The top prize is 50K...deduct 50% for university overhead, about 12K for graduate student salary, 5K for professor salary, and you might have 8K for materials budget. What happens when you need a special diode that costs 2K?
It sounds like a great idea, they should sweeten the pot a little more (and I did RTFA, 100K won't be enough either).
A rather brilliant, older, chemist once complained to me that the Ph. D students of today don't know what it's like to work hard because computers made the math, graphing, plotting, etc. much easier. My reply was that today's students do more work...especially for numeric modeling. Instead of working 10 days on a single graph and a single regression, we'll spend one day making 10 graphs, doing varying sensitivity analyses, and working the results into other models.
Sorry to be the annoying English teacher from 9th grade here but something can't be "pretty unique" or "very unique". It's either unique or it isn't. Yes, informally it can be used with an adverbial modifier but that doesn't mean it's proper English.
I'm sorry to be the annoying non-grammar teacher, but
You forgot to add your subject and linking verb (I am sorry to be...)
In America, we use punctuation before the quotation, not after it ("very unique." instead of "very unique".)
The 'here' after '9th grade' is not needed.
If you slaughter/. grammar all day, you will never be able to teach your students.
IANAQP, but just from reading the first summary, they were talking about 'infinite' knowledge and such...are they referring to the discontinuities in QM mathematics that prevent its unification with general relativity? I thought this was the problem that string theory is supposed to help solve.
Hardy's analysis of both BfC and F9/11 picked too many nits for it to be unbiased; however, he was thorough enough for most to conclude that Moore deliberately misled people with his 'documentaries.'
Not true, it was originally started under a Christian premise, but the founder chose to go separate ways from his original Christian group and accomodate secular and non-Christian matches. That's one of the strengths of the site, I've not had a religious conflict yet. They still can't nail chemistry though.
However, they refuse to do same-sex matching under the argument that there 'isn't enough information' for their models to be effective for a match.
Odd choice of director This is the same director as 'Armageddon' and 'Bad Boys 1 and 2. He's all action and SFX and little story or plot, but then again, the Transformers need some serious FX...
There are hash tables of the various endgame positions, and those are solved. The computer also usually has a complete list of chess openings, so they are guaranteed to open with equality or strength for the first three or four moves. Where computers can lose is the middlegame.
When you go back in time, how far away from the original position will the Earth be? After all, the solar system is spiralling around the galaxy.
If you have a 1960 penny in your pocket when you go back to 1961, will you not be violating mass continuity by having the same atoms in two different places at the same time?
There are plenty of memories I don't want to relive, but proving you can't kill your grandfather seems like they are solving a problem that assumes a ton of other much more severe paradoxes have been solved already.
There are therefore two great problems which the Party is concerned to solve. One is how to discover, against his will, what another human being is thinking, and the other is how to kill several hundred million people in a few seconds without giving warning beforehand.
1984 was right after the bomb, so that mission is accomplished, but they still can't read our minds...yet.
I wonder what the heavy metal cleanup mechanism is, capillary electrophoresis? How could it be implemented in practice, by injection? Fascinating stuff.
The article didn't state it explicitly, but I was wondering if maybe they overheard the information.
I remember when I worked at Intel in Portland, there was a bar and grill called the Cornelius Pass Roadhouse that everyone visited after work('Today's been a killer, I need CPR'). Journalists from Wired would hang out in adjacent tables and take notes as the chip designers gave away the entire roadmap without knowing a single name.
Seriously, I think I remember reading that MS said that end-of-life for VB6 is coming up in 2006 or so, but can't find the article where I read that. If it exists, it's likely buried deep within MS's site.
Check here for their lifecycle development schedule. VB6 starts termination this year, and closes out in 2008.
Kerry basically said he would raise taxes on the rich, and those counties are very rich.
Kerry did not have a Jewish vice-presidential candidate.
Bush's bigotry on anti-gay marriage is quite popular among the heavily Catholic Latin community (yes, I know that the study 'compensated' for the Latino population).
Kerry was rather slippery in his comments about nuclear power, and Florida Power and Light has the Turkey Point and Saint Lucie power plants. Quite a few people would be concerned for their jobs.
I'm not for the e-machine only option either, but I think Berkeley's 99.9% confidence was a bit overstated.
...no gasses except the nitrogen,etc, that went into the engine in the first place.
That'll depend on the oxygen source. If it's air, hydrogen combustion will create some amount of NOx (which will solubilize to nitrous or nitric acid). The amount of NOx generated is directly (but not linearly) related to temperature. I'd guess the hydrogen flame temperature is lower, but I'm not sure (and don't have the time to figure it out).
Is anything anyone's fault or decision anymore? Damn I remember when people were fat, drunk, gay, disruptive and Communist of their own volition. Now everything is a malady, issue and disease.
Clearly your amygdala isn't as active as mine, or you would have said, "spherically challenged, libationally oriented, sexually curious, placidly impaired, or democratically impeded"
This has probably been discussed, but what the heck.
It's clear that the domain is Katie Jones' property. It's also clear that it was a real slimy tactic usurping her domain name on the book title. It's a lot like having the phone number 867-5309....
Looking at 'it is what it is,' has she thought about leasing the domain name for a cut of the sales revenue? The book's title will not change, and it's in print. As long as she owns the domain, she will be harassed, and if she structured the contract correctly, she could at least profit off of their sleazy idea.
Surely a non-profit organisation still needs to assure it has money in the bank and pay its employees.
I work at a large non-profit, and the name is a bit of a misnomer.
Non-profit doesn't mean that they don't want increased revenues, nor does it mean that the people working for them don't make considerable salaries. The CEO at my company (name intentionally omitted) makes over a million a year, and most of the technical workers earn six figures.
As discussed, they have to spend all of their revenues, while allowing for some permanent assets. I freaked out the first time I heard the term 'spending goals'.
But the goal is, as always, increased revenue like other corporations. Increased revenue usually means increased visibility in the industry you are supporting, increased work in your area, and increased salaries for those working.
The main difference is that you are not allowed to compete in the marketplace, if you do so, you can lose your 501c status. This gets tricky, and frankly I don't understand the details, but I've had a ton of ideas shot down for that purpose.
Natural causes do not "produce" CO2. They merely recycle carbon. The CO2 emissions of living organisms have no net effect on the global carbon balance, because all they are doing is moving it around, from the atmosphere into the biosphere and back again.
Using this definition, all carbon, except that brought in by meteors and the radioactive decay of nitrogen, is recycled. The increase of the mean temperature of the atmosphere is related to the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, not the global carbon balance.
Of course natural life produces CO2, all lifeforms (even plants) are technically combustion engines that convert unoxidized carbon (a.k.a food) to CO2. Plants, luckily, reverse the process with photosynthesis. We should worry about the CO2 in the air.
I'm guessing the SLAC guy may have used an analogy to simplify it for me, but it was an interesting hypothesis as I understood it.
It's an interesting thought, but it assumes that something exists outside the universe which acts on the universe. If something interacts with our universe then it is PART of our universe. All interaction is mediated by some exchange: photons, gravitons, etc. If the particles in question can move from "here" to "there" and back again, then the place in question is INSIDE the universe.
I suppose that's the 'what is the definition of the universe' question. Is it all the matter and energy started from the Big Bang? Or an infinite distance from the origin? I don't have the answer to that (I'm a chemical engineer, not an astrophysicist).
Also, the idea that it is a pressure gradient at work is contrary to the evidence. The rate of expansion is INCREASING. If this is a pressure gradient of some form it would be DECREASING over time. It's just like an aerosol can: when it's full the contents spray very quickly, but as it gets close to empty the velocity of the emitted contents diminishes.
I like your analysis, and I'm certainly not an authority in astrophysics, but consider the following: 1) gravity's force decreases with the increase of the square of the distance, where your observation discusses a uniform gravitational field. If gravity's force decreases, that's less force holding the matter together, which may act to increase the velocity 2) an empty aerosol can has atmospheric pressure pushing the contents back into the can; the atmosphere is doing work on the system (the air in the can). A true vacuum can do no work on a system. Also, the matter isn't being throttled through an aperture, so I'm not sure if the assumption of a decreasing pressure drop leading to decreasing velocity is applicable, it depends on the volume of the 'container,' or the boundary of the universe. Also, because the mean free path between molecules increases, this may lead to less chance for collisions and therefore less energy loss.
A guy I know that works at SLAC as an astrophysicist theorized it's not something that's expanding the universe, it's nothing. He was referring to a possible 'vacuum of space' that is pulling the matter and energy into the...uh, nothingness I guess.
Apparently the astrophysics bunch had evidence about the expanding universe already, I think this helps corroborate other evidence.
But I guess we'll never know for sure until it happens, so I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Slashdot Mirror
The top prize is 50K...deduct 50% for university overhead, about 12K for graduate student salary, 5K for professor salary, and you might have 8K for materials budget. What happens when you need a special diode that costs 2K?
It sounds like a great idea, they should sweeten the pot a little more (and I did RTFA, 100K won't be enough either).
A rather brilliant, older, chemist once complained to me that the Ph. D students of today don't know what it's like to work hard because computers made the math, graphing, plotting, etc. much easier. My reply was that today's students do more work...especially for numeric modeling. Instead of working 10 days on a single graph and a single regression, we'll spend one day making 10 graphs, doing varying sensitivity analyses, and working the results into other models.
...there are two places where you'll find true sociopaths.
The first place is in the sanitarium.
The second is in the boardroom.
I'm sorry to be the annoying non-grammar teacher, but
- You forgot to add your subject and linking verb (I am sorry to be...)
- In America, we use punctuation before the quotation, not after it ("very unique." instead of "very unique".)
- The 'here' after '9th grade' is not needed.
If you slaughterIANAQP, but just from reading the first summary, they were talking about 'infinite' knowledge and such...are they referring to the discontinuities in QM mathematics that prevent its unification with general relativity? I thought this was the problem that string theory is supposed to help solve.
Moore told plenty of lies in Bowling.
Hardy's analysis of both BfC and F9/11 picked too many nits for it to be unbiased; however, he was thorough enough for most to conclude that Moore deliberately misled people with his 'documentaries.'
Not true, it was originally started under a Christian premise, but the founder chose to go separate ways from his original Christian group and accomodate secular and non-Christian matches. That's one of the strengths of the site, I've not had a religious conflict yet. They still can't nail chemistry though.
However, they refuse to do same-sex matching under the argument that there 'isn't enough information' for their models to be effective for a match.
Odd choice of director This is the same director as 'Armageddon' and 'Bad Boys 1 and 2. He's all action and SFX and little story or plot, but then again, the Transformers need some serious FX...
Except 'rho' is 'r,' 'pi' is 'p'.
There are hash tables of the various endgame positions, and those are solved. The computer also usually has a complete list of chess openings, so they are guaranteed to open with equality or strength for the first three or four moves. Where computers can lose is the middlegame.
- When you go back in time, how far away from the original position will the Earth be? After all, the solar system is spiralling around the galaxy.
- If you have a 1960 penny in your pocket when you go back to 1961, will you not be violating mass continuity by having the same atoms in two different places at the same time?
There are plenty of memories I don't want to relive, but proving you can't kill your grandfather seems like they are solving a problem that assumes a ton of other much more severe paradoxes have been solved already.Didn't Orwell say the following
There are therefore two great problems which the Party is concerned to solve. One is how to discover, against his will, what another human being is thinking, and the other is how to kill several hundred million people in a few seconds without giving warning beforehand.
1984 was right after the bomb, so that mission is accomplished, but they still can't read our minds...yet.
I wonder what the heavy metal cleanup mechanism is, capillary electrophoresis? How could it be implemented in practice, by injection? Fascinating stuff.
I could swear the Smith agent said the exact same thing to Morpheus.
I guess the point of the article is that every human being needs to grab their letter opener from their desk and stick it in the temple.
I hope the author goes first...
The article didn't state it explicitly, but I was wondering if maybe they overheard the information.
I remember when I worked at Intel in Portland, there was a bar and grill called the Cornelius Pass Roadhouse that everyone visited after work('Today's been a killer, I need CPR'). Journalists from Wired would hang out in adjacent tables and take notes as the chip designers gave away the entire roadmap without knowing a single name.
Seriously, I think I remember reading that MS said that end-of-life for VB6 is coming up in 2006 or so, but can't find the article where I read that. If it exists, it's likely buried deep within MS's site.
Check here for their lifecycle development schedule. VB6 starts termination this year, and closes out in 2008.
I'm not for the e-machine only option either, but I think Berkeley's 99.9% confidence was a bit overstated.
...no gasses except the nitrogen,etc, that went into the engine in the first place.
That'll depend on the oxygen source. If it's air, hydrogen combustion will create some amount of NOx (which will solubilize to nitrous or nitric acid). The amount of NOx generated is directly (but not linearly) related to temperature. I'd guess the hydrogen flame temperature is lower, but I'm not sure (and don't have the time to figure it out).
Is anything anyone's fault or decision anymore? Damn I remember when people were fat, drunk, gay, disruptive and Communist of their own volition. Now everything is a malady, issue and disease.
Clearly your amygdala isn't as active as mine, or you would have said, "spherically challenged, libationally oriented, sexually curious, placidly impaired, or democratically impeded"
This has probably been discussed, but what the heck.
It's clear that the domain is Katie Jones' property. It's also clear that it was a real slimy tactic usurping her domain name on the book title. It's a lot like having the phone number 867-5309....
Looking at 'it is what it is,' has she thought about leasing the domain name for a cut of the sales revenue? The book's title will not change, and it's in print. As long as she owns the domain, she will be harassed, and if she structured the contract correctly, she could at least profit off of their sleazy idea.
Surely a non-profit organisation still needs to assure it has money in the bank and pay its employees.
I work at a large non-profit, and the name is a bit of a misnomer. Non-profit doesn't mean that they don't want increased revenues, nor does it mean that the people working for them don't make considerable salaries. The CEO at my company (name intentionally omitted) makes over a million a year, and most of the technical workers earn six figures.
As discussed, they have to spend all of their revenues, while allowing for some permanent assets. I freaked out the first time I heard the term 'spending goals'.
But the goal is, as always, increased revenue like other corporations. Increased revenue usually means increased visibility in the industry you are supporting, increased work in your area, and increased salaries for those working.
The main difference is that you are not allowed to compete in the marketplace, if you do so, you can lose your 501c status. This gets tricky, and frankly I don't understand the details, but I've had a ton of ideas shot down for that purpose.
But then, if one includes native americans, total comes to something closer to 20,000,000
Sort of, if you count the effects of European diseases. Check out here
Natural causes do not "produce" CO2. They merely recycle carbon. The CO2 emissions of living organisms have no net effect on the global carbon balance, because all they are doing is moving it around, from the atmosphere into the biosphere and back again.
Using this definition, all carbon, except that brought in by meteors and the radioactive decay of nitrogen, is recycled. The increase of the mean temperature of the atmosphere is related to the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, not the global carbon balance.
Of course natural life produces CO2, all lifeforms (even plants) are technically combustion engines that convert unoxidized carbon (a.k.a food) to CO2. Plants, luckily, reverse the process with photosynthesis. We should worry about the CO2 in the air.
I'm guessing the SLAC guy may have used an analogy to simplify it for me, but it was an interesting hypothesis as I understood it.
It's an interesting thought, but it assumes that something exists outside the universe which acts on the universe. If something interacts with our universe then it is PART of our universe. All interaction is mediated by some exchange: photons, gravitons, etc. If the particles in question can move from "here" to "there" and back again, then the place in question is INSIDE the universe.
I suppose that's the 'what is the definition of the universe' question. Is it all the matter and energy started from the Big Bang? Or an infinite distance from the origin? I don't have the answer to that (I'm a chemical engineer, not an astrophysicist).
Also, the idea that it is a pressure gradient at work is contrary to the evidence. The rate of expansion is INCREASING. If this is a pressure gradient of some form it would be DECREASING over time. It's just like an aerosol can: when it's full the contents spray very quickly, but as it gets close to empty the velocity of the emitted contents diminishes.
I like your analysis, and I'm certainly not an authority in astrophysics, but consider the following: 1) gravity's force decreases with the increase of the square of the distance, where your observation discusses a uniform gravitational field. If gravity's force decreases, that's less force holding the matter together, which may act to increase the velocity 2) an empty aerosol can has atmospheric pressure pushing the contents back into the can; the atmosphere is doing work on the system (the air in the can). A true vacuum can do no work on a system. Also, the matter isn't being throttled through an aperture, so I'm not sure if the assumption of a decreasing pressure drop leading to decreasing velocity is applicable, it depends on the volume of the 'container,' or the boundary of the universe. Also, because the mean free path between molecules increases, this may lead to less chance for collisions and therefore less energy loss.
A guy I know that works at SLAC as an astrophysicist theorized it's not something that's expanding the universe, it's nothing. He was referring to a possible 'vacuum of space' that is pulling the matter and energy into the...uh, nothingness I guess.
Apparently the astrophysics bunch had evidence about the expanding universe already, I think this helps corroborate other evidence.
But I guess we'll never know for sure until it happens, so I guess we'll have to wait and see.