Compaq reverse engineered the BIOS. It did not copy the text of some file that defined the API. I don't think that the INT operations even had fixed names - they had numbers. So a BIOS call would be documented as http://stanislavs.org/helppc/i...
INT 16,0 Wait for keystroke and read
This exact operation can be described using different words e.g.
On Int 16,0 the system will pause until a keystroke is pressed and the value will be placed in AH.
I understand the issue in Oracle v. Google to be exact copying of some number of interfere files. Such files did not exist for BIOS as far as I recall.
Visualizing a 2x size rudder on a B-52 made me lol. Just got back from a trip to the Pima Air Museum and saw some great aircraft, but that would be great.
A huge standard library that has been stable for 20 years (backward compatible as much as humanly possible) has a lot to do with it as well.
In other languages, I feel like I have to re-learn basic elements every decade to "how it's done now"...
No kidding - especially the socket libraries that let me write network code in the later 90s that would work on Sun, Mac, Windows, and Linux. Getting cross platform network code to work in C at that time was quite painful. And I don't recall any C++ libraries that I found pleasant to use before boost, and now Qt. And even now, while I consider boost essential, it's really only pleasant in the same way as no longer having to get your braces tightened qualifies as pleasant.
If I were to peer-review a paper on this, I would insist on a plausible physical explanation for the claimed measurement. The burden of proof is on them: they are making a truly extraordinary claim, one that, if true, would entail revising all of physics from its very foundation.
When somebody sounds like a total fucking crackpot, they almost always are.
You might have missed high temp super conductivity entirely then. The phenomenon was measured and replicated in many labs - but it was at least a few years before any plausible theory came out - and 20 years on we do not have firm agreement on the cause.
It is a little more extensive in Texas - you can use deadly force against a fleeing robber to recover property that could not be replaced.
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
I wonder if the accretion disk could get to the point of pair instability thereby reducing the photon pressure and increasing the rate of flow across the event horizon.
I did a little Googling, but any knowledgeable pointer would be appreciated - as I'm sure the idea is not novel.
It may be people at work were kidding me:
However, apparently it is common to drive into the sea at Talinn. http://www.topgear.com/uk/phot... http://www.bencoombs.net/page7...
As for temp:
Helsinki Airport recorded a temperature of 34.0 C (93.2 F) on 29 July 2010 and a low of 35.9 C (33 F) on 9 January 1987. - so maybe I'm thinking with wind chill.
I had the great pleasure of staying in Helsinki for Dec/Jan - love the Finns. It finally got down to -44 or so and there was much celebration at work as the gulf had frozen over and the booze run to Tallinn could be done by car. I gratefully declined the invite to go along for the ride.
The juror is there to determine the facts of the case. The prosecution and defense are both giving their sides. The jury may decide that there's reasonable doubt, doubt but it's not reasonable, or no doubt one way or another. It's their call. They really don't care about the agent's theories, because they are not FACTS.
I assume that the agent's theories were developed to support some set of facts that he had at hand and that those facts can still be pointed to in support of the previous theory. I've not studied this case in any detail, but I know that the goal of any prosecutor is to get a conviction, sometimes more so than being sure they have the right guilty party on trial. While in the ideal world, justice and truth might converge, in our world justice is on a clock and the truth is not.
I don't think the soundness of the theory is so important to the jury as is the fact that the agent was sure this other guy was the DPR, and now the agent is sure the defendant is the DPR - the agent has to admit to being wrong before and can be asked why in 6 months he would not have a new theory about who really is the DPR. I think it leaves a lot of doubt about the certainty the agent ought to feel about his theory.
"wave-particle duality is simply the quantum uncertainty principle" gets a "no shit" straight away from me, though I guess a rigorous proof of it is kind of news.
That's how science work.
That more about how math works. Physicists did not care that the calculus of infinitesimal was not rigorous; see especially the Dirac-Delta function. It gave them answers that agreed with experiment which for a Physicist is the best proof.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
Right, but the sentence you are make fun of is talking about stabilizing the rocket as it is coming back into the atmosphere, ass first in a no longer particularly aerodynamic configuration as it is missing the whole second stage and payload section. Flight stability in the nose going first direction is much better than in the engine going first direction. They are not complaining how hard it is to go that last 10m to the landing; I agree with you that stability control at that point is pretty easy. You know the first attempt they made for power re-entry failed because the axial rotation of the booster caused fuel starvation to the engine due to centrifigal force. Full tanks and no rotation at launch save you from that worry.
And as for less mass being easier to stabilize - can you balance a pencil on your finger? How 'bout a broomstick?
At 14 stories tall and traveling upwards of 1300 m/s (nearly 1 mi/s), stabilizing the Falcon 9 first stage for reentry is like trying to balance a rubber broomstick on your hand in the middle of a wind storm.
EXACTLY the same as takeoff. NO difference.
Same amount of fuel? No, so not the same moments of inertia. During launch the engine is pushing in the direction of travel, during re-entry no. During launch, the aerodynamics include that nice fairing on the nose, which should be a bit less chaotic than coming engine first down. The period of 1300 m/s travel that you quote and compare to launch is not during launch (0 m/s) - it is probably closer to the period of maximum dynamic load and clearly during super sonic travel. The reverse part of that travel, the period of maximal dynamic load during re-entry in a non-aerodynamic configuration is rather more difficult than getting off the pad.
The crash happened across platforms, though I have a limited view of it - I co-wrote Repton for Sirius Software, available on Apple II, C-64, and Atari 400/800. Sirius went out of business because 20th Century Fox failed a promised payment of $20mil. But I also worked for Infocom around '85 - and they were also crushed - maybe due to being text based.
I suppose I am to some degree being pedantic, but if the term causality had occurred in his explanation, or he'd said "X causes Y" is invariant I'd not have replied.
As long as there's no faster-than-light travel, "X happens before Y" is an invariant - it's true in all reference frames.
No. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/... and for the longer version http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L....
In these examples, the doors either close at the same time for the observer stationary with respect to the barn, or at different times for the observer running with the pole.
OK, sorry, should have said ""X doesn't happen after Y" is an invariant" (there don't exist reference frames such that X happens before Y in one frame and X happens after Y in another frame).
Again no. A running coming from the other direction would see the doors close in the other order. I think the AC parallel to this post explains it pretty well.
As long as there's no faster-than-light travel, "X happens before Y" is an invariant - it's true in all reference frames.
No. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/... and for the longer version http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L....
In these examples, the doors either close at the same time for the observer stationary with respect to the barn, or at different times for the observer running with the pole.
Always enjoy reading his lectures - thanks. Had the pleasure of hearing a couple as well. Maybe I was not clear in my statement - the LHC itself is not so much an experiment as a source of high energy collisions - the experiments are the detectors placed in the beam line, and with respect to the detection of the Higgs, there are the two:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.... While they are similar in that they detect collisions and take careful account of the collision products they do so differently. So they are effectively in a position to reproduce each others results as they have done with the detection of the Higgs.
Science is about reproducible results. Publish the details of your experiment, so I can perform your experiment (and variations on it) myself. Your claim is strengthened if I get the same results you do.
But I don't have a Large Hadron Collider! How am I supposed to reproduce this?
The fact is that many experiments are expensive to reproduce and will not be; and there are scientists who do poor work either intentionally or due to institutional reasons. The desire to do great science is only part of the motivation of a scientist; the desire to feed one's family can influence anyone thinking, as can the desire for fame, or other desires.
Addressing the LHC argument - The LHC requires thousands of scientists, the results will be examined to see if they match previous results at the appropriate energies, and it is worth noting that the LHC has detectors ATLAS and CMS which effectively check each others results regarding detection of the Higgs. And there are other detectors looking for new physics, that are not presently worth the cost of double coverage.
I suspect that there are backwaters of science, where someone may find gain in having published many papers, and have low risk of being caught because the value of the results is such that they will not be replicated; but when you cheat like Jan Hendrik Schön with results that would be quite valuable then you can expect work attempting to extend the experiment to be done, and when it fails the original work will be re-checked.
Thanks - a little looking has been fun http://www.physics.montana.edu...
But, one order of magnitude in density from outer core to center for a neutron star compares to about nine orders of magnitude from center to envelope on our own Sun.
Read the conclusion where the author directly addresses your concerns. But, I will also point out that at the stage of collapse the authors are talking about the star more closely resembles a neutron star rather than a hydrogen fusing star. Because a neutron star is supported by Pauli exclusion, it seems to me that the density may well be close to constant through out a majority of the star.
Slashdot Mirror
Compaq reverse engineered the BIOS. It did not copy the text of some file that defined the API. I don't think that the INT operations even had fixed names - they had numbers. So a BIOS call would be documented as http://stanislavs.org/helppc/i...
INT 16,0 Wait for keystroke and read
This exact operation can be described using different words e.g.
On Int 16,0 the system will pause until a keystroke is pressed and the value will be placed in AH.
I understand the issue in Oracle v. Google to be exact copying of some number of interfere files. Such files did not exist for BIOS as far as I recall.
Visualizing a 2x size rudder on a B-52 made me lol. Just got back from a trip to the Pima Air Museum and saw some great aircraft, but that would be great.
hope he get a Nobel.
Many a Super Cub. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
A huge standard library that has been stable for 20 years (backward compatible as much as humanly possible) has a lot to do with it as well.
In other languages, I feel like I have to re-learn basic elements every decade to "how it's done now"...
No kidding - especially the socket libraries that let me write network code in the later 90s that would work on Sun, Mac, Windows, and Linux. Getting cross platform network code to work in C at that time was quite painful. And I don't recall any C++ libraries that I found pleasant to use before boost, and now Qt. And even now, while I consider boost essential, it's really only pleasant in the same way as no longer having to get your braces tightened qualifies as pleasant.
If I were to peer-review a paper on this, I would insist on a plausible physical explanation for the claimed measurement. The burden of proof is on them: they are making a truly extraordinary claim, one that, if true, would entail revising all of physics from its very foundation.
When somebody sounds like a total fucking crackpot, they almost always are.
You might have missed high temp super conductivity entirely then. The phenomenon was measured and replicated in many labs - but it was at least a few years before any plausible theory came out - and 20 years on we do not have firm agreement on the cause.
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and (3) he reasonably believes that: (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
I wonder if the accretion disk could get to the point of pair instability thereby reducing the photon pressure and increasing the rate of flow across the event horizon. I did a little Googling, but any knowledgeable pointer would be appreciated - as I'm sure the idea is not novel.
Thanks /. for removing the - from my comment!
It may be people at work were kidding me: However, apparently it is common to drive into the sea at Talinn.
http://www.topgear.com/uk/phot...
http://www.bencoombs.net/page7...
As for temp:
Helsinki Airport recorded a temperature of 34.0 C (93.2 F) on 29 July 2010 and a low of 35.9 C (33 F) on 9 January 1987. - so maybe I'm thinking with wind chill.
I had the great pleasure of staying in Helsinki for Dec/Jan - love the Finns. It finally got down to -44 or so and there was much celebration at work as the gulf had frozen over and the booze run to Tallinn could be done by car. I gratefully declined the invite to go along for the ride.
The juror is there to determine the facts of the case. The prosecution and defense are both giving their sides. The jury may decide that there's reasonable doubt, doubt but it's not reasonable, or no doubt one way or another. It's their call. They really don't care about the agent's theories, because they are not FACTS.
I assume that the agent's theories were developed to support some set of facts that he had at hand and that those facts can still be pointed to in support of the previous theory. I've not studied this case in any detail, but I know that the goal of any prosecutor is to get a conviction, sometimes more so than being sure they have the right guilty party on trial. While in the ideal world, justice and truth might converge, in our world justice is on a clock and the truth is not.
I don't think the soundness of the theory is so important to the jury as is the fact that the agent was sure this other guy was the DPR, and now the agent is sure the defendant is the DPR - the agent has to admit to being wrong before and can be asked why in 6 months he would not have a new theory about who really is the DPR. I think it leaves a lot of doubt about the certainty the agent ought to feel about his theory.
"wave-particle duality is simply the quantum uncertainty principle" gets a "no shit" straight away from me, though I guess a rigorous proof of it is kind of news.
That's how science work.
That more about how math works. Physicists did not care that the calculus of infinitesimal was not rigorous; see especially the Dirac-Delta function. It gave them answers that agreed with experiment which for a Physicist is the best proof. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
Right, but the sentence you are make fun of is talking about stabilizing the rocket as it is coming back into the atmosphere, ass first in a no longer particularly aerodynamic configuration as it is missing the whole second stage and payload section. Flight stability in the nose going first direction is much better than in the engine going first direction. They are not complaining how hard it is to go that last 10m to the landing; I agree with you that stability control at that point is pretty easy. You know the first attempt they made for power re-entry failed because the axial rotation of the booster caused fuel starvation to the engine due to centrifigal force. Full tanks and no rotation at launch save you from that worry.
And as for less mass being easier to stabilize - can you balance a pencil on your finger? How 'bout a broomstick?
And I don't mean the speed of light kind.
EXACTLY the same as takeoff. NO difference.
Same amount of fuel? No, so not the same moments of inertia. During launch the engine is pushing in the direction of travel, during re-entry no. During launch, the aerodynamics include that nice fairing on the nose, which should be a bit less chaotic than coming engine first down. The period of 1300 m/s travel that you quote and compare to launch is not during launch (0 m/s) - it is probably closer to the period of maximum dynamic load and clearly during super sonic travel. The reverse part of that travel, the period of maximal dynamic load during re-entry in a non-aerodynamic configuration is rather more difficult than getting off the pad.
The crash happened across platforms, though I have a limited view of it - I co-wrote Repton for Sirius Software, available on Apple II, C-64, and Atari 400/800. Sirius went out of business because 20th Century Fox failed a promised payment of $20mil. But I also worked for Infocom around '85 - and they were also crushed - maybe due to being text based.
Maybe when the editors are finally fully automated we could get the Cal Tech ==> Caltech rule running.
I suppose I am to some degree being pedantic, but if the term causality had occurred in his explanation, or he'd said "X causes Y" is invariant I'd not have replied.
As long as there's no faster-than-light travel, "X happens before Y" is an invariant - it's true in all reference frames.
No. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/... and for the longer version http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.... In these examples, the doors either close at the same time for the observer stationary with respect to the barn, or at different times for the observer running with the pole.
OK, sorry, should have said ""X doesn't happen after Y" is an invariant" (there don't exist reference frames such that X happens before Y in one frame and X happens after Y in another frame).
Again no. A running coming from the other direction would see the doors close in the other order. I think the AC parallel to this post explains it pretty well.
As long as there's no faster-than-light travel, "X happens before Y" is an invariant - it's true in all reference frames.
No. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/... and for the longer version http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.... In these examples, the doors either close at the same time for the observer stationary with respect to the barn, or at different times for the observer running with the pole.
Always enjoy reading his lectures - thanks. Had the pleasure of hearing a couple as well.
Maybe I was not clear in my statement - the LHC itself is not so much an experiment as a source of high energy collisions - the experiments are the detectors placed in the beam line, and with respect to the detection of the Higgs, there are the two: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.... While they are similar in that they detect collisions and take careful account of the collision products they do so differently. So they are effectively in a position to reproduce each others results as they have done with the detection of the Higgs.
Science is about reproducible results. Publish the details of your experiment, so I can perform your experiment (and variations on it) myself. Your claim is strengthened if I get the same results you do.
But I don't have a Large Hadron Collider! How am I supposed to reproduce this?
The fact is that many experiments are expensive to reproduce and will not be; and there are scientists who do poor work either intentionally or due to institutional reasons. The desire to do great science is only part of the motivation of a scientist; the desire to feed one's family can influence anyone thinking, as can the desire for fame, or other desires.
Addressing the LHC argument - The LHC requires thousands of scientists, the results will be examined to see if they match previous results at the appropriate energies, and it is worth noting that the LHC has detectors ATLAS and CMS which effectively check each others results regarding detection of the Higgs. And there are other detectors looking for new physics, that are not presently worth the cost of double coverage.
I suspect that there are backwaters of science, where someone may find gain in having published many papers, and have low risk of being caught because the value of the results is such that they will not be replicated; but when you cheat like Jan Hendrik Schön with results that would be quite valuable then you can expect work attempting to extend the experiment to be done, and when it fails the original work will be re-checked.
Thanks - a little looking has been fun http://www.physics.montana.edu... But, one order of magnitude in density from outer core to center for a neutron star compares to about nine orders of magnitude from center to envelope on our own Sun.
Read the conclusion where the author directly addresses your concerns. But, I will also point out that at the stage of collapse the authors are talking about the star more closely resembles a neutron star rather than a hydrogen fusing star. Because a neutron star is supported by Pauli exclusion, it seems to me that the density may well be close to constant through out a majority of the star.