chemical
noun -
a compound or substance that has been purified or prepared, esp. artificially: never mix disinfectant with other chemicals | controversy arose over treatment of apples with this chemical.
Point is that the common usage of the word, and the definition in my dictionary means especially artificially produced.
I’m most concerned that this malware uses a three-year-old flaw in Microsoft Office 2004 for Mac, Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac, and Open XML File Format Converter for Mac. Here’s the corresponding security bulletin: MS09-027 - Critical.
A Polish soldier was confronted by a charging German
soldier and a charging Russian soldier. Which did he
shoot first, and why?
He shot the German first--business before pleasure.
These points of view are serious to a country that was not its own country twice in the last 100 years.
Dark matter, like any mass is affected by gravity, so there is likely great gobs of the stuff in orbit around galactic black holes. The issue with pulling in dark matter is the problem that dark matter does not interact strongly with anything, including itself. So there is no mechanism for the DM to loose angular momentum which would have to happen for it to fall in. So the only dark matter that gets eaten is the stuff that is on a trajectory that intersects the event horizon area of the BH. The reason that BHs can eat normal matter is because normal matter collides with itself shedding angular momentum; an accretion disc turns out to be an efficient way to shed that momentum and therefore an efficient way to feed a black hole.
I suppose that DM will eventually shed angular momentum because it will emit gravity waves as it orbits the BH, but that seems like a pretty slow way to do so.
No. Black holes like the one being talked about do not loose much energy to gravitational waves. In order to dissipate energy via gravitational waves the mass must accelerate. So a pair of masses orbiting each other will shed gravitational energy, a galactic black hole sitting in the center of the galaxy does not move much and so does not emit gravity waves. Regarding Hawing radiation dissipation, the temperature of the Hawking radiation is greater as the mass of the BH is smaller. In order to loose net mass, this temperature has to be larger than the CMB, which is only true for I think smaller than stellar size BHs.
The mechanical feedback facilitates a level of non-verbal communication. Assuming one seated pilot would know to push forward, he would at least feel - and that is much better than see that the pilot flying was not doing so.
Not sure where 20,000 feet higher is coming from. B-52 operates at 50,000 and the V-bombers seem to operate at 55,000. Cruise for B-52 seems to be about 90% to 95% of the V-bombers.
The thing is that even in 1940s, subsonic aerodynamics were pretty well understood, and could be well studied in wind tunnels. We have better engines now, but other than winglets the shape of subsonic jet aircraft has remained remarkably the same - probably because it is near optimal.
My statistics are fine, let's go over them in detail. From the article: 1,422 people diagnosed with meningioma, and a control group of 1,350 who had not been diagnosed with a tumor. Also from the article
To put that in perspective, Dr. Paul Pharoah, a cancer researcher at the University of Cambridge said in a statement the results would mean an increase in lifetime risk of intracranial meningioma in the U.K. from 15 out of every 10,000 people to 22 in 10,000 people.
But back to Dr. Paul Pharaoh's claim and correct use of Poisson statistics. When using Poisson statistics, the sample size is the number of positive events not the total population under study, in this case the 15 people with meningioma. One standard deviation is Sqrt[sample], so rounding to 4. This means that for any group of 10,000 people, there is a 68% chance that the number with meningioma is between 11 and 19. Similarly for that 22/10,0000 estimate, one standard deviation is Sqrt[22] ~ 4.6. For any 10,000 people in that group the odd are 68% that there will be between 17 and 26 people with meningioma. So we can see that there is overlap between the two expectations. From the 15 number to the 22 is about 1.8 sigma, and while 1.8 sigma hints at a result no self respecting physicist would publish that as a result; they would want to get at least three sigma certainty. And this report is no where near 3 sigma. You state your claim of a 46% increase with a certainty that is not supported by the statistics. In some cohorts of 10,000 it is 46%, but in about the same number of cohorts it is 0% A recent editorial in Nature comments on directly on sloppy use of statistics in cancer research: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7391/full/483509a.html
improper use of statistics — the failure to understand the difference between technical replicates and independent experiments, for example.
It is relevant to the paper and our discussion.
For in-depth discussion on my above work I recommend my favorite statistics book, which has good coverage of the use of Poisson statistics: An Introduction to Error Analysis by John Taylor ; http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Error-Analysis-Uncertainties-Measurements/dp/093570275X - suitable even for a Frosh E&AS major.
* It is possible that clever use of Baysian statistics could push the sigma of the origial paper past 2, but I'd be surprised if they could get to 3.
So, not that huge an increase.
Actually 46% is a huge increase.
They never seem to show the error bars. We are looking at a sample of 15. Not knowing anything else, one might assume Poisson statistics in which case the 1 sigma error is 1/sqrt(sample), so about 25%.
This means that 66% of the time, if one were to run the exact same test, one would get results that varied by plus or minus 4 events. The difference between a sample of 15 and a sample of 21 can be expected about half the time.
It really takes the urgency out of - OMG a factor of 46%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_distribution.
What you call crappy, I call a realistic vision of robotic terror that burned itself into my 11-year-old psyche so deep that there's a bit of me that still gets a little jolt of fear upon seeing that endoskeleton to this day.
Isn't that the truth. An uncle took my 11 year old self to a midnight showing of Alien when it came out. We were late and the only two adjacent seats were in the second row. When Dallas got it in the air shaft I grabbed my uncles knee in terror - he grabbed the knee of some girl sitting next to him who then screamed like the alien had just grabbed her. When I got home that night I slept with the lights on.
Each engine on an F-18 can produce thrust equal to about 1/4 max takeoff weight. I'd be shocked if that was not sufficient to get the plane off the ground given enough runway. Since it was already air born one engine should be plenty to get an F-18 back into the pattern. Consider this is a plane that can do Mach 1.8 - and rotation (takeoff) speed is likely less than 150 mph fully loaded. So that second engine is not so much for takeoff as for Mach cruise at 40,000 ft.
Doesn't the discussion highlight the meaning of "ordinary skill in the art"? I might argue that the person asking the implementation question has such ordinary skill, and they are asking Linus, who I posit has greater than ordinary skill in the art, for direction because to them the answer is not obvious. The counter argument is that another person had already done an implementation and I think Linus may have been recalling the other implementation, but Linus offers some good insight on compatibility issues in his post. Again this shows beyond ordinary skill.
The real value of the post is that it makes abundantly clear that at that point in time the issue had been solved and published, which shows prior art rather than I think ordinary skill.
Have a look at Superheterodyne - a technique for shifting input frequencies to a range better able to be processed. I don't know that GPS receivers use it, but many receivers do. And the issue can be that the mixing frequency can find its way back out the antenna, so in many cases an inexpensive receiver also transmits on frequencies that it need not detect.
For fun have a look at http://www.emcuk.co.uk/awareness/Pages/InterferenceExamples/RadioSusceptibility.htm
Slashdot Mirror
chemical
noun - a compound or substance that has been purified or prepared, esp. artificially: never mix disinfectant with other chemicals | controversy arose over treatment of apples with this chemical.
Point is that the common usage of the word, and the definition in my dictionary means especially artificially produced.
Until MS ports Office to Linux, Linux is safe from this particular vulnerability.
And I suppose to be fair in attentive os x users.
I’m most concerned that this malware uses a three-year-old flaw in Microsoft Office 2004 for Mac, Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac, and Open XML File Format Converter for Mac. Here’s the corresponding security bulletin: MS09-027 - Critical.
But they are not a military force, in fact they never were except during WW-II.
This view is about 500 years short of complete. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(history) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Polish_War_(1654%E2%80%931667).
A Polish soldier was confronted by a charging German soldier and a charging Russian soldier.
Which did he shoot first, and why?
He shot the German first--business before pleasure.
These points of view are serious to a country that was not its own country twice in the last 100 years.
Well, they are getting better a handling firearms, so it should not be too long now. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/8927325/Dog-shoots-man-in-buttocks-US-police-reveal.html
Dark matter, like any mass is affected by gravity, so there is likely great gobs of the stuff in orbit around galactic black holes. The issue with pulling in dark matter is the problem that dark matter does not interact strongly with anything, including itself. So there is no mechanism for the DM to loose angular momentum which would have to happen for it to fall in. So the only dark matter that gets eaten is the stuff that is on a trajectory that intersects the event horizon area of the BH. The reason that BHs can eat normal matter is because normal matter collides with itself shedding angular momentum; an accretion disc turns out to be an efficient way to shed that momentum and therefore an efficient way to feed a black hole.
I suppose that DM will eventually shed angular momentum because it will emit gravity waves as it orbits the BH, but that seems like a pretty slow way to do so.
No. Black holes like the one being talked about do not loose much energy to gravitational waves. In order to dissipate energy via gravitational waves the mass must accelerate. So a pair of masses orbiting each other will shed gravitational energy, a galactic black hole sitting in the center of the galaxy does not move much and so does not emit gravity waves.
Regarding Hawing radiation dissipation, the temperature of the Hawking radiation is greater as the mass of the BH is smaller. In order to loose net mass, this temperature has to be larger than the CMB, which is only true for I think smaller than stellar size BHs.
The mechanical feedback facilitates a level of non-verbal communication. Assuming one seated pilot would know to push forward, he would at least feel - and that is much better than see that the pilot flying was not doing so.
Totally agree, but they would feel the action - which seems to me even better than see.
I would respectfully suggest what the girl was having was not a tantrum; perhaps more like a panic.
If that is 1:10,000,000 per instance of hamburger eaten I may be in trouble.
Come on ed. How bout a case sensitive automated check?
Not sure where 20,000 feet higher is coming from. B-52 operates at 50,000 and the V-bombers seem to operate at 55,000. Cruise for B-52 seems to be about 90% to 95% of the V-bombers.
The thing is that even in 1940s, subsonic aerodynamics were pretty well understood, and could be well studied in wind tunnels. We have better engines now, but other than winglets the shape of subsonic jet aircraft has remained remarkably the same - probably because it is near optimal.
To put that in perspective, Dr. Paul Pharoah, a cancer researcher at the University of Cambridge said in a statement the results would mean an increase in lifetime risk of intracranial meningioma in the U.K. from 15 out of every 10,000 people to 22 in 10,000 people.
I have scanned the original paper http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.26625/abstract as well, and it is not very impressive as to its use of statistics. This AC in the thread gets the statistics right with respect to the original paper: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2777187&cid=39634199
But back to Dr. Paul Pharaoh's claim and correct use of Poisson statistics. When using Poisson statistics, the sample size is the number of positive events not the total population under study, in this case the 15 people with meningioma. One standard deviation is Sqrt[sample], so rounding to 4. This means that for any group of 10,000 people, there is a 68% chance that the number with meningioma is between 11 and 19. Similarly for that 22/10,0000 estimate, one standard deviation is Sqrt[22] ~ 4.6. For any 10,000 people in that group the odd are 68% that there will be between 17 and 26 people with meningioma. So we can see that there is overlap between the two expectations. From the 15 number to the 22 is about 1.8 sigma, and while 1.8 sigma hints at a result no self respecting physicist would publish that as a result; they would want to get at least three sigma certainty. And this report is no where near 3 sigma.
You state your claim of a 46% increase with a certainty that is not supported by the statistics. In some cohorts of 10,000 it is 46%, but in about the same number of cohorts it is 0%
A recent editorial in Nature comments on directly on sloppy use of statistics in cancer research: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7391/full/483509a.html
improper use of statistics — the failure to understand the difference between technical replicates and independent experiments, for example.
It is relevant to the paper and our discussion.
For in-depth discussion on my above work I recommend my favorite statistics book, which has good coverage of the use of Poisson statistics: An Introduction to Error Analysis by John Taylor ; http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Error-Analysis-Uncertainties-Measurements/dp/093570275X - suitable even for a Frosh E&AS major.
* It is possible that clever use of Baysian statistics could push the sigma of the origial paper past 2, but I'd be surprised if they could get to 3.
So, not that huge an increase. Actually 46% is a huge increase.
They never seem to show the error bars. We are looking at a sample of 15. Not knowing anything else, one might assume Poisson statistics in which case the 1 sigma error is 1/sqrt(sample), so about 25%.
This means that 66% of the time, if one were to run the exact same test, one would get results that varied by plus or minus 4 events. The difference between a sample of 15 and a sample of 21 can be expected about half the time.
It really takes the urgency out of - OMG a factor of 46%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_distribution.
What you call crappy, I call a realistic vision of robotic terror that burned itself into my 11-year-old psyche so deep that there's a bit of me that still gets a little jolt of fear upon seeing that endoskeleton to this day.
Isn't that the truth. An uncle took my 11 year old self to a midnight showing of Alien when it came out. We were late and the only two adjacent seats were in the second row. When Dallas got it in the air shaft I grabbed my uncles knee in terror - he grabbed the knee of some girl sitting next to him who then screamed like the alien had just grabbed her. When I got home that night I slept with the lights on.
Each engine on an F-18 can produce thrust equal to about 1/4 max takeoff weight. I'd be shocked if that was not sufficient to get the plane off the ground given enough runway. Since it was already air born one engine should be plenty to get an F-18 back into the pattern. Consider this is a plane that can do Mach 1.8 - and rotation (takeoff) speed is likely less than 150 mph fully loaded. So that second engine is not so much for takeoff as for Mach cruise at 40,000 ft.
Radial 4 strokes were quite common; and still are for real planes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radial_engine
My favorite - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_R-4360_Wasp_Major
Smallish servos for RC are in the 1.5-8 gram range, and measured to the 1/10 gram. http://www.pololu.com/catalog/category/23
There are much smaller actuators - Plantraco MicroACT. Weight is 0.41 grams and it comes with a Nano connector. http://www.bsdmicrorc.com/index.php?productID=601
Plantraco HingeACT as used on their Butterfly. Weight 0.22 gms.
And I suspect that these are on among the heavier components of small planes. http://www.microflight.com/Micro-Butterfly-RTF-Set : Wingspan 3.5 inches (114mm) Flying Weight 2.6g
So the whole airplane is 2.6g.
Doesn't the discussion highlight the meaning of "ordinary skill in the art"? I might argue that the person asking the implementation question has such ordinary skill, and they are asking Linus, who I posit has greater than ordinary skill in the art, for direction because to them the answer is not obvious. The counter argument is that another person had already done an implementation and I think Linus may have been recalling the other implementation, but Linus offers some good insight on compatibility issues in his post. Again this shows beyond ordinary skill.
The real value of the post is that it makes abundantly clear that at that point in time the issue had been solved and published, which shows prior art rather than I think ordinary skill.
Have a look at Superheterodyne - a technique for shifting input frequencies to a range better able to be processed. I don't know that GPS receivers use it, but many receivers do. And the issue can be that the mixing frequency can find its way back out the antenna, so in many cases an inexpensive receiver also transmits on frequencies that it need not detect.
For fun have a look at http://www.emcuk.co.uk/awareness/Pages/InterferenceExamples/RadioSusceptibility.htm
ARRGGHH - title had a > - but it dissapeared
photon-photon collisions do happen, just at a very low cross section for low energy photons. See: Photon-Photon Collisions – Past and Future http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-pub-11581.pdf
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation#CMBR_dipole_anisotropy for my preferred choice of movement relative to the universe. I'll leave it to you to decide if CMB rest frame is good enough.