I was going to bring this up as well. Also, imagine the usefulness of a healthy 300 year old. They would have not only a unique perspective and wisdom about things but also the energy to put it to good use.
That's odd, because I thought the ISS was in LEO and yet I'm able to see it pass overhead with the naked eye. Sure, it is a bigger object, but even the smaller ones can be easily observed with a consumer telescope. And to be honest, it is a real problem when doing astrophotography. You do a 15 or 20 minute exposure (with a good mount) and have to throw it away because a satellite passed within the field of view causing a noticeable streak in the image.
D-waves systems are inherently statistical. Which means you need many replicas of an experiment to map out the ground state and reliably establish it is the ground state. Doesn't this mean that the more cubits you have the exponentially more replicas you need to run? thus anything short of exponential gains in speed is a step backward in perfromance as you add quibits? or am I wrong.
They said that the new machine, having 2000 qubits rather than 1000 qubits, is 1000 times faster than the old one. But, you only need 10 more bits for something to have 1024 times the capacity (2^10=1024). So theoretically they should only have had to add 10 more qubits, aka, have 1010 qubits total, for it to be 1000x as capable. But instead they added not just 10 more qubits but 1000 more qubits.
Public law 112-95 and the Special Rule for model aircraft does not have any altitude restriction, the AMA Safety code does not have an altitude restriction, AC91-57 does mention 400ft, but it is a guideline, not a must.
Ultimately the FAA does not have a law prohibiting model airplanes from anything. AC91-57 suggests some operating parameters that are good to follow, but this is far from anything enforceable. Stay within the AC's guidelines and they won't even look at you. Go outside of them and you have to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of your operation. Glider guys do it all them. So do rocket guys. The AC is just advisory.
For now they are stuck to looking the other way, simply because they do not have the legal authority to prevent it given (among other things) the special rule for model aircraft. The most they can do is invoke air safety to prosecute an FPV flyer (and in that area they do have some authority) . Good luck with that in 99.99 % of cases where we are talking foamies, small drones, etc... at low altitude and at AMA open fields.
As you probably know the only time ever when the FAA invoked its authority on model aircraft is in Huerta v. Pirker, with their only argument centered on safety. And in that case a federal judge sided with Pirker and against them. They then appealed to the NTSB, who sided with the FAA essentially stating that anything that flies, including say your 100g nano copter two feet off the ground in your backyard, is an aircraft in the national airspace and as such subject to FAA regulations. The case ended when the FAA and Pirker agreed to settle, with the FAA ok with Pirker recognizing no guilt whatsoever and a 90% fine reduction. In my opinion the FAA avoided some serious future embarrassment with that settlement, and Pirker showed the FAA had no case. But others have interpreted it as an FAA win.
The best victory would be for everyone to just use common sense. I for one would like to continue recreational flying.
Excellent idea, but why even show a still frame of the ad? Show some cute pictures of cats or something more interesting while the advertisement is being blocked.
oops... I just now realized that you are returning true in both cases... In which case the above would only work if the IsCharacterPopular(...) function always returns true.
The formula is not too bad, although I would suggest a minor tweak, mainly that one should change it from:
(compression ratio)/log(time to compress)
to:
(compression ratio)/log(10+time to compress).
This will ensure that no divide by zero occurs, specifically if the time to compress is 1 second, then you would have been dividing by zero in the original formula.
Not only that, but the statement that we are 90 percent microbial and 10 percent human given that there are 10 times as many microbial cells as there are human cells is mathematically incorrect:
x=10y
1.0=x+y
1.0 = (10y)+y
1.0 = 11y
Therefore it is more accurate to say that we are 90.909% microbial and 9.0909% human.
I thought the article said that the suicidal patients had *higher* levels of glutamate, not lower. So wouldn't the extra glutamate from MSG intake make you more suicidal? In any case, it's like they say, all things in moderation.
Also, I would like to add that we are really talking about two separate issues here.
For me, I do not like that we lose voting accuracy. So there are simple ways to improve on it, like I stated earlier.
For you, you do not like that it has become a popularity contest, and that it comes down to uninformed masses making the decision. I won't argue with you there.
But for your issue, again that has nothing to do with voting accuracy. Instead, that has to do with educating the uninformed masses, which is indeed an entirely separate issue altogether, and the electoral college does not solve that problem.
Like they say in programming: garbage in, garbage out. Since the electoral votes themselves are based upon the votes of the uninformed masses, they too are going to be garbage. But at least we can have a more accurate outcome if we improve upon the current electoral scheme.
Yeah, that whole thing about each State selecting the president... All that means is that my vote doesn't matter because it is going to be nullified from winner-take-all.
Like I said before, if the US were just one big "State", then winner take all is fine. I get that. But when you have winner-take-all applied across multiple states, you lose voting accuracy.
Again consider my updated example:
State A: 500,001 votes for candidate 1; 499,999 votes for candidate 2
State B: 0 votes for candidate 1; 100,000 votes for candidate 2
State C: 0 votes for candidate 1; 100,000 votes for candidate 2
Again, state A gives ten electoral votes to candidate 1, and states B and C each give one electoral vote to candidate 2.
In this example, candidate 2 gets a total of 699,999 votes, and candidate 1 gets a total of 500,001 votes. Yet due to the electoral votes, even though candidate 2 got 39% more votes, he/she would still lose.
I will not argue that indeed, today it may seem like a popularity contest is taking place, but in the end, to allow for the outcome of one state to nullify the outcome of the others (like in the above example), seems preposterous to me.
And in fact, it becomes even more clear when you consider that the above example could be updated as follows:
State A: 500,001 votes for candidate 1; 499,999 votes for candidate 2
State B: 0 votes for candidate 1; 100,000 votes for candidate 2
State C: 0 votes for candidate 1; 100,000 votes for candidate 2
Again, state A gives ten electoral votes to candidate 1, and states B and C each give one electoral vote to candidate 2.
In this example, candidate 2 gets a total of 699,999 votes, and candidate 1 gets a total of 500,001 votes. Yet due to the electoral votes, even though candidate 2 got 39% more votes, he/she would still lose.
While we're at it, let's also do away with the electoral college. And yes, I'm being serious.
Here is a simple example:
You have three states. The first one is 10x larger than the other two, and the voting outcome is as follows:
State A: 500,001 votes for candidate 1; 499,999 votes for candidate 2
State B: 49,999 votes for candidate 1; 50,001 votes for candidate 2
State C: 49,999 votes for candidate 1; 50,001 votes for candidate 2
State A gives ten electoral votes to candidate 1, and states B and C each give one electoral vote to candidate 2.
As you can see, even though candidate 2 received more actual votes than candidate 1, he/she winds up losing.
The winner-take all rule makes sense whenever there is just one state involved, but when you carry it over across multiple states, you wind up losing accuracy. Currently there are only two states, Nebraska and Maine, which actually implement proportional voting by splitting their electoral votes. But even then, that is not 100% perfect because there are an integer number of electoral votes which are based on population size, so there is still a rounding error.
The most accurate, and to me the simplest approach is to simply add up the actual votes from each state for each candidate, and only at the very end do you compare votes to see who is the winner.
Slashdot Mirror
I was going to bring this up as well. Also, imagine the usefulness of a healthy 300 year old. They would have not only a unique perspective and wisdom about things but also the energy to put it to good use.
I'm pretty sure they must mean 18^100 possible sequences.
That is, if there are 18 possibilities for each step, then 100 steps would yield 18^100 possibilities.
Similar to how if there are two choices to make (go left or go right) and you make 100 of them, then there would be 2^100 possibilities.
That's odd, because I thought the ISS was in LEO and yet I'm able to see it pass overhead with the naked eye. Sure, it is a bigger object, but even the smaller ones can be easily observed with a consumer telescope. And to be honest, it is a real problem when doing astrophotography. You do a 15 or 20 minute exposure (with a good mount) and have to throw it away because a satellite passed within the field of view causing a noticeable streak in the image.
Tapestry. Had Q in it. A good episode.
D-waves systems are inherently statistical. Which means you need many replicas of an experiment to map out the ground state and reliably establish it is the ground state. Doesn't this mean that the more cubits you have the exponentially more replicas you need to run? thus anything short of exponential gains in speed is a step backward in perfromance as you add quibits? or am I wrong.
They said that the new machine, having 2000 qubits rather than 1000 qubits, is 1000 times faster than the old one. But, you only need 10 more bits for something to have 1024 times the capacity (2^10=1024). So theoretically they should only have had to add 10 more qubits, aka, have 1010 qubits total, for it to be 1000x as capable. But instead they added not just 10 more qubits but 1000 more qubits.
I wasn't aware that teachers' pay was based on performance, but on seniority.
Well, I guess they won't be advancing in seniority.
I honestly don't know how it's coded to behave in such an incident
if (victim.LicensePlate==DigiShaman)
{
perform_hit_and_run();
}
Public law 112-95 and the Special Rule for model aircraft does not have any altitude restriction, the AMA Safety code does not have an altitude restriction, AC91-57 does mention 400ft, but it is a guideline, not a must.
Ultimately the FAA does not have a law prohibiting model airplanes from anything. AC91-57 suggests some operating parameters that are good to follow, but this is far from anything enforceable. Stay within the AC's guidelines and they won't even look at you. Go outside of them and you have to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of your operation. Glider guys do it all them. So do rocket guys. The AC is just advisory.
For now they are stuck to looking the other way, simply because they do not have the legal authority to prevent it given (among other things) the special rule for model aircraft. The most they can do is invoke air safety to prosecute an FPV flyer (and in that area they do have some authority) . Good luck with that in 99.99 % of cases where we are talking foamies, small drones, etc ... at low altitude and at AMA open fields.
As you probably know the only time ever when the FAA invoked its authority on model aircraft is in Huerta v. Pirker, with their only argument centered on safety. And in that case a federal judge sided with Pirker and against them. They then appealed to the NTSB, who sided with the FAA essentially stating that anything that flies, including say your 100g nano copter two feet off the ground in your backyard, is an aircraft in the national airspace and as such subject to FAA regulations. The case ended when the FAA and Pirker agreed to settle, with the FAA ok with Pirker recognizing no guilt whatsoever and a 90% fine reduction. In my opinion the FAA avoided some serious future embarrassment with that settlement, and Pirker showed the FAA had no case. But others have interpreted it as an FAA win.
The best victory would be for everyone to just use common sense. I for one would like to continue recreational flying.
thanks for that, you owe me a new keyboard!
Excellent idea, but why even show a still frame of the ad? Show some cute pictures of cats or something more interesting while the advertisement is being blocked.
oops... I just now realized that you are returning true in both cases... In which case the above would only work if the IsCharacterPopular(...) function always returns true.
why not just:
bool WillCharacterBeKilled(Character c) { return IsCharacterPopular(c); }
and if this were C++, I would do:
bool WillCharacterBeKilled(const Character &c) { return IsCharacterPopular(c); }
as passing by reference (using the ampersand) prevents having to create an unnecessary copy of the object.
Hyundai Sega Genesis, I gotta me one of those.
The formula is not too bad, although I would suggest a minor tweak, mainly that one should change it from:
(compression ratio)/log(time to compress)
to:
(compression ratio)/log(10+time to compress).
This will ensure that no divide by zero occurs, specifically if the time to compress is 1 second, then you would have been dividing by zero in the original formula.
Not only that, but the statement that we are 90 percent microbial and 10 percent human given that there are 10 times as many microbial cells as there are human cells is mathematically incorrect:
x=10y
1.0=x+y
1.0 = (10y)+y
1.0 = 11y
Therefore it is more accurate to say that we are 90.909% microbial and 9.0909% human.
Huh? DST moves the morning commute back into the DARK, just when the solar cycles start making it light.
I was just about to post the same thing. I guess the OP figured he had a 50/50 chance of being right and just decided to wing it!
It would be like paying $75,000 to sit 30% closer to the Lamborghini than everyone else.
Wrong.
At 30km altitude, you are much more than 30% closer to space than everyone else.
Even if everyone were at the summit of Mt. Everest, which is at 8.8km, you would still be 3.4 times (240%) higher up than they are.
I thought the article said that the suicidal patients had *higher* levels of glutamate, not lower. So wouldn't the extra glutamate from MSG intake make you more suicidal? In any case, it's like they say, all things in moderation.
...and anything that gets rid of pigeons is a good thing :-).
But then we might run into a shortage of carrier pigeons.
...and in other news, it's getting harder to build killer robots in the privacy of your own hotel room
Also, I would like to add that we are really talking about two separate issues here.
For me, I do not like that we lose voting accuracy. So there are simple ways to improve on it, like I stated earlier.
For you, you do not like that it has become a popularity contest, and that it comes down to uninformed masses making the decision. I won't argue with you there.
But for your issue, again that has nothing to do with voting accuracy. Instead, that has to do with educating the uninformed masses, which is indeed an entirely separate issue altogether, and the electoral college does not solve that problem.
Like they say in programming: garbage in, garbage out. Since the electoral votes themselves are based upon the votes of the uninformed masses, they too are going to be garbage. But at least we can have a more accurate outcome if we improve upon the current electoral scheme.
Yeah, that whole thing about each State selecting the president... All that means is that my vote doesn't matter because it is going to be nullified from winner-take-all.
Like I said before, if the US were just one big "State", then winner take all is fine. I get that. But when you have winner-take-all applied across multiple states, you lose voting accuracy.
Again consider my updated example:
State A: 500,001 votes for candidate 1; 499,999 votes for candidate 2
State B: 0 votes for candidate 1; 100,000 votes for candidate 2
State C: 0 votes for candidate 1; 100,000 votes for candidate 2
Again, state A gives ten electoral votes to candidate 1, and states B and C each give one electoral vote to candidate 2.
In this example, candidate 2 gets a total of 699,999 votes, and candidate 1 gets a total of 500,001 votes. Yet due to the electoral votes, even though candidate 2 got 39% more votes, he/she would still lose.
I will not argue that indeed, today it may seem like a popularity contest is taking place, but in the end, to allow for the outcome of one state to nullify the outcome of the others (like in the above example), seems preposterous to me.
And in fact, it becomes even more clear when you consider that the above example could be updated as follows:
State A: 500,001 votes for candidate 1; 499,999 votes for candidate 2
State B: 0 votes for candidate 1; 100,000 votes for candidate 2
State C: 0 votes for candidate 1; 100,000 votes for candidate 2
Again, state A gives ten electoral votes to candidate 1, and states B and C each give one electoral vote to candidate 2.
In this example, candidate 2 gets a total of 699,999 votes, and candidate 1 gets a total of 500,001 votes. Yet due to the electoral votes, even though candidate 2 got 39% more votes, he/she would still lose.
While we're at it, let's also do away with the electoral college. And yes, I'm being serious.
Here is a simple example:
You have three states. The first one is 10x larger than the other two, and the voting outcome is as follows:
State A: 500,001 votes for candidate 1; 499,999 votes for candidate 2
State B: 49,999 votes for candidate 1; 50,001 votes for candidate 2
State C: 49,999 votes for candidate 1; 50,001 votes for candidate 2
State A gives ten electoral votes to candidate 1, and states B and C each give one electoral vote to candidate 2.
As you can see, even though candidate 2 received more actual votes than candidate 1, he/she winds up losing.
The winner-take all rule makes sense whenever there is just one state involved, but when you carry it over across multiple states, you wind up losing accuracy. Currently there are only two states, Nebraska and Maine, which actually implement proportional voting by splitting their electoral votes. But even then, that is not 100% perfect because there are an integer number of electoral votes which are based on population size, so there is still a rounding error.
The most accurate, and to me the simplest approach is to simply add up the actual votes from each state for each candidate, and only at the very end do you compare votes to see who is the winner.
And you don't think the engine gives off heat?