioterrorism. I'm not surprised the feds are investigating (hey, someone died; if someone died in my home physics lab, i'd expect them to investigate too), but calling this bio-terror is about the most absurd thing i've ever heard.
So, under the usual microsoft meaning of "later this year", this product will actually hit store shelves in 2007, by which time the iPod mini will sell for $60, and archos will make a HD player that sells for $40. So, yeah, $50 seems about right.
They clearly aren't overpriced; they sell like hotcakes. Apple has accurately judged the market's demand for the devices, and chosen the appropriate price point. If they actually *were* overpriced, a competitor would have long since come along and undercut them. There are cheaper players, yes, but none as small and/or well executed as the iPod (mini).
What apple "should" be charging is what the market will support, looking also to make it difficult for a competitor to beat them on the combination of price/form/function. They've clearly hit the mark, as demand shows. I don't know, maybe you mean "should" in some weird moral sense? I mean, they "should" just give me one, in my ideal universe, but it ain't gonna happen.
Other companies have been in the fray for quite some time, and they haven't forced down apple's prices yet; this is a good indication that they're right where they "should" be.
Of course, on a G3 with a QE-capable video card (like my 900mhz G3 iBook), OS X performs perfectly. Altivec doesn't make everything faster, just certain instructions (which the OS doesn't really need to use much).
You'll notice a big speedup between the G3 and G4 running photoshop filters, or other programs that are easily vectorizable and written by people who know how to write decent code, but in terms of the OS, very little difference in my experience.
Possessives usually have an apostrophe, so the possessive form of "it" would be "it's", were it not for the fact that that spelling is already taken by the contraction of "it is". To avoid any possibility of confusion*, we (weirdly) spell the possessive form "its".
To summarize:
its = belonging to it
it's = it is
*the actually possibilities for confusion seem to be extremely, extremely limited. I'm hard-pressed to think of a case that can't easily be disambiguated by context.
Nonsense. Of course wavelet compression suffers from artifacts. They're just *different* artifacts then those that are created by block-DCT compression.
Wavelets produce very noticeable ringing around sharp contrast boundaries, similar to those introduced by DCT, but more localized (especially in cases where the boundary run at an angle). Even though they are not based on a block-decomposition, they still function by locally eliminating some frequencies. This will (almost) always produce ringing.
No, it's a bad business idea because then said company will have paid more for the stock than anyone else thinks it's worth. Which means that in the short-term, they could only possibly sell it at a loss. That's bad business.
False. There are plenty of medical needs that correlate with age, independent of health. Deteriorating vision, loss of hearing, loss of teeth, loss of bladder control, etc, etc. Big, scary things may correlate with health, not age, but with an aging population of baby boomers who are going to insist that insurance pick up the tab for them to have laser eye surgery and such, I think we'll see the cost of these sorts of "minor" medical needs start to be a substantial burden on society.
questions of halting aside, this still wouldn't constitute a proof - there's no guarantee that the optimal way to pack 7 oranges can be acheived by adding one orange to the optimal arrangement of 6 oranges. Even if you *could* prove that, you'd have to also prove that the optimal way to pack infinitely many oranges can be acheived by adding (infintely many) oranges, one at a time, to the optimal way to arrange *every* finite number of oranges.
so, basically this "algorithm" doesn't get you anywhere.
It's not hard to *see*. It's hard to *prove*. Very little of mathematics is consumed with proving deep, mystical statements that no one would ever anticipate to be true. Much (maybe most) of mathematics is built around proving (relatively) obvious things. Why bother? because sometimes, relatively obvious things turn out to be false, and there's no way to know that they won't until you've prooved them true.
In general, showing that discrete (or semi-discrete) phenomena are optimal is fairly tricky; you can't just appeal to calculus to optimize some function. You often have to somehow break the search space up into a bunch of disjunct cases that span all the possibilities, and be able to prove that they span all possibilities. Then, if you're lucky, you can use some kind of calculus-type argument on the continuous spaces you're left with.
Actually, 3 satellites are not sufficient; there are no orbits (geosynchronous or otherwise) that are always line-of-site from the poles (where this vehicle would be used). Thus, more than 3 satellites would be required to form a GPS system, at least if you want it to always be available.
I'm not really sure, but the actual number required might be 7; or more depending on how much atmosphere your signal can cut through.
As noted above, this is obviously false for sparse matrices. Consider a special case: I can trivially multiply two diagonal matrices in O(n).
More general question: given sparse matrices stored in some compressed form, with some bound on the number of non-zero entries, is there an algorithm to multiply them in time O(n^2)? It's *not* clear that there isn't.
microwaves don't cook evenly. they're *waves*. they resonate and form standing waves in the chamber of the oven. just like sound. jackson's eye happened to be at a peak of one of these standing waves. since the bills were in a stack, the peak was in the same spot on all the bills.
put any old piece of paper (or more fun, a plate of marshmallows) into a microwave that doesn't have a working turntable. you'll get a pattern of burn marks. you can even measure the distance between them to calculate the wavelength of the microwaves if you want to. basic physics.
do you actually believe that acrobat (which is to say, pdf) is an inferior format compared to HTML and word? I mean, pdf does suck, in it's own way, but it's intended for an entirely different purpose than HTML or word is, and it actually does pretty well at that purpose. HTML and word, by comparison, are so completely broken that they can't even do what they're intended to do.
pdf is an inferior format, but not compared to HTML, and certainly not compared to word.
Not every. But most. Solving ODE's usually boils down to iterating a (possibly implicit) linear system. Solving PDE's with finite differences does too. Or with finite elements. Or spectral methods. Lots of statistical computations do too.
Certainly there *are* scientific applications that don't involve multiply-adds, it's just that the vast bulk of scientific computations that are suitable for parallelization really boil down to solving linear systems, some kind of linear iteration, least-squares problems, or some combination. All of which are solved using lots of multiply-adds. So, while linpack isn't the end-all and be-all of hpc benchmarks, i'd say that it's a pretty good guideline; i'd also say that the speed of multiply-adds matters a whole hell of a lot for scientific computing.
well, one *would* expect a renaissance music fan to like straight tone. i think that the relatively open harmonies of renaissance music benefit from it, whereas it can sound somewhat harsh in the more compact harmonies associated with later choral writing.
of course, there's a bit of a return to more open harmony in 20th-century art music, and a slow return to straight-tone singing seems to be coming with it.
professional singers who can sing without vibrato are rare birds indeed. why? because it sounds (to most people) terrible. thus, people are trained to sing with (at least some) vibrato.
there *are* people (especially professional shape-note and folk singers) who sing with "straight-tone" technique (almost no vibrato), but it is a very different aesthetic from classical western art song.
mostly, though, it's just very very hard to sing without vibrato (want proof? try it), even for professional singers. it tires out your vocal chords, and you have to sing much louder to be heard over other instruments. vibrato (in limited quantities) also adds a lot to the expressive possibilities in the music.
personally, i love straight-tone singing, and wish there was more of it. but, i know why there isn't.
Slashdot Mirror
By that reasoning, if I have an unregistered physics lab, is that "grounds for nuclear terrorism"? (Answer: No.) There are a whole hell of a lot of things you can do with a biolab, most of which have nothing to do with bioterrorism. I'm not surprised the feds are investigating (hey, someone died; if someone died in my home physics lab, i'd expect them to investigate too), but calling this bio-terror is about the most absurd thing i've ever heard.
well, the mechanic is ripping her off, but RTFA. Essentially, this is "user error" and so isn't covered.
what about an iPod? (which actually *is* styled like an ipod). Numerous other 1.8" externals exist.
They clearly aren't overpriced; they sell like hotcakes. Apple has accurately judged the market's demand for the devices, and chosen the appropriate price point. If they actually *were* overpriced, a competitor would have long since come along and undercut them. There are cheaper players, yes, but none as small and/or well executed as the iPod (mini). What apple "should" be charging is what the market will support, looking also to make it difficult for a competitor to beat them on the combination of price/form/function. They've clearly hit the mark, as demand shows. I don't know, maybe you mean "should" in some weird moral sense? I mean, they "should" just give me one, in my ideal universe, but it ain't gonna happen. Other companies have been in the fray for quite some time, and they haven't forced down apple's prices yet; this is a good indication that they're right where they "should" be.
Of course, on a G3 with a QE-capable video card (like my 900mhz G3 iBook), OS X performs perfectly. Altivec doesn't make everything faster, just certain instructions (which the OS doesn't really need to use much).
You'll notice a big speedup between the G3 and G4 running photoshop filters, or other programs that are easily vectorizable and written by people who know how to write decent code, but in terms of the OS, very little difference in my experience.
Actually, a crazy guy from my hometown legally changed his name to "Coke Is It" and then tried to sue Coca-Cola. He lost.
how close is your sound card to the video? electromagnetic interference is a wonderful thing.
Possessives usually have an apostrophe, so the possessive form of "it" would be "it's", were it not for the fact that that spelling is already taken by the contraction of "it is". To avoid any possibility of confusion*, we (weirdly) spell the possessive form "its". To summarize: its = belonging to it it's = it is *the actually possibilities for confusion seem to be extremely, extremely limited. I'm hard-pressed to think of a case that can't easily be disambiguated by context.
Nonsense. Of course wavelet compression suffers from artifacts. They're just *different* artifacts then those that are created by block-DCT compression. Wavelets produce very noticeable ringing around sharp contrast boundaries, similar to those introduced by DCT, but more localized (especially in cases where the boundary run at an angle). Even though they are not based on a block-decomposition, they still function by locally eliminating some frequencies. This will (almost) always produce ringing.
No, it's a bad business idea because then said company will have paid more for the stock than anyone else thinks it's worth. Which means that in the short-term, they could only possibly sell it at a loss. That's bad business.
False. There are plenty of medical needs that correlate with age, independent of health. Deteriorating vision, loss of hearing, loss of teeth, loss of bladder control, etc, etc. Big, scary things may correlate with health, not age, but with an aging population of baby boomers who are going to insist that insurance pick up the tab for them to have laser eye surgery and such, I think we'll see the cost of these sorts of "minor" medical needs start to be a substantial burden on society.
questions of halting aside, this still wouldn't constitute a proof - there's no guarantee that the optimal way to pack 7 oranges can be acheived by adding one orange to the optimal arrangement of 6 oranges. Even if you *could* prove that, you'd have to also prove that the optimal way to pack infinitely many oranges can be acheived by adding (infintely many) oranges, one at a time, to the optimal way to arrange *every* finite number of oranges.
so, basically this "algorithm" doesn't get you anywhere.
It's not hard to *see*. It's hard to *prove*. Very little of mathematics is consumed with proving deep, mystical statements that no one would ever anticipate to be true. Much (maybe most) of mathematics is built around proving (relatively) obvious things. Why bother? because sometimes, relatively obvious things turn out to be false, and there's no way to know that they won't until you've prooved them true. In general, showing that discrete (or semi-discrete) phenomena are optimal is fairly tricky; you can't just appeal to calculus to optimize some function. You often have to somehow break the search space up into a bunch of disjunct cases that span all the possibilities, and be able to prove that they span all possibilities. Then, if you're lucky, you can use some kind of calculus-type argument on the continuous spaces you're left with.
"Fortan is still an entry requirement to the California college system"
where can I get some of whatever you're smoking? there are classes where it's used, for sure, but "entry requirement"? no.
Actually, 3 satellites are not sufficient; there are no orbits (geosynchronous or otherwise) that are always line-of-site from the poles (where this vehicle would be used). Thus, more than 3 satellites would be required to form a GPS system, at least if you want it to always be available. I'm not really sure, but the actual number required might be 7; or more depending on how much atmosphere your signal can cut through.
sorry, that was meant to read "time less then O(n^2)".
note to self to use "preview".
As noted above, this is obviously false for sparse matrices. Consider a special case: I can trivially multiply two diagonal matrices in O(n).
More general question: given sparse matrices stored in some compressed form, with some bound on the number of non-zero entries, is there an algorithm to multiply them in time O(n^2)? It's *not* clear that there isn't.
microwaves don't cook evenly. they're *waves*. they resonate and form standing waves in the chamber of the oven. just like sound. jackson's eye happened to be at a peak of one of these standing waves. since the bills were in a stack, the peak was in the same spot on all the bills.
put any old piece of paper (or more fun, a plate of marshmallows) into a microwave that doesn't have a working turntable. you'll get a pattern of burn marks. you can even measure the distance between them to calculate the wavelength of the microwaves if you want to. basic physics.
this isn't even a *good* conspiracy theory.
do you actually believe that acrobat (which is to say, pdf) is an inferior format compared to HTML and word? I mean, pdf does suck, in it's own way, but it's intended for an entirely different purpose than HTML or word is, and it actually does pretty well at that purpose. HTML and word, by comparison, are so completely broken that they can't even do what they're intended to do.
pdf is an inferior format, but not compared to HTML, and certainly not compared to word.
Not every. But most. Solving ODE's usually boils down to iterating a (possibly implicit) linear system. Solving PDE's with finite differences does too. Or with finite elements. Or spectral methods. Lots of statistical computations do too.
Certainly there *are* scientific applications that don't involve multiply-adds, it's just that the vast bulk of scientific computations that are suitable for parallelization really boil down to solving linear systems, some kind of linear iteration, least-squares problems, or some combination. All of which are solved using lots of multiply-adds. So, while linpack isn't the end-all and be-all of hpc benchmarks, i'd say that it's a pretty good guideline; i'd also say that the speed of multiply-adds matters a whole hell of a lot for scientific computing.
Of course, for real-world code, the difference might not be nearly as large and in many situations the P4 or Opteron could easily be a lot faster.
"real-world code" *is* multiply-adds, when we're talking about scientific computing (and why else would you need a 1,100-node cluster?)
Apple is bringing the supercomputer title back to the USA
No. IBM is.
of course, there's a bit of a return to more open harmony in 20th-century art music, and a slow return to straight-tone singing seems to be coming with it.
there *are* people (especially professional shape-note and folk singers) who sing with "straight-tone" technique (almost no vibrato), but it is a very different aesthetic from classical western art song.
mostly, though, it's just very very hard to sing without vibrato (want proof? try it), even for professional singers. it tires out your vocal chords, and you have to sing much louder to be heard over other instruments. vibrato (in limited quantities) also adds a lot to the expressive possibilities in the music.
personally, i love straight-tone singing, and wish there was more of it. but, i know why there isn't.