Imagine a billiard table with 10 balls and expecting to come up with a way to touch all the balls and entering in certain hole (or whatever the name is).
Stars are not anywhere close to being billiard balls. That is the primary fail of your analogy. It has to be relevant to be useful.
Every time? How many occurrences are we talking about? Tens? Hundreds?
Every time we have looked. While that isn't 100% definitive, that certain leads to "more likely than not" explanations.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but what explains that isn't the theory of relativity, but the limitations of the classical gravity/mechanics.
Sorry to burst your bubble but relativity explains it whereas classical cannot even acknowledge that it should exist. So which should you use. One model that explains it and makes testable predictions or one where the existence of it cannot be explained by the model?
The classic formulae were meant to be used on small scopes/Earth, by logically being simplifications which, as such, were erroneous.
Wrong. Nothing in classical explains it.
The higher the distance, mass, size, the higher the error and the less reliable the formula, that's why correction factor are required in GPS.
Again wrong. The entire field of Metrology looks at measurement and errors. If a formula is wrong due to being "less reliable", maybe the formula is just wrong.
But the ones indicated by experience are the most reliable ones, not the ones delivered by a specific theory.
Again wrong. Specifically relativity predicts the discrepancies that classical could not.
I think that this is the main problem here: wanting to come up with something which can explain everything when some people should have accepted very long time ago that this is tremendously difficult, virtually impossible, and in any case very inefficient
No you missed his point. People have come up with the answers. You are questioning them at the same time not providing a better alternative. Should everyone abandon all science because you cannot resolve your questions?
Because it is wrong
Please describe your alternate theory. Saying someone else is wrong is easy. Providing the correct answers is hard.
Such as? The problem you are having is that there are explanations for what we know. If you are saying that the explanation are not true then you have to present evidence why they are not true. It's like this:
Me: I am wearing a gray shirt today. Here is a pic.
You: Are we sure that you took this pic today? What if you used a filter? Is that even you?
That is the crux of what you're doing. You don't know. That doesn't mean WE as a species doesn't know.
Settled science is pretty much the opposite to the scientific method.
It doesn't seem you understand what settled science is. Settled science doesn't mean that it is not subject to review or change. It means that enough evidence exists such that no one is doing any research about the question any more because it has been answered. For example, we stick to the Earth because of gravity. That is settled. It is not fairy dust that causes us not to hurling off the planet. Now if you have evidence that it is fairy dust you can indeed present the evidence; however, no one in academia or research or schools is trying to figure out why we don't fly off into space every second of the day.
It seems to me that there is lots of beforehand issues here and I see a problem with that. This doesn't seem too scientific. Why could you know that there was a black hole there?
Katie Bouman discussed this in her TED talk about the algorithm she designed to sift through the data. With black holes particularly, no one has seen in visible light but that doesn't mean that they cannot be detected. Could it be something else other than a black hole? Yes. However no other model of an object matching all the criteria exists. For your other questions, I suggest you talk to an actual scientist.
They might be a shitty coder, or just have other responsibilities.
Or that implementation of an idea takes a different set of skills. She designed the algorithm, but does she have enough experience in whatever programming language was selected? Also there are technical challenges like the 5 PB of data the algorithm had to analyze. Can the problem be broken down in parallel tasks, etc? The challenge of 5PB alone is enough to require special skills.
And I never said that no one is less productive on Windows. What I said was that commodity hardware compatibility isn’t as much as issue for Linux as some people seem to make it out to be. I also said that other than Windows specific languages, Linux has many options. If people want to use Windows go ahead. But saying that Linux is less compatible or harder to code in isn’t necessarily true.
Er what? You could say that BSD has more problems with hardware compatibility but Linux is in some cases more compatible with commodity hardware. As for software coding, Linux has a wider range of languages. I think what you mean to say is that in Windows is easier to write MS languages like VB, C#, etc.
The question I have is who is pushing for quad, hex, or octo socket servers and what is the use case to it. Obviously such systems are vastly more mostly to build. Simple things like power supplies and and cooling are far more complicated. It is probably way cheaper to use multiple servers at that point.
I can only see only one real use case. For supercomputers or render farms where high CPU density is a necessity. Or for more limited scenarios where you physically can only have one server rack and you need as many CPUs/cores as possible in a small amount of space.
the cunts need to fucking sit down and work out a uniform open coding language which is a logically derivative of English and maths
Why English? Why not Chinese as a much larger percentage of humans can read and write Chinese than any other language. Chinese is also very compact. Could it be that using natural languages aren’t the best model for coding.
However the language that most closely resembles English is COBOL. If you want to code in it, go ahead. Personally, I don’t feel like writing novels just to do basic functions.
That’s not the point. It’s not that everyone should be a coder. The point is that anyone could be a coder if they were exposed to it. Coding as a profession is new and in decades past children were taught about doctors, policemen, garbage men, etc. Teaching basics so that children so they can decide later to make it a profession is the point.
Customers want patches and security fixes. What they don’t and didn’t
sign up for was to be beta-testers for MS for “features” that could break their systems. MS has been heavily criticized for classifying updates that are not patches or fixes as “essential” or “critical”. Some of these features do not appear to be tested extensively as they did indeed break systems. For example the Ms Store and telemetry were marked as critical when they were not. But at least they didn’t break systems.
It seems like it’s been a cat and mouse game with MS on Windows. MS has been trying to force “features” on their customers while the customers have been pushing back that they didn’t want these features especially since it seemed they were beta-testing them for MS.
Are we talking about the same thing? Iridium is a private satellite collection originated from Motorola for satellite voice and data and not tracking. While you can use the satellites for this purpose, they use a different band than the current ADS-B. Somehow someone has to pay for dozens of satellites required.
But that’s regulation and good luck getting that passed. Also using satellite tracking involves having and deploying satellites which isn’t free. Costs are something like $20-30M per launch not including the cost of the satellite.
They’ve had it as an option for planes for more than a decade but airlines had to buy it as a service. Airbus I think sold it as part of a maintenance package where the plane would not only send its location but any service faults so that maintenance crews could be alerted before the plane landed. Budget airlines would however never purchase such options.
They’ve had it in some form for over a decade but it was an option and not standard.
It’s how they knew where Air France 447 crashed in the Atlantic Ocean.
A company spokesman elaborated on their promises by affirm the company would
“Never gonna give you up. Never gonna let you down. Never gonna run around and desert you.”
Bahahaha. You didn’t know a NAS was a server. You didn’t know TB was external. You didn’t know what a workstation is. Please tell me what a workstation is because your answer will show you that you’re an idiot.
Give it up. You’ve been caught lying. From the beginning you were insistent about talking the iMac even though no one was taking about it. The you compared SATA which is an internal connector to TB2 which is not remotely the same. Then you said a NAS wasn’t a server. All you called Pro workstations as toys. When pointed out all this idiocy you just doubled down and insisted that’s not what you meant. You tried to explain the “toys” comment as meaning that workstations can’t do all types of work. Dude, they are workstations for a reason. They are specialized for certain tasks. Learn what a workstation is. You’re just dishonest.
I don’t know the finer details of dark matter, but what I do know is that one of the very first questions posed about the existence of dark matter was whether it was just unaccounted ordinary matter. And further research said no it was not. And it wasn’t one team/person that verified this. Multiple teams in at least two ways have verified the numbers.
Also using visible light isn’t the only technique cosmologists use. The EM spectrum consists of way more than human visible light.
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine a billiard table with 10 balls and expecting to come up with a way to touch all the balls and entering in certain hole (or whatever the name is).
Stars are not anywhere close to being billiard balls. That is the primary fail of your analogy. It has to be relevant to be useful.
Every time? How many occurrences are we talking about? Tens? Hundreds?
Every time we have looked. While that isn't 100% definitive, that certain leads to "more likely than not" explanations.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but what explains that isn't the theory of relativity, but the limitations of the classical gravity/mechanics.
Sorry to burst your bubble but relativity explains it whereas classical cannot even acknowledge that it should exist. So which should you use. One model that explains it and makes testable predictions or one where the existence of it cannot be explained by the model?
The classic formulae were meant to be used on small scopes/Earth, by logically being simplifications which, as such, were erroneous.
Wrong. Nothing in classical explains it.
The higher the distance, mass, size, the higher the error and the less reliable the formula, that's why correction factor are required in GPS.
Again wrong. The entire field of Metrology looks at measurement and errors. If a formula is wrong due to being "less reliable", maybe the formula is just wrong.
But the ones indicated by experience are the most reliable ones, not the ones delivered by a specific theory.
Again wrong. Specifically relativity predicts the discrepancies that classical could not.
I think that this is the main problem here: wanting to come up with something which can explain everything when some people should have accepted very long time ago that this is tremendously difficult, virtually impossible, and in any case very inefficient
No you missed his point. People have come up with the answers. You are questioning them at the same time not providing a better alternative. Should everyone abandon all science because you cannot resolve your questions?
Because it is wrong
Please describe your alternate theory. Saying someone else is wrong is easy. Providing the correct answers is hard.
There might be many explanations for that.
Such as? The problem you are having is that there are explanations for what we know. If you are saying that the explanation are not true then you have to present evidence why they are not true. It's like this:
Me: I am wearing a gray shirt today. Here is a pic.
You: Are we sure that you took this pic today? What if you used a filter? Is that even you?
That is the crux of what you're doing. You don't know. That doesn't mean WE as a species doesn't know.
Settled science is pretty much the opposite to the scientific method.
It doesn't seem you understand what settled science is. Settled science doesn't mean that it is not subject to review or change. It means that enough evidence exists such that no one is doing any research about the question any more because it has been answered. For example, we stick to the Earth because of gravity. That is settled. It is not fairy dust that causes us not to hurling off the planet. Now if you have evidence that it is fairy dust you can indeed present the evidence; however, no one in academia or research or schools is trying to figure out why we don't fly off into space every second of the day.
It seems to me that there is lots of beforehand issues here and I see a problem with that. This doesn't seem too scientific. Why could you know that there was a black hole there?
Katie Bouman discussed this in her TED talk about the algorithm she designed to sift through the data. With black holes particularly, no one has seen in visible light but that doesn't mean that they cannot be detected. Could it be something else other than a black hole? Yes. However no other model of an object matching all the criteria exists. For your other questions, I suggest you talk to an actual scientist.
They might be a shitty coder, or just have other responsibilities.
Or that implementation of an idea takes a different set of skills. She designed the algorithm, but does she have enough experience in whatever programming language was selected? Also there are technical challenges like the 5 PB of data the algorithm had to analyze. Can the problem be broken down in parallel tasks, etc? The challenge of 5PB alone is enough to require special skills.
And I never said that no one is less productive on Windows. What I said was that commodity hardware compatibility isn’t as much as issue for Linux as some people seem to make it out to be. I also said that other than Windows specific languages, Linux has many options. If people want to use Windows go ahead. But saying that Linux is less compatible or harder to code in isn’t necessarily true.
Er what? You could say that BSD has more problems with hardware compatibility but Linux is in some cases more compatible with commodity hardware. As for software coding, Linux has a wider range of languages. I think what you mean to say is that in Windows is easier to write MS languages like VB, C#, etc.
The question I have is who is pushing for quad, hex, or octo socket servers and what is the use case to it. Obviously such systems are vastly more mostly to build. Simple things like power supplies and and cooling are far more complicated. It is probably way cheaper to use multiple servers at that point.
I can only see only one real use case. For supercomputers or render farms where high CPU density is a necessity. Or for more limited scenarios where you physically can only have one server rack and you need as many CPUs/cores as possible in a small amount of space.
I really wish they had implemented RFC3514. Thanks, Obama.
the cunts need to fucking sit down and work out a uniform open coding language which is a logically derivative of English and maths
Why English? Why not Chinese as a much larger percentage of humans can read and write Chinese than any other language. Chinese is also very compact. Could it be that using natural languages aren’t the best model for coding.
However the language that most closely resembles English is COBOL. If you want to code in it, go ahead. Personally, I don’t feel like writing novels just to do basic functions.
That’s not the point. It’s not that everyone should be a coder. The point is that anyone could be a coder if they were exposed to it. Coding as a profession is new and in decades past children were taught about doctors, policemen, garbage men, etc. Teaching basics so that children so they can decide later to make it a profession is the point.
Customers want patches and security fixes. What they don’t and didn’t sign up for was to be beta-testers for MS for “features” that could break their systems. MS has been heavily criticized for classifying updates that are not patches or fixes as “essential” or “critical”. Some of these features do not appear to be tested extensively as they did indeed break systems. For example the Ms Store and telemetry were marked as critical when they were not. But at least they didn’t break systems.
On you can still get that. It’s just now opt-in instead of all sneaky. Unless you like sneaky fistings to which I won’t judge.
It seems like it’s been a cat and mouse game with MS on Windows. MS has been trying to force “features” on their customers while the customers have been pushing back that they didn’t want these features especially since it seemed they were beta-testing them for MS.
Are we talking about the same thing? Iridium is a private satellite collection originated from Motorola for satellite voice and data and not tracking. While you can use the satellites for this purpose, they use a different band than the current ADS-B. Somehow someone has to pay for dozens of satellites required.
But that’s regulation and good luck getting that passed. Also using satellite tracking involves having and deploying satellites which isn’t free. Costs are something like $20-30M per launch not including the cost of the satellite.
They’ve had it as an option for planes for more than a decade but airlines had to buy it as a service. Airbus I think sold it as part of a maintenance package where the plane would not only send its location but any service faults so that maintenance crews could be alerted before the plane landed. Budget airlines would however never purchase such options.
They’ve had it in some form for over a decade but it was an option and not standard. It’s how they knew where Air France 447 crashed in the Atlantic Ocean.
A company spokesman elaborated on their promises by affirm the company would “Never gonna give you up. Never gonna let you down. Never gonna run around and desert you.”
Bahahaha. You didn’t know a NAS was a server. You didn’t know TB was external. You didn’t know what a workstation is. Please tell me what a workstation is because your answer will show you that you’re an idiot.
I pointed it out already. I take it you still don’t know a workstation is because your statement is idiotic.
Give it up. You’ve been caught lying. From the beginning you were insistent about talking the iMac even though no one was taking about it. The you compared SATA which is an internal connector to TB2 which is not remotely the same. Then you said a NAS wasn’t a server. All you called Pro workstations as toys. When pointed out all this idiocy you just doubled down and insisted that’s not what you meant. You tried to explain the “toys” comment as meaning that workstations can’t do all types of work. Dude, they are workstations for a reason. They are specialized for certain tasks. Learn what a workstation is. You’re just dishonest.
Mmmmmmm . . . donuts *drools*
I don’t know the finer details of dark matter, but what I do know is that one of the very first questions posed about the existence of dark matter was whether it was just unaccounted ordinary matter. And further research said no it was not. And it wasn’t one team/person that verified this. Multiple teams in at least two ways have verified the numbers.
Also using visible light isn’t the only technique cosmologists use. The EM spectrum consists of way more than human visible light.