Let's say that each train can take a thousand passengers. To carry 250,000 passengers would require 250 trips, about one every six minutes. Of course the commuters will be packed in at densities that the Nazis never achieved in shipping Jews to Auschwitz.
For 27 billion dollars, perhaps some tech companies might transfer from Phoenix to Tucson.
My understanding is that Benford's law deals with base-ten numerals because the data he found were expressed in base ten. It fails to account for hexadecimal numerals because the data he found were not in hexadecimal. If such data were expressed hexadecimally, then some Benford-type law might apply. As the occurrence of lead digits is distributed logarithmically, and 16=2^4, one would expect a fourth of the data to have lead 1, another fourth to have lead digit 2-3, another fourth to have lead digit 4-7, and the last fourth to have lead digit 8-f.
The tokens we manipulate are numerals, not numbers, nor are the tokens abstract (though numbers might be).
Also, the integers have an order that is independent of how we express them. Given that we use some standard place-value base system of expressing positive integers, more integers expressed with lower initial "digits" will be prime than integers expressed with higher initial "digits".
It's much easier for me to send or receive via email than try to hunt down a fax machine.
But is that true of everyone? What about a business that has a fax line where the fax machine is in a convenient location? What of a restaurant that takes faxes for lunch orders, should it have someone checking email? What is the latency of email?
A few civilians might stave off a death squad consisting of green troops with SMGs, but they'd be hopelessly outmatched by even one armoured vehicle.
That depends on the terrain. Tanks are not as effective in densely built-up cities as they are in open, level ground. It's hard to elevate a 155mm cannon to take out someone dropping Molotov cocktails on you from almost directly above.
One problem is that it would require a large force to seriously contend with police/National Guard/military. Also, would such resistance have the support of the people?
I don't recall saying that FTL was impossible, but if it is possible, it (or what made it possible) will alter our view of the world much more profoundly than heavier-than-air flight.
After the development of sufficiently powered engines the problem was not so much generation of lift, which Maxim and Langley had achieved, but the ability to control flight. The Wright brothers' use of three-axis control was crucial.
The audacity of a couple of engineers who decided to build an airplane without #1
The Wright Brothers knew that an airfoil would generate lift (as indeed others did, even if no one could then fully explain why), although the had to correct previous data.
Birds have been flying for longer than a few centuries. What widely accepted scientific law ruled out human flight? Or computers? It's true that they had not yet been achieved, but that's different from saying that they were impossible.
If more than one such app is running, does each app use its own copy? Disk space is cheap, but RAM is still constrained.
As for version hell, one can have multiple versions of a library in Linux, as the version number is part of the file name. Not that all applications are written to exploit this.
Slashdot Mirror
But you listed the Concorde in your original post. What were the long-term benefits?
Let's say that each train can take a thousand passengers. To carry 250,000 passengers would require 250 trips, about one every six minutes. Of course the commuters will be packed in at densities that the Nazis never achieved in shipping Jews to Auschwitz.
For 27 billion dollars, perhaps some tech companies might transfer from Phoenix to Tucson.
Who pays for the artificial diversion?
Running the calculation for our weight yields 101,000 ft/sec., or about 19.2 miles/second.
Except that the Earth's escape velocity (from the Earth's surface) is only 7 mi/sec, so it cannot fall faster than that (into Earth).
My understanding is that Benford's law deals with base-ten numerals because the data he found were expressed in base ten. It fails to account for hexadecimal numerals because the data he found were not in hexadecimal. If such data were expressed hexadecimally, then some Benford-type law might apply. As the occurrence of lead digits is distributed logarithmically, and 16=2^4, one would expect a fourth of the data to have lead 1, another fourth to have lead digit 2-3, another fourth to have lead digit 4-7, and the last fourth to have lead digit 8-f.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford's_Law
Considering that I don't use Windows, hmm.
What if you're faxing to someone not in the database? And is it easier to receive faxes that way?
The tokens we manipulate are numerals, not numbers, nor are the tokens abstract (though numbers might be).
Also, the integers have an order that is independent of how we express them. Given that we use some standard place-value base system of expressing positive integers, more integers expressed with lower initial "digits" will be prime than integers expressed with higher initial "digits".
More primes, not more numbers. Also, the numbers 1xxxxx are smaller than the numbers 9xxxxx, so they're more likely to be prime.
It's much easier for me to send or receive via email than try to hunt down a fax machine.
But is that true of everyone? What about a business that has a fax line where the fax machine is in a convenient location? What of a restaurant that takes faxes for lunch orders, should it have someone checking email? What is the latency of email?
So they would need permission to put a camera on my lawn, but not a GPS tracker on my car?
Except that Team America's trichotomy of people into pussies, assholes and dicks is far more intellectually tenable. F**k yeah!
(it is called great coalition, however the meaning is more like big coalition)
I suspect the German word is "gross", although one of the English meanings may be closer.
A few civilians might stave off a death squad consisting of green troops with SMGs, but they'd be hopelessly outmatched by even one armoured vehicle.
That depends on the terrain. Tanks are not as effective in densely built-up cities as they are in open, level ground. It's hard to elevate a 155mm cannon to take out someone dropping Molotov cocktails on you from almost directly above.
One problem is that it would require a large force to seriously contend with police/National Guard/military. Also, would such resistance have the support of the people?
But the pickelhaube keeps hitting the ceiling.
2^32=4,294,967,296. Where do you get 3.2 GB?
I don't recall saying that FTL was impossible, but if it is possible, it (or what made it possible) will alter our view of the world much more profoundly than heavier-than-air flight.
For all past times x, for some past time y, for some bird z, we have
If x is later than 1700, then for some y between x and x-1 hour, bird z was flying at time y.
Of course, this fails if you lead with "for some bird z".
After the development of sufficiently powered engines the problem was not so much generation of lift, which Maxim and Langley had achieved, but the ability to control flight. The Wright brothers' use of three-axis control was crucial.
From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Brothers
Wilbur, stung with disappointment, remarked to Orville that man would fly, but not in their lifetimes. (in 1901)
1. The scientific laws that describe how you can generate a lift force using an airfoil
Bernoulli's principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli's_Principle 1738
The audacity of a couple of engineers who decided to build an airplane without #1
The Wright Brothers knew that an airfoil would generate lift (as indeed others did, even if no one could then fully explain why), although the had to correct previous data.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Brothers
And if were to ask them by what means they had known that such flight was impossible, what response(s) would they have given?
Birds have been flying for longer than a few centuries. What widely accepted scientific law ruled out human flight? Or computers? It's true that they had not yet been achieved, but that's different from saying that they were impossible.
If more than one such app is running, does each app use its own copy? Disk space is cheap, but RAM is still constrained.
As for version hell, one can have multiple versions of a library in Linux, as the version number is part of the file name. Not that all applications are written to exploit this.
Of course, a new copy of Photoshop will cost you more than the netbook.
all in under 5Gb storage (most of that being silly stuff like gcc, KDE I18n, and TeX)
I bought my first Linux distro (RH 5.0) because it included TeX (and GNU emacs).