You can definitely make a tiny sensor array with higher technical resolution than traditional ISO 400 print film grain... maybe even ISO 100. The catch is, you'll have to light up the scene to retina-searing brightness levels like a color movie set from the 1930s, because your effective f-stop will be insanely high
No, you cannot match the resolution because the insanely high f-stop implies insanely high loss of resolution due to diffraction. At low f-stop, the optics determines the resolution and you can improve it by making the iris smaller but smaller iris results in the diffraction loss and there is an optimal f-stop with maximum resolution. Higher f-stop will not make it better.
One of the best is
https://www.routehappy.com/
By default it sorts by a score which is a combination of comfort, travel time, airline ratings, and price.
If it is due to sexism=great business opportunity
on
Sexism In Science
·
· Score: 1
If women are as productive as men than there is an extreme business opportunity for hiring women. Women-heavy employers would have great advantage over men-heavy employers in the same field: the same work done with lower salary. In free market, it would increase demand for women labor and would equalize salaries.
What is also possible is that women are in fact less productive in aggregate. Even with equal potential capabilities to men, the employers are not sure if a hired women is going to concentrate on the career or on taking care of the children and this potential risk makes them offer smaller salaries. This theory is supported by the fact that the men/women salary gap is the smallest in Scandinavian countries where there are programs forcing men to take parental leave to take care of children.
The distribution fee is a significant part of my utility bill
Distribution fee covers the infrastructure costs. Ever seen a footage after a big storm with fallen trees, broken lines? Maintaining and repairing the lines is costly. It costs much more than power losses due to transmission over large distances. You would have to pay fees to cover infrastructure costs no matter if there were one power plant per 100,000 households or one per 100.
Currently there is an enormous backlash against ACTA in Poland. If the ratification voting were held today, it would likely be rejected. But suspending means trying to push it later (or via EU channels) when it becomes forgotten. Now is the time for other EU citizens to stand up when it is still hot.
Sadly, corporate lobbying is so strong nowadays that fighting it requires almost constant effort.
Insulation works both during summer and in winter and is used in housing in Europe. It is not expensive (although painting is definitely cheaper) and it does not impact the roof aesthetics. 10 inches of mineral wool is a good starting point but in colder climates, more is better.
As much as the Bitcoin stories are getting a little much we are seeing the birth of something completely new; A medium of exchange that is independent of any government.
This is not new. There were and are many currencies independent of any government (Disney, Linden dollar, local currencies) but Bitcoin is the first project of currency fully decentralized, independent of any central authority. This is something really novel.
This obviously assumes the attacker is interested in profits that can be extracted from the system. An attacker who is already wealthy, and has a greater interest in undermining the system than extracting profit from it, can trivially overwhelm the network by assembling processing power - especially if the attacker already has a stockpile of processing power.
Usually, the cost of destroying something is much cheaper than creating it. That's why terrorism can work. The cost of attacking is not that large compared to fear, destruction and cost of guarding. 9/11 proved it very well.
In case of Bitcoins, obtaining 50% of the network compute speed required for completely disrupting the Bitcoin network grows with Bitcoin size. When Bitcoin network compute speed crossed the fastest supercomputer Tianhe-1A, it is no longer that easy. Destroying Bitcoin network is roughly as costly as the Bitcoin economy size and if it grows, it will become even more costly. This is not asymmetric as in case of terrorism. It is still possible for national governments but it's no longer a matter switching on a small cluster.
This obviously assumes the attacker is interested in profits that can be extracted from the system. An attacker who is already wealthy, and has a greater interest in undermining the system than extracting profit from it, can trivially overwhelm the network by assembling processing power - especially if the attacker already has a stockpile of processing power.
Usually, the cost of destroying something is much cheaper than creating it. That's why terrorism can work. The cost of attacking is not that large compared to fear, destruction and cost of guarding. 9/11 proved it very well.
In case of Bitcoins, obtaining 50% of the network compute speed required for completely disrupting the Bitcoin network grows with Bitcoin size. When Bitcoin network compute speed crossed the fastest supercomputer Tianhe-1A, it is no longer that easy. Destroying Bitcoin economy is roughly as costly as the Bitcoin economy size and if it grows, it will become even more costly.
Available here. Some have decent data plans (30-month unlimited GPRS, first 5GB on HSDPA is available in O2). You will need an unlocked GSM phone and buy a SIM card in Germany.
The numbers given are someones imagination. Total world power consumption is 15 TW (there is a link to a DOE report in wiki). The total world geothermal heat flux is 44.2 TW (including the crust under oceans).
Of course to some extent this heat can be "mined". The crust is a good heat insulator so it takes ages for the heat to escape the Earth. By drilling and pumping water, one can extract this heat quicker thus increasing the flux. But then, it's no longer a renewable source and it's not going to be virtually inexhaustible.Of course there are some "hotspots", where geothermal energy is viable but it will not solve the energy problems.
It's been 21 years since the catastrophe. All the short-lived isotopes are long gone. Heck, most of the isotopes were gone after a few weeks. The radiation levels are currently quite low, up to 7 mSv/year in the less contaminated areas of the zone. It's only 2-3 times of the natural background in the USA. There are places, where natural radiation is much higher than that. I'm surprised anybody can be surprised the wildlife is soaring. Human (or rather human activity) is the biggest wildlife killer. Radiation in low levels is completely unimportant.
I'm not a neuroscientist but I work on molecular interactions and the idea is not that far fetched. In general all interactions involve quantum mechanics. Protein folding, DNA helix, it all requires dispersion which is a purely quantum-mechanical effect. I'd say the whole chemistry is immersed in quantum mechanics. Well, color can only be explained by quantum excitations, so why not smell?
This theory is "revolutionary" because biochemists use classical simulations. Quantum mechanics is very difficult to apply to such large systems in practice but these molecules definitely are governed by quantum mechanics like all molecules.
I have never used other fonts than those installed in standard texmf/tex/latex/psnfss/. I have no idea if they are available. The problem with fonts is that most of them are proprietary. Possibly you could buy them.
First, what do these equations look like such that it takes 200 gigaflops just to model one atom.
The article is light on details but I suppose the only quantum algorithm that can handle 1000 atoms is Quantum Monte Carlo. The problem is that the algorithm is cubic with the number of particles (and has a huge prefactor). So in essence 1000 atoms is 1000^3=10^9 more time consuming than one. And I'm sure they still use dramatic simplifications, even though they have the most powerful computer. They probably do not consider all electrons, instead they use pseudopotentials. And the Quantum Monte Carlo is likely in a fixed-node variant which is approximate. How long does it take? It's hard to tell but probably a few hours or days each and they are performing several those with different conditions.
Take a fusion bomb and wrap it with Uranium-238--under these conditions, this so-called "depleted" Uranium suddenly becomes very fissile indeed, and the resulting explosion will be many times bigger. As an added bonus, extremely intense neutron radiation is produced, enough to instantly kill anyone lucky enough to survive the blast
This is totally wrong. The uranium tamper whould reduce the neutron radiation. Some neutrons are produced in fission but a lot more in fusion. A neutron bomb lacks any tamper. It is a fusion bomb disigned to leak as many neutrons as possible. In the standard 3-stage fission-fusion-fission bomb, the fusion neutrons do not escape. They trigger fission in the uranium tamper greatly increasing yield but reducing neutron radiation. 3-stage thermonulear weapons have basically no prompt radiation killing potential. Because the yield is so high, anyone within the deadly radiation radius would be virtually vaporized. The neutrons are scattered by air and the neutron radiation intensity reduces much faster than quadratically while thermal radiation intensity decreases quadratically.
It is true, though, that third stage fission contributes greatly to fallout. But there are no "clean" nuclear weapons. It can be reduced by larger ratio of fusion but never completely.
Disclaimer: I'm a Pole working as a post-doc in the USA after graduating from a Polish university.
I would also be cautious to make a general statements because programmers are considered 'elite' in Poland. There is huge competition to enter the computer science departments and the good majority of them can earn a decent salary after graduating (a decent in Poland, it would not be that great in the USA). The studies at good universities are hard with a lot of mathematics. The state of the general education is probably less rosy. I was teaching quantum chemistry at the university and the math skills of the students were not that great. However, some of the students were indeed excellent. I think it can be explained by large differences between schools in Poland. Some high schools teach very good maths and some are abysmal. I learned integration, differential equations and complex numbers in high school but some of my students had problems with functions, differentiation and some were even bad in fractions.
On the other hand, I took part in International Chemistry Olympiad while I was in high school and I remember the USA students were rarely at the top (and the results of the recent competitions linked in the Wikipedia article show similar results) but I'm still not sure it is because of worse education in the USA or that the science contests are less popular.
P.S Poland is in Central Europe. I forgive you your math skills but could Americans at least learn geography?:)
A few years ago Polish magazines started to include DVD movies. I'm not sure how the deal with the distributors worked but essentially you could buy a magazine without a movie for $1-$2 or with a movie for $3-$4. With some less popular movies you could even get 2 or 3 movies in one magazine so one movie could cost you $1 (I got 3 excellent Almodovar's movies this way). The magazines were doing it for the promotion and probably didn't earn anything extra (but got more circulation). The movies were indeed basic, in a paper envelope, without extras, without other language versions but they were just fine. The movies were not new but you could buy good movies that were a few years old or sometimes last year's movies. I don't know how the deal worked for the distributors but I bought several movies that I would never purchased for a full price so they got a profit from me. The only drawback was that the selection was limited (essentially with several magazines on sale at a time you could choose among several titles). But you also got the magazine (ussually a stupid one, though) free. The movies are still sold this way so it seems it is profitable.
It's interesting, but I'm a little skeptical that comparing one number (radiation level) is really telling the whole story.
You are right and I'm not sure which is more dangerous. But the difference between Ramsar and the Chernobyl zone is so large that it is unlikely that any difference in the radionuclides would make the Chernobyl zone more "radio-toxic" environment.
Why kind of radiation is at Ramsar compared to the area around Chernobyl?
In Ramsar it is mostly radon and radium and as far I know cesium-137, which is currently the major contaminant in the zone, is not particularly "nasty" since it has short biological halflife. But I'm not sure how important is strontium-90 which concentrates in bones and is also present in smaller quantities in the zone. The UNSCEAR report says it is relatively unimportant for the people outside of the zone but the majority of the strontium contamination is inside the zone (in contrast to cesium-137 which is present in considerable concentrations also well outside of the zone) and there are hardly any people inside the zone that can examined for the strontium-90 exposure.
Slashdot Mirror
You can definitely make a tiny sensor array with higher technical resolution than traditional ISO 400 print film grain... maybe even ISO 100. The catch is, you'll have to light up the scene to retina-searing brightness levels like a color movie set from the 1930s, because your effective f-stop will be insanely high
No, you cannot match the resolution because the insanely high f-stop implies insanely high loss of resolution due to diffraction. At low f-stop, the optics determines the resolution and you can improve it by making the iris smaller but smaller iris results in the diffraction loss and there is an optimal f-stop with maximum resolution. Higher f-stop will not make it better.
One of the best is https://www.routehappy.com/ By default it sorts by a score which is a combination of comfort, travel time, airline ratings, and price.
If women are as productive as men than there is an extreme business opportunity for hiring women. Women-heavy employers would have great advantage over men-heavy employers in the same field: the same work done with lower salary. In free market, it would increase demand for women labor and would equalize salaries.
What is also possible is that women are in fact less productive in aggregate. Even with equal potential capabilities to men, the employers are not sure if a hired women is going to concentrate on the career or on taking care of the children and this potential risk makes them offer smaller salaries. This theory is supported by the fact that the men/women salary gap is the smallest in Scandinavian countries where there are programs forcing men to take parental leave to take care of children.
Distribution fee covers the infrastructure costs. Ever seen a footage after a big storm with fallen trees, broken lines? Maintaining and repairing the lines is costly. It costs much more than power losses due to transmission over large distances. You would have to pay fees to cover infrastructure costs no matter if there were one power plant per 100,000 households or one per 100.
Currently there is an enormous backlash against ACTA in Poland. If the ratification voting were held today, it would likely be rejected. But suspending means trying to push it later (or via EU channels) when it becomes forgotten. Now is the time for other EU citizens to stand up when it is still hot. Sadly, corporate lobbying is so strong nowadays that fighting it requires almost constant effort.
Insulation works both during summer and in winter and is used in housing in Europe. It is not expensive (although painting is definitely cheaper) and it does not impact the roof aesthetics. 10 inches of mineral wool is a good starting point but in colder climates, more is better.
This is not new. There were and are many currencies independent of any government (Disney, Linden dollar, local currencies) but Bitcoin is the first project of currency fully decentralized, independent of any central authority. This is something really novel.
Usually, the cost of destroying something is much cheaper than creating it. That's why terrorism can work. The cost of attacking is not that large compared to fear, destruction and cost of guarding. 9/11 proved it very well.
In case of Bitcoins, obtaining 50% of the network compute speed required for completely disrupting the Bitcoin network grows with Bitcoin size. When Bitcoin network compute speed crossed the fastest supercomputer Tianhe-1A, it is no longer that easy. Destroying Bitcoin network is roughly as costly as the Bitcoin economy size and if it grows, it will become even more costly. This is not asymmetric as in case of terrorism. It is still possible for national governments but it's no longer a matter switching on a small cluster.
Usually, the cost of destroying something is much cheaper than creating it. That's why terrorism can work. The cost of attacking is not that large compared to fear, destruction and cost of guarding. 9/11 proved it very well. In case of Bitcoins, obtaining 50% of the network compute speed required for completely disrupting the Bitcoin network grows with Bitcoin size. When Bitcoin network compute speed crossed the fastest supercomputer Tianhe-1A, it is no longer that easy. Destroying Bitcoin economy is roughly as costly as the Bitcoin economy size and if it grows, it will become even more costly.
Chernobyl put out 8.5 10^16 Bqin total. The emissions lasted several days.
Available here. Some have decent data plans (30-month unlimited GPRS, first 5GB on HSDPA is available in O2). You will need an unlocked GSM phone and buy a SIM card in Germany.
Actually, he was was in the second car of a two-car tram. He switched after the first car passed forcing the second car to go the other way.
Of course to some extent this heat can be "mined". The crust is a good heat insulator so it takes ages for the heat to escape the Earth. By drilling and pumping water, one can extract this heat quicker thus increasing the flux. But then, it's no longer a renewable source and it's not going to be virtually inexhaustible.Of course there are some "hotspots", where geothermal energy is viable but it will not solve the energy problems.
Look at the signup page. You not only need to prove that you are a human but also that you have elementary knowledge of calculus.
It's been 21 years since the catastrophe. All the short-lived isotopes are long gone. Heck, most of the isotopes were gone after a few weeks. The radiation levels are currently quite low, up to 7 mSv/year in the less contaminated areas of the zone. It's only 2-3 times of the natural background in the USA. There are places, where natural radiation is much higher than that. I'm surprised anybody can be surprised the wildlife is soaring. Human (or rather human activity) is the biggest wildlife killer. Radiation in low levels is completely unimportant.
This theory is "revolutionary" because biochemists use classical simulations. Quantum mechanics is very difficult to apply to such large systems in practice but these molecules definitely are governed by quantum mechanics like all molecules.
I have never used other fonts than those installed in standard texmf/tex/latex/psnfss/. I have no idea if they are available. The problem with fonts is that most of them are proprietary. Possibly you could buy them.
The problem was solved ages ago with PostScript Fonts (PSNFSS).
Load a PostScript font in a preamble and select any size you want
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{times}
\begin{document}
\fontsize{20mm}{22mm}\selectfont
Big Font
\end{document}
For serious work with LaTeX I strongly recommend The LateX Companion book. It has information about almost everything important in LaTeX.
Because they are apparently simulating them under extreme conditions that are present during nuclear explosions. And nuclear tests are banned.
The article is light on details but I suppose the only quantum algorithm that can handle 1000 atoms is Quantum Monte Carlo. The problem is that the algorithm is cubic with the number of particles (and has a huge prefactor). So in essence 1000 atoms is 1000^3=10^9 more time consuming than one. And I'm sure they still use dramatic simplifications, even though they have the most powerful computer. They probably do not consider all electrons, instead they use pseudopotentials. And the Quantum Monte Carlo is likely in a fixed-node variant which is approximate. How long does it take? It's hard to tell but probably a few hours or days each and they are performing several those with different conditions.
This is totally wrong. The uranium tamper whould reduce the neutron radiation. Some neutrons are produced in fission but a lot more in fusion. A neutron bomb lacks any tamper. It is a fusion bomb disigned to leak as many neutrons as possible. In the standard 3-stage fission-fusion-fission bomb, the fusion neutrons do not escape. They trigger fission in the uranium tamper greatly increasing yield but reducing neutron radiation. 3-stage thermonulear weapons have basically no prompt radiation killing potential. Because the yield is so high, anyone within the deadly radiation radius would be virtually vaporized. The neutrons are scattered by air and the neutron radiation intensity reduces much faster than quadratically while thermal radiation intensity decreases quadratically.
It is true, though, that third stage fission contributes greatly to fallout. But there are no "clean" nuclear weapons. It can be reduced by larger ratio of fusion but never completely.
It does work in Linux. FF 1.0.7. I
I would also be cautious to make a general statements because programmers are considered 'elite' in Poland. There is huge competition to enter the computer science departments and the good majority of them can earn a decent salary after graduating (a decent in Poland, it would not be that great in the USA). The studies at good universities are hard with a lot of mathematics. The state of the general education is probably less rosy. I was teaching quantum chemistry at the university and the math skills of the students were not that great. However, some of the students were indeed excellent. I think it can be explained by large differences between schools in Poland. Some high schools teach very good maths and some are abysmal. I learned integration, differential equations and complex numbers in high school but some of my students had problems with functions, differentiation and some were even bad in fractions.
On the other hand, I took part in International Chemistry Olympiad while I was in high school and I remember the USA students were rarely at the top (and the results of the recent competitions linked in the Wikipedia article show similar results) but I'm still not sure it is because of worse education in the USA or that the science contests are less popular.
P.S Poland is in Central Europe. I forgive you your math skills but could Americans at least learn geography? :)
A few years ago Polish magazines started to include DVD movies. I'm not sure how the deal with the distributors worked but essentially you could buy a magazine without a movie for $1-$2 or with a movie for $3-$4. With some less popular movies you could even get 2 or 3 movies in one magazine so one movie could cost you $1 (I got 3 excellent Almodovar's movies this way). The magazines were doing it for the promotion and probably didn't earn anything extra (but got more circulation). The movies were indeed basic, in a paper envelope, without extras, without other language versions but they were just fine. The movies were not new but you could buy good movies that were a few years old or sometimes last year's movies. I don't know how the deal worked for the distributors but I bought several movies that I would never purchased for a full price so they got a profit from me. The only drawback was that the selection was limited (essentially with several magazines on sale at a time you could choose among several titles). But you also got the magazine (ussually a stupid one, though) free. The movies are still sold this way so it seems it is profitable.
You are right and I'm not sure which is more dangerous. But the difference between Ramsar and the Chernobyl zone is so large that it is unlikely that any difference in the radionuclides would make the Chernobyl zone more "radio-toxic" environment.
Why kind of radiation is at Ramsar compared to the area around Chernobyl?
In Ramsar it is mostly radon and radium and as far I know cesium-137, which is currently the major contaminant in the zone, is not particularly "nasty" since it has short biological halflife. But I'm not sure how important is strontium-90 which concentrates in bones and is also present in smaller quantities in the zone. The UNSCEAR report says it is relatively unimportant for the people outside of the zone but the majority of the strontium contamination is inside the zone (in contrast to cesium-137 which is present in considerable concentrations also well outside of the zone) and there are hardly any people inside the zone that can examined for the strontium-90 exposure.