And co-orbital planets probably wouldn't last long. An exception to this are asteroid belts. However, in general, two (or n) planets would show up as different frequencies in the wobble of the star. The magnitude of each frequency gives you a lower limit on the mass of the star. You can only get a true measure (as opposed to a limit) by also knowing the inclination of the planets' orbit relative to our line of sight.
Next time I need to hammer a bunch of nails in parallel, perhaps I'll consider using a bulldozer!:D
Your point is well made, of course. Nevertheless, with work like this (the GPU sorter) even off-loading a little work to the GPU can allow your CPU to do other work thereby shortening the wall-clock time required to do your computations (in theory - in practice, it can hurt you if you're not careful!). My research area (neural networks) is inherently parallelizable, but I am not yet aware of work to efficiently use GPUs for this purpose.
Most GPGPU (general purpose GPU) researchers are envisioning scientific purposes. It really galls many of us in the scientific community that GPUs are so much more powerful than CPUs (if one can efficiently use the parallel processing capabilities of GPUs), and yet mostly we have to let these powerful processors go unused because it is typically very difficult to use GPUs for non-graphical computations (hence the G in GPU, of course).
I think this would count as quite reliable
on
Nanotech Protests Begin
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Nonstick cookware, with polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) coating, can also emit fumes harmful to birds, if cookware is accidentally heated to high temperatures, exceeding approximately 500F (260C) -- well above the temperatures needed for frying or baking. In addition, PTFE coated drip pans should be avoided because even in normal use they reach extremely high temperatures and can emit fumes that are hazardous to birds. A simple rule of thumb is: never keep your pet bird in the kitchen.
So, although they bury this information on their web page, and don't use the word Teflon (AKA PTFE), the information is there on their own web page.
(Btw, I didn't know any of this until I read about it myself in this thread.)
However, I was comparing "forcing" journalists to reveal sources to "preventing" librarians from revealing that the USA PATRIOT Act was used to require them to disclose library records. That the law cannot do (short of executing the librarians) for the same reason it cannot force journalists to reveal their sources.
Nevertheless, the law cannot actually force librarians not to destroy the library records, either.:)
You used the words "bomb assassinate bush terror allah osama jihad" in a post on/. using your/. ID. You will now be on terrorist watch lists until you die. Wait, I said "bomb assassinate bush terror allah osama jihad", too! Arrgh! I said "bomb assassinate bush terror allah osama jihad", again!...
It's illegal for a library to tell anyone, even a lawyer, so we'll just have to trust the government on this.
I doubt any such law would prevent many librarians from yelling from the highest mountain if the USA PATRIOT Act were used in such a way. This is similar to the law "forcing" journalists to reveal their sources. The law cannot do that - it can merely punish journalists for failing to reveal their sources.
Actually, he said "The department has no interest in rummaging through the library records or the medical records of Americans." And, as far as I know, the PATRIOT Act has not yet been used to try to get information from a library. (Key word is "yet", but correct me if I'm wrong.) I'm not supporting the PATRIOT Act, and in fact I think the name is quite the misnomer, but let's not muddy the waters with false claims. If these are not false claims, please correct me. (All I've read so far is about the possibility of using the PATRIOT Act to get library records.)
I wouldn't say that pure capitalism negates having people pay for the negative externalities of their behavior. Even in a purely laissez-faire system there are still laws against dumping hazardous waste in someone's backyard, as well as against dumping something in your own backyard which pollutes water sources that you don't own.
Perhaps I'm associating "stereotypical Republican" anti-environmentalism with capitalism. (I say "stereotypical" with the understanding that there are many Republicans who are not anti-environment.) Many Republicans, however, seem to have a problem with regulating the pollution that companies dump into the air and/or water. (The laughable Clear Skies Initiative comes to mind, "using a proven, market-based approach" (quote taken from the web-site). Nevertheless, the primary problem with the CSI is not the approach, but the weakening of the target standards as well as delaying the enforcement of those standards.) I agree, however, that one could have a capitalistic economy that theoretically figures such things in. I am, no doubt, confusing the terms Republican and Capitalist.
What about in Deming, Washington, where the FBI issued a subpoena for a library to release the names of all people who checked out a biography of Osama bin Laden? (There are reasons for the subpoena - read the story if you aren't familiar with it, but still...)
This is not an isolated case. There have been numerous cases where the local, state, or federal go vernment has asked for such information.
I'm not saying this is a valid solution. (Nor am I saying it's an unreasonable solution.) I think the libraries are doing a reasonable job of protecting us against unreasonable searches. I just want to point out that we're not talking about one or two cases, but a repeating pattern.
But which one is more likely to get the consumer's attention?
If we charge the consumers at POS, and make it show up on the their bill, then they are more likely to take ownership in making sure the recycling happens.
I once worked at a software company designing/maintaing a payroll system. When it came time to design the check writing portion, my (Republican-leaning) boss suggested that we have an option to include not just the employee taxes on the check stub, but also the employer taxes (FUTA, SUTA, FICA-ER, etc.) so the employees would know just how much in taxes they were actually paying (many of you would be surprised!). He was (mostly) kidding, but I thought it an interesting idea. How much more would we demand of our government (Dems, Repubs, and others alike) if we truly knew how much we actually paid in taxes? Could you imagine if there was an annual statement that said: here's how much you paid in employee/employer taxes, and here's how much you paid in property taxes, and here's how much you paid in sales tax (let's imagine, without the scary big-brother connotations, that the government knew how much we paid in sales tax)? I'm probably leaving out a tax (or two) here, but you get the idea.
In some parts of the city they use trucks with 1 guy who has an automated arm that picks up trash cans to put the waste into the truck.
I mean, seriously. Can you imagine having an automated arm that picks up trash cans? You're walking down the street, minding your own business, when suddenly your automated arm decides to pick up a trash can.:P
Exactly. The problem is that for hazardous materials, what is best for a single entity (person/company) is not what is best for the entire community. This is what is known as the "tragedy of the commons". For those who aren't familiar with this phrase, it's worth-while to read about it. In many ways, it is similar to the more familiar prisoner's dilemna.
This is a problem inherent in the capitalistic system. I'm not advocating socialism, but pure capitalism is not a valid economical system as these problems so simply demonstrate. A mixture (which both the US and most of Europe already has - although definitely in different percentages) is a reasonable compromise.
I think corruption tends to increase proportional to the level of government. For example, I'm sure you will find many honest politicians at the local level. Obviously there are also several dishonest politicians at the local level, and perhaps the worst kind of corruption can happen at the local level, but I think you will find mostly honest politicians at the local level. I am mainly extrapolating from my own experiences, as well as using "common sense", so I could be totally wrong.
At the state level, corruption gets worse. And I suspect the worst corruption happens at the federal level. The one anomalous point in my (imaginary) data is Jimmy Carter. The cynic in me thinks he is more corrupt than he seems, merely because he managed to become president, but the optimist in me thinks that he genuinely is an exception. I hesitate to mention which part of me is stronger.
However, I don't believe this is at all a new phenomenom. In fact, I think that the information age might eventually lead us to a point where we hold our leaders more accountable. There's that optimist again. Hopefully, he will be right and the cynic will be wrong.
However, even looking for the most partisan sites (against Pelosi), I fail to find anything that measures up to Tom DeLay's exceedingly long list of ethics violations. Granted, most politicians are corrupt. However, the reason that we hear so much about DeLay is that there is so much to hear. Additionally, of course, there is the idea of reinforcing a set of beliefs. Just like with Quayle/stupidity and Clinton/womanizing, once a famous person gets branded a certain way, the news media will be biased towards publishing stories that reinforce those biases.
Speaking of Clinton, I am certain that DeLay is as innocent of these ethics charges as I was certain that Clinton was innocent of perjury.
Politicians are typically corrupt, whether they are Democrat, Republican, or other. However, it seems that DeLay has taken corrupt to new levels. (Obviously, this is a biased source, however, they do provide detailed information that can easily be contradicted. I do take it with a grain of salt, but what they mention meshes up with bits I've heard from mainstream media recently.)
I, for one, would welcome this comment from almost anyone (including Bush!) except DeLay. Considering the ethics problems he's currently facing, it seems the old adage "with friends like this, who needs enemies?" sounds fitting. Not only that, this is such an easy target for ridicule, as we will no doubt witness.
Slashdot Mirror
And co-orbital planets probably wouldn't last long. An exception to this are asteroid belts. However, in general, two (or n) planets would show up as different frequencies in the wobble of the star. The magnitude of each frequency gives you a lower limit on the mass of the star. You can only get a true measure (as opposed to a limit) by also knowing the inclination of the planets' orbit relative to our line of sight.
Actually, we do.
I mean Sudetenland. Neville Chamberlain made his "Peace in our Time" speech regarding the Munich Conference.
See also Neville Chamberlain, and "Peace in our Time".
We're getting very close...
Next time I need to hammer a bunch of nails in parallel, perhaps I'll consider using a bulldozer! :D
Your point is well made, of course. Nevertheless, with work like this (the GPU sorter) even off-loading a little work to the GPU can allow your CPU to do other work thereby shortening the wall-clock time required to do your computations (in theory - in practice, it can hurt you if you're not careful!). My research area (neural networks) is inherently parallelizable, but I am not yet aware of work to efficiently use GPUs for this purpose.
Most GPGPU (general purpose GPU) researchers are envisioning scientific purposes. It really galls many of us in the scientific community that GPUs are so much more powerful than CPUs (if one can efficiently use the parallel processing capabilities of GPUs), and yet mostly we have to let these powerful processors go unused because it is typically very difficult to use GPUs for non-graphical computations (hence the G in GPU, of course).
So, although they bury this information on their web page, and don't use the word Teflon (AKA PTFE), the information is there on their own web page.
(Btw, I didn't know any of this until I read about it myself in this thread.)
Why don't we (the US) curtail our copyright terms in order to sync up with the EU?
Just a thought...
(I know, this is as silly as exercising more and eating less in order to lose weight.)
I'm assuming that there will be a lot of people who won't realize you're kidding.
Also, I think Brahma might be insulted with Ganesh claiming to be the creator.
However, I was comparing "forcing" journalists to reveal sources to "preventing" librarians from revealing that the USA PATRIOT Act was used to require them to disclose library records. That the law cannot do (short of executing the librarians) for the same reason it cannot force journalists to reveal their sources.
Nevertheless, the law cannot actually force librarians not to destroy the library records, either. :)
You used the words "bomb assassinate bush terror allah osama jihad" in a post on /. using your /. ID. You will now be on terrorist watch lists until you die. Wait, I said "bomb assassinate bush terror allah osama jihad", too! Arrgh! I said "bomb assassinate bush terror allah osama jihad", again! ...
I doubt any such law would prevent many librarians from yelling from the highest mountain if the USA PATRIOT Act were used in such a way. This is similar to the law "forcing" journalists to reveal their sources. The law cannot do that - it can merely punish journalists for failing to reveal their sources.
Actually, he said "The department has no interest in rummaging through the library records or the medical records of Americans." And, as far as I know, the PATRIOT Act has not yet been used to try to get information from a library. (Key word is "yet", but correct me if I'm wrong.) I'm not supporting the PATRIOT Act, and in fact I think the name is quite the misnomer, but let's not muddy the waters with false claims. If these are not false claims, please correct me. (All I've read so far is about the possibility of using the PATRIOT Act to get library records.)
Perhaps I'm associating "stereotypical Republican" anti-environmentalism with capitalism. (I say "stereotypical" with the understanding that there are many Republicans who are not anti-environment.) Many Republicans, however, seem to have a problem with regulating the pollution that companies dump into the air and/or water. (The laughable Clear Skies Initiative comes to mind, "using a proven, market-based approach" (quote taken from the web-site). Nevertheless, the primary problem with the CSI is not the approach, but the weakening of the target standards as well as delaying the enforcement of those standards.) I agree, however, that one could have a capitalistic economy that theoretically figures such things in. I am, no doubt, confusing the terms Republican and Capitalist.
What about in Deming, Washington, where the FBI issued a subpoena for a library to release the names of all people who checked out a biography of Osama bin Laden? (There are reasons for the subpoena - read the story if you aren't familiar with it, but still...)
This is not an isolated case. There have been numerous cases where the local, state, or federal go vernment has asked for such information.
I'm not saying this is a valid solution. (Nor am I saying it's an unreasonable solution.) I think the libraries are doing a reasonable job of protecting us against unreasonable searches. I just want to point out that we're not talking about one or two cases, but a repeating pattern.
But which one is more likely to get the consumer's attention?
If we charge the consumers at POS, and make it show up on the their bill, then they are more likely to take ownership in making sure the recycling happens.
I once worked at a software company designing/maintaing a payroll system. When it came time to design the check writing portion, my (Republican-leaning) boss suggested that we have an option to include not just the employee taxes on the check stub, but also the employer taxes (FUTA, SUTA, FICA-ER, etc.) so the employees would know just how much in taxes they were actually paying (many of you would be surprised!). He was (mostly) kidding, but I thought it an interesting idea. How much more would we demand of our government (Dems, Repubs, and others alike) if we truly knew how much we actually paid in taxes? Could you imagine if there was an annual statement that said: here's how much you paid in employee/employer taxes, and here's how much you paid in property taxes, and here's how much you paid in sales tax (let's imagine, without the scary big-brother connotations, that the government knew how much we paid in sales tax)? I'm probably leaving out a tax (or two) here, but you get the idea.
I mean, seriously. Can you imagine having an automated arm that picks up trash cans? You're walking down the street, minding your own business, when suddenly your automated arm decides to pick up a trash can. :P
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
Exactly. The problem is that for hazardous materials, what is best for a single entity (person/company) is not what is best for the entire community. This is what is known as the "tragedy of the commons". For those who aren't familiar with this phrase, it's worth-while to read about it. In many ways, it is similar to the more familiar prisoner's dilemna.
This is a problem inherent in the capitalistic system. I'm not advocating socialism, but pure capitalism is not a valid economical system as these problems so simply demonstrate. A mixture (which both the US and most of Europe already has - although definitely in different percentages) is a reasonable compromise.
I think corruption tends to increase proportional to the level of government. For example, I'm sure you will find many honest politicians at the local level. Obviously there are also several dishonest politicians at the local level, and perhaps the worst kind of corruption can happen at the local level, but I think you will find mostly honest politicians at the local level. I am mainly extrapolating from my own experiences, as well as using "common sense", so I could be totally wrong.
At the state level, corruption gets worse. And I suspect the worst corruption happens at the federal level. The one anomalous point in my (imaginary) data is Jimmy Carter. The cynic in me thinks he is more corrupt than he seems, merely because he managed to become president, but the optimist in me thinks that he genuinely is an exception. I hesitate to mention which part of me is stronger.
However, I don't believe this is at all a new phenomenom. In fact, I think that the information age might eventually lead us to a point where we hold our leaders more accountable. There's that optimist again. Hopefully, he will be right and the cynic will be wrong.
However, even looking for the most partisan sites (against Pelosi), I fail to find anything that measures up to Tom DeLay's exceedingly long list of ethics violations. Granted, most politicians are corrupt. However, the reason that we hear so much about DeLay is that there is so much to hear. Additionally, of course, there is the idea of reinforcing a set of beliefs. Just like with Quayle/stupidity and Clinton/womanizing, once a famous person gets branded a certain way, the news media will be biased towards publishing stories that reinforce those biases.
Speaking of Clinton, I am certain that DeLay is as innocent of these ethics charges as I was certain that Clinton was innocent of perjury.
Politicians are typically corrupt, whether they are Democrat, Republican, or other. However, it seems that DeLay has taken corrupt to new levels. (Obviously, this is a biased source, however, they do provide detailed information that can easily be contradicted. I do take it with a grain of salt, but what they mention meshes up with bits I've heard from mainstream media recently.)
I, for one, would welcome this comment from almost anyone (including Bush!) except DeLay. Considering the ethics problems he's currently facing, it seems the old adage "with friends like this, who needs enemies?" sounds fitting. Not only that, this is such an easy target for ridicule, as we will no doubt witness.