I suppose Jesus has a lot of work to do already. Why can't we just let him do his job, instead of further trying to distract him hanging around in the internet? After all, this is man's creation, so the question is: WWJC, why would jesus care?
You forget that in principle, there is a natural barrier that forbids killing the own species, apart from it being unethical or against ones religion. Thus, murder is a totally different thing. I really don't think receiving a couple of Viagra mails per day could be dangerous to my health the way murder would. Furthermore, nowadays a murderer must always fear about being caught, which spammers know will not happen as fast to them if they are clever. The police or whoever is going to enforce that law will not have the resources to fire off a huge assault on the spammers community, that's why it's profitable, and that's why murder virtually isn't.
Still those spammers have to be caught don't they?
I think it's time for all of us to see that just introducing a new law will never again be enough to stop determined, persistent, and, worst of all, quite clever folks among them do what they can. Compared with the money you still can make spamming around, 5 years are nothing, and for child porn you get even more (money, that is...).
Ever compared LAPACK to some other oonumeric library? I mean one that does NOT rely on LAPACK by itself.
Check oonumerics again. Most of the linear algebra libraries rely in some way on the basic linear algebra subprograms, which are of course FORTRAN subroutines. There are ports to C++ that are as fast, but you have to code quite efficiently to actually top FORTRAN. Personally, I prefer C++ and link against the subroutines by the extern "C" directive. This involves finding the appropriate libraries, but as soon as the whole thing links, no problem. Check Todd Veldhuizens page again, and you will see a graph that shows that his Blitz++ librariy equals FORTRAN. But Blitz++ relies on expression templates in C++ which are widely known to drive you mad when you encounter them the first time. The technique Veldhuizen uses is quite complicated and relies on the fact that C++ templates are evaluated by the compiler and subsequently inlined in the code. Compared to that , even FORTRAN code is very readable.
True, and C++ is more than a better C. But how in the world do you do numbercrunching with a bytecode language? Tried to do so once for Java, and I'm NEVER going to do it again. Compilers do exploit the specific processor, VMs can do so, too, but why should I introduce a level of complexity, when I just want my processor to calculate things for me? It doesn't get easier, just more portable, but then, C++ seems fairly portable, using templates all along and letting the compiler do the nasty stuff. This means for C it's going to be macros. But hell, isn't it great when you actually know what happens? If you start out on some byte code language, you actually have no idea about the basics of your system. How can you program this system then? And for the anti-FORTRAN fraction. It is still the fastest thing out there!!! Anyone who tried solving a system of linear equations containing 1000 equations knows what I mean. My eyes still pop out when I see a FORTRAN subroutine at work that will do the job in seconds on a normal PIII desktop. So please stop this thing about dying languages which are in fact not dying but a little hard to cope with. This doesn'd make them old. It's just that some people don't want to go through the trouble of learning them, yet they are simply too good to be left out.
Since I am not very familiar on how to code alphabets best, how would you code a say perl script that maps characters to morse characters, while complaining when the character is not found? I thought of using a hash, but since morse code is binary, there might be a much more funny solution.
Anyone?
Perhaps they have a claim on supercoolin He as well. If you are not ready for a huge lawsuit, you better cool your PC with air or water till all this is settled...
Gee I had to reread the article there...
Anyways. Supersolid is not to be depicted as some solid stuff, and you might be more close with the notion of a liquid. Yet as far as I got from reading the nature paper, the thing would flow away. Supersolid is the name for the thing, as you correctly assumed. Yet for anything to flow, you have to put energy in it. There you could have a chance to hold the thing together.
I am sorry if I cannot further clarify this on you. I first heard of supersolids about two months ago, so the thing is new to me (and to a lot of other physicists), even the authors are not sure of whether the thing they found (supercooled He in some kind of glass rotating and reducing its moment of inertia because of superfluidity) qualifies as a supersolid. From the way it is done however I would still say that a supersolid flows.
Hope that helps
Non-vicious hydrodynamics does not mean that you cannot push a fluid. Think of Bernoullis' principle. The spoon acts as a means of conveying energy into the system. No friction just means that you do not need additional force to get the thing going...
Classically (and that is what is usually teached at high school), you are perfectly right. All motion freezes out. Quantum Mechanically however, there is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle which in short prevents particles from being at any fixed position in space; you cannot measure position with infinite accuracy, therefore, you have some uncertainty as to where the particle actually is. This contrasts with the view of a non-moving particle. There, you would know just where it is, which contradicts the above stated principle. Therefore, just by this (very powerful) principle, there is some motion even at absolute zero, still depending on the mass of the particle, which is not much with 4He.
No, it just overrules Quantum Mechanics in that it keeps the atoms too close together for swirling around as they do in normal Helium. The Helium atom being very light has a tremendous amount of swirling in it, even at absolute zero. But if you pack the stuff together, they begin to feel each other and are trying to make a living with the others present, which you can only achieve by obeying some generally accepted rules: In a way, by pressurizing you grow a community of atoms, that begin to move together.
A superfluid is a fluid that flows without viscosity, meaning that if you were to stir a spoon in a superfluid soup, you could take out the spoon and the soup would keep swirling forever on, since there is no mechanism there (i. e. no friction) to make the vortex you just made disappear. Now if you were to cool a 4He crystal, there would be eventually be no more movement of atoms and the whole thing froze out. But in quantum mechanics, there is the Heisenberg uncertainty Principle which basically states that you are not to now the position of any particle along with its velocity with the same accuracy. There will always be a trade off. The better you know the position, the worse you know the velocity.
This accounts for the fact that even at absolute zero, there are some fluctuations of particles, called quantum fluctuations wich do never freeze out.
When a superfluid appears this means that the atoms in it move all together. As the Nature article suggests, you can compare this to soldiers on a parade. They all move alike. In a supersolid then, you have vacancies, places where atoms are absent. Think of holes in a semiconductor if you like. There, holes are just non-electrons. Here we deal with non-atoms, and they are the ones behaving like soldiers in the case of a supersolid. Meaning the propagate through the whole thing as if they were on a parade, which makes them great for sending any wave (electromagnetic or other) through the crystal, and since these vacancies move in order, they propagate the wave without damping it. This would make a hell of an amplifier.
Compare the situation to a superconductor, where you can propagate electric current without damping (i. e. having no resistance at all). To electric current, a superconductor behaves like a supersolid to waves of any kind.
His father told him to make this announcement when the time is ripe for the Americans (and the rest of the world that admire the US) to be more proud of their country and to reenlighten the fire there once was for manned space flight. Kennedy showed us how to do it, so lets give 'em something to believe in. Bush seniors' plans are now I don't know where and juniors' will follow them. After all, Bush is the one who finally caught Saddam Hussein, the greatest of all foes. Now after no longer having any other problems (a really really BIG mess in Afghanistan and some as of yet not discovered WMD or similar nifty stuff do not count, they are for presidencies to come...) why not head for Mars?
Ever thought of the fact that there will be some elections this year over there in the US? Visions are always good. And why not check in with a president that has any?
I do not believe any of this shit.
Full ACK!!! Since the lawsuit from Polaroid, Kodak never became a big camera producer any more, yet they are the world leaders concerning film. And their product ist excellent!!! Only Agfa can barely keep up to them.
One does not have to argue over which is better, digital or analogue. From my personal experience I can tell that there are some non-slashdot non-computer and non-techno people out there who just cannot afford either to buy a digicam or who are not sufficiently experienced with computers to handle digital pictures or simply do not have the time to archive, rework and print their pics. Since this is a computer-oriented site, there will be noone speaking against digital photography, but I claim the "others" are a far greater community than is ours. At least that's what my daily experience tells me...
...and they soon will be out of money hiring attorneys around the world that are sueing every single user.
I think one just has to wait on whether some court finds the claim they're making justified or not. And then, they still have the problem that as soon they win (if ever they should) the next day there will be a Kernel coded by the Open Source community, for such is the power of Open Source Software...
I guess the drawers of this map were well aware of all the problems you mention. It is however not their goal to produce an accurate reproduction of the universe, but rather an idea of how large a large scale can be. Then, it is a static plot, and no time involved here. Think of it as a snapshot.
If you had read the article you would have noted that the authors gave a concise introduction of how their map was drawn. The map should show large scale structures and keep the shapes locally correct. Therefore, they have to use a (4D, of course) metric (the Friedmann metric) that does just this: It introduces so-called co-moving coordinates which keep objects at a constant position while the universe expands. Perhaps you should think about reading the article first and then complain. There is a reason for this model that they did. When you want to understand large scale structures, 4D stuff does not count, since how would you imagine this anyway, you want to have an impression of size as we see it, since we do not have another frame to see it from... There the map does a great job.
likely to be a typo. When the light arrives here, it has travelled 10.8 billion years, which is precisely the definition of a light year therefore we see what happened there 10.8 billion years ago.
I built Airwolf (TV series), well the thing that for me came close to it: I added some more guns and two rocket drives.
Why not having guns. You can train on shooting before the army has to. That would save costs. The AK47 however is much too old. How about a BFG2004?
Well, the hunt is on...
Well I'm not a native english speaking person, so I quite do not know how the thing you refer to as a one-way function would be called properly in math. I already read the term injective, which is precisely what the parent of your reply pointed out. Think about the square function: 4 can be the result of both -2^2 and 2^2, therefore, whithin a field of definition that goes below zero, it is "one-way" but the original values can be reconstructed by a bit of brainpower... Given the string test, L('test') results in 4, but so does L('blah'). Therefore the proof for a function to be injective is given by simply finding two different elements that give the same output... which your parent points out quite correctly.
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose Jesus has a lot of work to do already. Why can't we just let him do his job, instead of further trying to distract him hanging around in the internet? After all, this is man's creation, so the question is: WWJC, why would jesus care?
You forget that in principle, there is a natural barrier that forbids killing the own species, apart from it being unethical or against ones religion. Thus, murder is a totally different thing. I really don't think receiving a couple of Viagra mails per day could be dangerous to my health the way murder would. Furthermore, nowadays a murderer must always fear about being caught, which spammers know will not happen as fast to them if they are clever. The police or whoever is going to enforce that law will not have the resources to fire off a huge assault on the spammers community, that's why it's profitable, and that's why murder virtually isn't.
Still those spammers have to be caught don't they? I think it's time for all of us to see that just introducing a new law will never again be enough to stop determined, persistent, and, worst of all, quite clever folks among them do what they can. Compared with the money you still can make spamming around, 5 years are nothing, and for child porn you get even more (money, that is...).
Ever compared LAPACK to some other oonumeric library? I mean one that does NOT rely on LAPACK by itself. Check oonumerics again. Most of the linear algebra libraries rely in some way on the basic linear algebra subprograms, which are of course FORTRAN subroutines. There are ports to C++ that are as fast, but you have to code quite efficiently to actually top FORTRAN. Personally, I prefer C++ and link against the subroutines by the extern "C" directive. This involves finding the appropriate libraries, but as soon as the whole thing links, no problem. Check Todd Veldhuizens page again, and you will see a graph that shows that his Blitz++ librariy equals FORTRAN. But Blitz++ relies on expression templates in C++ which are widely known to drive you mad when you encounter them the first time. The technique Veldhuizen uses is quite complicated and relies on the fact that C++ templates are evaluated by the compiler and subsequently inlined in the code. Compared to that , even FORTRAN code is very readable.
True, and C++ is more than a better C. But how in the world do you do numbercrunching with a bytecode language? Tried to do so once for Java, and I'm NEVER going to do it again. Compilers do exploit the specific processor, VMs can do so, too, but why should I introduce a level of complexity, when I just want my processor to calculate things for me? It doesn't get easier, just more portable, but then, C++ seems fairly portable, using templates all along and letting the compiler do the nasty stuff. This means for C it's going to be macros. But hell, isn't it great when you actually know what happens? If you start out on some byte code language, you actually have no idea about the basics of your system. How can you program this system then? And for the anti-FORTRAN fraction. It is still the fastest thing out there!!! Anyone who tried solving a system of linear equations containing 1000 equations knows what I mean. My eyes still pop out when I see a FORTRAN subroutine at work that will do the job in seconds on a normal PIII desktop. So please stop this thing about dying languages which are in fact not dying but a little hard to cope with. This doesn'd make them old. It's just that some people don't want to go through the trouble of learning them, yet they are simply too good to be left out.
Since I am not very familiar on how to code alphabets best, how would you code a say perl script that maps characters to morse characters, while complaining when the character is not found? I thought of using a hash, but since morse code is binary, there might be a much more funny solution. Anyone?
I wouldn't suggest to listen to port 80 though. Think of all the morsed-through banners. Why not setting up a NMP (Network Morse Protocol)?
Perhaps earth now finally gets to taste a REAL Gynnantonic...
Perhaps they have a claim on supercoolin He as well. If you are not ready for a huge lawsuit, you better cool your PC with air or water till all this is settled...
Gee I had to reread the article there... Anyways. Supersolid is not to be depicted as some solid stuff, and you might be more close with the notion of a liquid. Yet as far as I got from reading the nature paper, the thing would flow away. Supersolid is the name for the thing, as you correctly assumed. Yet for anything to flow, you have to put energy in it. There you could have a chance to hold the thing together. I am sorry if I cannot further clarify this on you. I first heard of supersolids about two months ago, so the thing is new to me (and to a lot of other physicists), even the authors are not sure of whether the thing they found (supercooled He in some kind of glass rotating and reducing its moment of inertia because of superfluidity) qualifies as a supersolid. From the way it is done however I would still say that a supersolid flows. Hope that helps
No because when you put it there you'd have the exact information. Nature does not care if you choose to forget it afterwards.
Non-vicious hydrodynamics does not mean that you cannot push a fluid. Think of Bernoullis' principle. The spoon acts as a means of conveying energy into the system. No friction just means that you do not need additional force to get the thing going...
Classically (and that is what is usually teached at high school), you are perfectly right. All motion freezes out. Quantum Mechanically however, there is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle which in short prevents particles from being at any fixed position in space; you cannot measure position with infinite accuracy, therefore, you have some uncertainty as to where the particle actually is. This contrasts with the view of a non-moving particle. There, you would know just where it is, which contradicts the above stated principle. Therefore, just by this (very powerful) principle, there is some motion even at absolute zero, still depending on the mass of the particle, which is not much with 4He.
No, it just overrules Quantum Mechanics in that it keeps the atoms too close together for swirling around as they do in normal Helium. The Helium atom being very light has a tremendous amount of swirling in it, even at absolute zero. But if you pack the stuff together, they begin to feel each other and are trying to make a living with the others present, which you can only achieve by obeying some generally accepted rules: In a way, by pressurizing you grow a community of atoms, that begin to move together.
A superfluid is a fluid that flows without viscosity, meaning that if you were to stir a spoon in a superfluid soup, you could take out the spoon and the soup would keep swirling forever on, since there is no mechanism there (i. e. no friction) to make the vortex you just made disappear. Now if you were to cool a 4He crystal, there would be eventually be no more movement of atoms and the whole thing froze out. But in quantum mechanics, there is the Heisenberg uncertainty Principle which basically states that you are not to now the position of any particle along with its velocity with the same accuracy. There will always be a trade off. The better you know the position, the worse you know the velocity. This accounts for the fact that even at absolute zero, there are some fluctuations of particles, called quantum fluctuations wich do never freeze out. When a superfluid appears this means that the atoms in it move all together. As the Nature article suggests, you can compare this to soldiers on a parade. They all move alike. In a supersolid then, you have vacancies, places where atoms are absent. Think of holes in a semiconductor if you like. There, holes are just non-electrons. Here we deal with non-atoms, and they are the ones behaving like soldiers in the case of a supersolid. Meaning the propagate through the whole thing as if they were on a parade, which makes them great for sending any wave (electromagnetic or other) through the crystal, and since these vacancies move in order, they propagate the wave without damping it. This would make a hell of an amplifier. Compare the situation to a superconductor, where you can propagate electric current without damping (i. e. having no resistance at all). To electric current, a superconductor behaves like a supersolid to waves of any kind.
His father told him to make this announcement when the time is ripe for the Americans (and the rest of the world that admire the US) to be more proud of their country and to reenlighten the fire there once was for manned space flight. Kennedy showed us how to do it, so lets give 'em something to believe in. Bush seniors' plans are now I don't know where and juniors' will follow them. After all, Bush is the one who finally caught Saddam Hussein, the greatest of all foes. Now after no longer having any other problems (a really really BIG mess in Afghanistan and some as of yet not discovered WMD or similar nifty stuff do not count, they are for presidencies to come...) why not head for Mars? Ever thought of the fact that there will be some elections this year over there in the US? Visions are always good. And why not check in with a president that has any? I do not believe any of this shit.
Full ACK!!! Since the lawsuit from Polaroid, Kodak never became a big camera producer any more, yet they are the world leaders concerning film. And their product ist excellent!!! Only Agfa can barely keep up to them. One does not have to argue over which is better, digital or analogue. From my personal experience I can tell that there are some non-slashdot non-computer and non-techno people out there who just cannot afford either to buy a digicam or who are not sufficiently experienced with computers to handle digital pictures or simply do not have the time to archive, rework and print their pics. Since this is a computer-oriented site, there will be noone speaking against digital photography, but I claim the "others" are a far greater community than is ours. At least that's what my daily experience tells me...
...and they soon will be out of money hiring attorneys around the world that are sueing every single user. I think one just has to wait on whether some court finds the claim they're making justified or not. And then, they still have the problem that as soon they win (if ever they should) the next day there will be a Kernel coded by the Open Source community, for such is the power of Open Source Software...
I guess the drawers of this map were well aware of all the problems you mention. It is however not their goal to produce an accurate reproduction of the universe, but rather an idea of how large a large scale can be. Then, it is a static plot, and no time involved here. Think of it as a snapshot. If you had read the article you would have noted that the authors gave a concise introduction of how their map was drawn. The map should show large scale structures and keep the shapes locally correct. Therefore, they have to use a (4D, of course) metric (the Friedmann metric) that does just this: It introduces so-called co-moving coordinates which keep objects at a constant position while the universe expands. Perhaps you should think about reading the article first and then complain. There is a reason for this model that they did. When you want to understand large scale structures, 4D stuff does not count, since how would you imagine this anyway, you want to have an impression of size as we see it, since we do not have another frame to see it from... There the map does a great job.
likely to be a typo. When the light arrives here, it has travelled 10.8 billion years, which is precisely the definition of a light year therefore we see what happened there 10.8 billion years ago.
I built Airwolf (TV series), well the thing that for me came close to it: I added some more guns and two rocket drives. Why not having guns. You can train on shooting before the army has to. That would save costs. The AK47 however is much too old. How about a BFG2004? Well, the hunt is on...
Not really new stuff anyhow, is it?
Well I'm not a native english speaking person, so I quite do not know how the thing you refer to as a one-way function would be called properly in math. I already read the term injective, which is precisely what the parent of your reply pointed out. Think about the square function: 4 can be the result of both -2^2 and 2^2, therefore, whithin a field of definition that goes below zero, it is "one-way" but the original values can be reconstructed by a bit of brainpower... Given the string test, L('test') results in 4, but so does L('blah'). Therefore the proof for a function to be injective is given by simply finding two different elements that give the same output... which your parent points out quite correctly.