If your company uses any large databases, it can be a very good idea to use Citrix for any programs that run off the database, assuming that your Citrix farm and the DB servers have a very fast connection between them. If a client tries to run off the DB from another site, then it will run much slower (duh). With the processing power that our Citrix farm has, I can run a particular application faster over Citrix than locally with my own copy of the DB. (About 3 sec vs. 6 sec)
I don't believe that a democracy has the responsibility of convincing every single person. Even if the number were 1% of the population, they don't need to go along before we take a certain course or action. Their opinion should be taken into account, but this small minority should not be given larger than their share of democratic representation. If they want to quibble over this then let them. However, they should not be surprised if the government does things that they don't like when they represent a small minority.
When they start using math correctly then I might start listening. Until then, either try to appeal to our emotions without engaging in pathetic (or worse, deceitful) statistical analyses. (It's too bad we can't bed against the odds that they post. If they put their money where their mouth is, we'd be rich.)
Whether or not the black holes are active or passive has nothing to do with the black hole and everything to do with the black hole's environment.
A black hole is passive if it simply exists and all the nearby stars are quietly rotating around it (because it is very massive) instead of being "sucked" in.
A black hole is active if they is a bunch of gas (stars, etc.) that is too close to the black hole. Note that a very large star in the same environment would suck in the gas in exactly the same way! Except, of course that the star would be larger than the event horizon of the black hole. All of the accretion would be happening on the surface of the star.
Iraqi soldier #1: Dig a hole and dump those barrels.
Iraqi soldier #2: Yes sir. Are we supposed to keep this secret?
Iraqi soldier #1: Of course. Your families will be tortured if you tell anyone.
Iraqi soldier #2: I'll take care of it. Oh, wait for your receipt.
What kind of paperwork are you talking about? Are you forgetting how sneaky and paranoid Saddam was? I don't think that you're going to find any documentaries detailing the destruction of WMDs. IMO, he might have considered records to be treasonous (helping the infidels).
While I disagree with Bush's handling of Iraq before and after the "war," the biggest reason that I will be voting against him in November is that he is an idiot. It's too bad that it wasn't McCain or Powell running back in 2000... I would probably still be an independent leaning Republican. Bush gave me a big shove in the back.
I was only making a light joke of the spelling. Some people take it pretty seriously here. They act like they've never typed the wrong key. It's not like we have spell-checking on our browsers (maybe some people do, but not me).
Oh, well. I guess this thread is dead now. I hope that you [and everyone] had a good weekend.
I don't think that an outside boundary contradicts the meaning of the universe. It would certainly be an phenomenon that we have no experience with, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be way things are. I know that people use to often ask (maybe still do), "what is beyond the edge of the universe?" While it is not an easy idea to grasp, it is a defensible one.
I don't know if I like the idea that if I travel for long enough I will come back to where I am (would this require FTL speeds though, I wonder), without having completed a closed path in 3D.
I think that I was using really bad terminology. I think that it should have been:
(1) open, finite
(2) closed, finite
(3) open, infinite
There might be some weird topology that can be considered closed and infinite, but I think that I was just wrong in the above post. The point I was trying to make (but confused the issue with the rest) was that astrophysicists had placed a lower bound on the size, but still don't know the topology (they were able to rule out a very specific case, but I'm sure that 2 more will take its place).
If you ask Jeeves, this is his answer. I would have checked it out first, but my company uses WebSense to keep us from visiting cool sites at work. (So I settle for/.;)
I ran across a website years ago that ruled out every possible state. They had a list of a few states that were ruled out less than the others though.... I think they have intentionally taking bits from every state in order to confuse us as well as to keep any particular area from feeling alienated.
I hate to say it, but the first Shrek sucked. I bought it for my wife (I am trying to find some XBox games that she will like but don't cost $50). The game was so difficult in some parts from the very beginning that she gave up. I got most of the earlier parts figured out with a lot of effort. I finally got stuck toward the end when it was not obvious what needed to be done.
That said, my wife did like that Shrek farted (you could light them on fire), but that didn't make the game work. All you pretty much did was run around trying to grab 6 hidden X's before Y caught up to you or some timer ran out.
Yeah, I guess I could have consulted a spoiler, but that's lame. The game should be playable without needing to get help/cheats from the internet. Maybe I shouldn't be able to max out a game that easily, but I HATE games that are so linear yet still allow you to get stuck because your next move isn't obvious. I remember a point in FF7 where I had nearly beat the game, but no matter where I went in the world, there wasn't anything new to do. Finally, after revisiting every place I could think of a couple of times, I walked a little farther to the edge of a platform or something and it triggered an event. Clearly the testers didn't think that a person might defeat whatever it was or solve whatever puzzle it was and explore everything, but not actually walk everywhere. It would have been nice if they had triggered the event when I left or something.
I remember hearing about when cars were first invented and how a person wouldn't be able to stand going up to 55 mph!
<religion>
I have managed to reconcile my understanding of physics with my belief in God by realizing that the age of the earth/universe, etc. and my belief in such a thing has no bearing on my eternal soul. I tend to keep the two pretty separate without feeling the need to get philosophical. I married into the
Moravian church (which can actually claim to be older than the Lutheran faith, possibly making it the oldest Protestant faith), which is much like Methodist (John Calvin borrowed a lot of ideas when he found the Methodist church). We have an unofficial motto:
In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; and in all things, love.
We consider such things to be nonessential. Jesus doesn't love you because you believe the earth is 7000 years old. He loves you because you are a child of God.
</religion>
Do not mod me down just because I mentioned religion. It is impossible to study physics without considering or rejecting religion. It is relevant to the parent, and I am by no means flaming him. If you don't like it, politely reply or move on, but you don't need to censor something that's posted as a 1 deep in a thread.
Re:Read "Bringing Down the House"
on
Geeks and Poker?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I caught a great documentary on this on the History channel. I recommend it for any one interested in the mathematics of blackjack or if you are trying to see how people cheat at it (the MIT crew was not cheating, they were just VERY smart).
PokerRoom.com has a pretty good interface. I'm not sure what OS's it supports (i've used it on Windows). I only play with the virtual money, but it is fun playing Texas Hold'em with other people online. You don't have to submit that much info if you aren't using real money.
I don't think the doppler effect can be applied to anything that is FTL. IAAP (by degree) and I am having trouble imagining what the implications would be.
I would definitely not want to call anyone here stupid, least of all someone who admits they don't know exactly what might be happening. I screw up in my posts a bit (usually with legal stuff), but I try my best.
I like how you point out that since we cannot observe from a point moving anywhere near relativistic speeds, we don't really know. So many people forget that we are talking about theories built up on theories. They make sense, but sometimes it seems like a house of cards.
According to this though, we can get particles going up to 0.9999c. Thanks for making me look that up. That's interesting. Smarter men (wrt physics) than you or I have learned a lot about relativity doing such experiments.
Sorry, for saying you were wrong, without asking you exactly what you meant first. Are you saying that according to the observer in the middle (who sees both cars traveling at 60mph), the separation speed is the distance he sees the car A at plus the distance he sees car B at, divided by the time?
I guess that you can say that, but it is not a term/measurement used in physics. In physics you only look at one of the cars at a time (if you are using relativity), so you need to be in the other if you want to take both into account. Your scenario includes 3 reference frames.
Yes, I will gladly accept a little "overhead" in exchange for true OO and strong types and strictly defined scopes, etc. If you build a stupid language, they will come.
I pretty much view all of the.NETs as one language. At work I am doing most of my.NET in VB.NET (because I work with a bunch of VB6 programmers and I want them to be able to pick up where I left off). As a C/C++/Java programmer, I sometimes prefer to make my foundation classes in C# though, and leave the VB.NET for the GUI.
However, I have been put back on some work requiring VB6 again, and I am having a miserable time. It's like letting a kid play with XBox/PS2 and then taking it away and giving them an Intellivision (sorry you nostalgic freaks, I just hooked up my wife's old one for her and it sucks - I appreciate it as a predecessor, but I want to throw it away now).
So you live in New Zealand, and you are grinning like crazy over the idea of us making the US look bad on purpose,
and you think that you will be able to convince that many Americans to do it? Don't get me wrong, America has some problems like everywhere else, but the vast majority of us do not want to give Her a blackeye. I/we may disagree with Her leadership at times (it is a democracy), but we still love Her.
The article's meaningful observation is that they have found the minimum size of the universe. They are doing the best that they can, since they can only see out to a point. And by the way:
The objects are expanding as well. All of spacetime is expanding. Maybe this will help. If you read up on the cosmic background radiation, you will see that before it was discovered, physicists were correctly predicting its temperature. They accounted for the fact that the expanding universe would redshift this radiation [that has been around since the Big Bang]. Unlike the Doppler effect, this isn't caused by a velocity difference of the object and observer, but because the wavelength of the radiation has been stretched. It would follow that stars, planets, etc. have also been stretching, but we just can't look into the past to see.
Slashdot Mirror
If your company uses any large databases, it can be a very good idea to use Citrix for any programs that run off the database, assuming that your Citrix farm and the DB servers have a very fast connection between them. If a client tries to run off the DB from another site, then it will run much slower (duh). With the processing power that our Citrix farm has, I can run a particular application faster over Citrix than locally with my own copy of the DB. (About 3 sec vs. 6 sec)
I don't believe that a democracy has the responsibility of convincing every single person. Even if the number were 1% of the population, they don't need to go along before we take a certain course or action. Their opinion should be taken into account, but this small minority should not be given larger than their share of democratic representation. If they want to quibble over this then let them. However, they should not be surprised if the government does things that they don't like when they represent a small minority.
When they start using math correctly then I might start listening. Until then, either try to appeal to our emotions without engaging in pathetic (or worse, deceitful) statistical analyses. (It's too bad we can't bed against the odds that they post. If they put their money where their mouth is, we'd be rich.)
Supporting the previous responses...
Whether or not the black holes are active or passive has nothing to do with the black hole and everything to do with the black hole's environment.
A black hole is passive if it simply exists and all the nearby stars are quietly rotating around it (because it is very massive) instead of being "sucked" in.
A black hole is active if they is a bunch of gas (stars, etc.) that is too close to the black hole. Note that a very large star in the same environment would suck in the gas in exactly the same way! Except, of course that the star would be larger than the event horizon of the black hole. All of the accretion would be happening on the surface of the star.
Iraqi soldier #1: Dig a hole and dump those barrels. .
Iraqi soldier #2: Yes sir. Are we supposed to keep this secret?
Iraqi soldier #1: Of course. Your families will be tortured if you tell anyone.
Iraqi soldier #2: I'll take care of it. Oh, wait for your receipt
What kind of paperwork are you talking about? Are you forgetting how sneaky and paranoid Saddam was? I don't think that you're going to find any documentaries detailing the destruction of WMDs. IMO, he might have considered records to be treasonous (helping the infidels).
While I disagree with Bush's handling of Iraq before and after the "war," the biggest reason that I will be voting against him in November is that he is an idiot. It's too bad that it wasn't McCain or Powell running back in 2000... I would probably still be an independent leaning Republican. Bush gave me a big shove in the back.
I was only making a light joke of the spelling. Some people take it pretty seriously here. They act like they've never typed the wrong key. It's not like we have spell-checking on our browsers (maybe some people do, but not me).
Oh, well. I guess this thread is dead now. I hope that you [and everyone] had a good weekend.
I don't think that an outside boundary contradicts the meaning of the universe. It would certainly be an phenomenon that we have no experience with, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be way things are. I know that people use to often ask (maybe still do), "what is beyond the edge of the universe?" While it is not an easy idea to grasp, it is a defensible one.
I don't know if I like the idea that if I travel for long enough I will come back to where I am (would this require FTL speeds though, I wonder), without having completed a closed path in 3D.
Even funnier if his celly makes him take those breast enlargement pills!
It's kind of funny to see /. get /.ed.
Al Capone was put away for income tax evasion, but it was still big news.
And I'm glad to see identity theives [sic] put away too.
They should make him spend his time filtering spam all day long. (Maybe give him electric shocks when he gets it wrong to keep him honest.)
Only 36"? You poor bastard. I'm sitting five feet away from a Roland CammJet that checks in at 54" wide, roll fed. *sigh* I need a bigger printer.
Don't you know? It's not how big it is, it's how you use it.
Actually, the most common size that we need to use is 25.875"x36". The client is very strict on what sizes we print on (standard across our industry).
I think that I was using really bad terminology. I think that it should have been:
(1) open, finite
(2) closed, finite
(3) open, infinite
There might be some weird topology that can be considered closed and infinite, but I think that I was just wrong in the above post. The point I was trying to make (but confused the issue with the rest) was that astrophysicists had placed a lower bound on the size, but still don't know the topology (they were able to rule out a very specific case, but I'm sure that 2 more will take its place).
Ah, you need to work at a company with a plotter:
36" by whatever you want (it prints off a roll, you tell it when to cut the paper).
If you ask Jeeves, this is his answer. I would have checked it out first, but my company uses WebSense to keep us from visiting cool sites at work. (So I settle for /. ;)
I ran across a website years ago that ruled out every possible state. They had a list of a few states that were ruled out less than the others though.... I think they have intentionally taking bits from every state in order to confuse us as well as to keep any particular area from feeling alienated.
I hate to say it, but the first Shrek sucked. I bought it for my wife (I am trying to find some XBox games that she will like but don't cost $50). The game was so difficult in some parts from the very beginning that she gave up. I got most of the earlier parts figured out with a lot of effort. I finally got stuck toward the end when it was not obvious what needed to be done.
That said, my wife did like that Shrek farted (you could light them on fire), but that didn't make the game work. All you pretty much did was run around trying to grab 6 hidden X's before Y caught up to you or some timer ran out.
Yeah, I guess I could have consulted a spoiler, but that's lame. The game should be playable without needing to get help/cheats from the internet. Maybe I shouldn't be able to max out a game that easily, but I HATE games that are so linear yet still allow you to get stuck because your next move isn't obvious. I remember a point in FF7 where I had nearly beat the game, but no matter where I went in the world, there wasn't anything new to do. Finally, after revisiting every place I could think of a couple of times, I walked a little farther to the edge of a platform or something and it triggered an event. Clearly the testers didn't think that a person might defeat whatever it was or solve whatever puzzle it was and explore everything, but not actually walk everywhere. It would have been nice if they had triggered the event when I left or something.
I caught a great documentary on this on the History channel. I recommend it for any one interested in the mathematics of blackjack or if you are trying to see how people cheat at it (the MIT crew was not cheating, they were just VERY smart).
PokerRoom.com has a pretty good interface. I'm not sure what OS's it supports (i've used it on Windows). I only play with the virtual money, but it is fun playing Texas Hold'em with other people online. You don't have to submit that much info if you aren't using real money.
I don't think the doppler effect can be applied to anything that is FTL. IAAP (by degree) and I am having trouble imagining what the implications would be.
I would definitely not want to call anyone here stupid, least of all someone who admits they don't know exactly what might be happening. I screw up in my posts a bit (usually with legal stuff), but I try my best.
I like how you point out that since we cannot observe from a point moving anywhere near relativistic speeds, we don't really know. So many people forget that we are talking about theories built up on theories. They make sense, but sometimes it seems like a house of cards.
According to this though, we can get particles going up to 0.9999c. Thanks for making me look that up. That's interesting. Smarter men (wrt physics) than you or I have learned a lot about relativity doing such experiments.
Sorry, for saying you were wrong, without asking you exactly what you meant first. Are you saying that according to the observer in the middle (who sees both cars traveling at 60mph), the separation speed is the distance he sees the car A at plus the distance he sees car B at, divided by the time?
I guess that you can say that, but it is not a term/measurement used in physics. In physics you only look at one of the cars at a time (if you are using relativity), so you need to be in the other if you want to take both into account. Your scenario includes 3 reference frames.
Yes, I will gladly accept a little "overhead" in exchange for true OO and strong types and strictly defined scopes, etc. If you build a stupid language, they will come.
.NETs as one language. At work I am doing most of my .NET in VB.NET (because I work with a bunch of VB6 programmers and I want them to be able to pick up where I left off). As a C/C++/Java programmer, I sometimes prefer to make my foundation classes in C# though, and leave the VB.NET for the GUI.
I pretty much view all of the
However, I have been put back on some work requiring VB6 again, and I am having a miserable time. It's like letting a kid play with XBox/PS2 and then taking it away and giving them an Intellivision (sorry you nostalgic freaks, I just hooked up my wife's old one for her and it sucks - I appreciate it as a predecessor, but I want to throw it away now).
The objects are expanding as well. All of spacetime is expanding. Maybe this will help. If you read up on the cosmic background radiation, you will see that before it was discovered, physicists were correctly predicting its temperature. They accounted for the fact that the expanding universe would redshift this radiation [that has been around since the Big Bang]. Unlike the Doppler effect, this isn't caused by a velocity difference of the object and observer, but because the wavelength of the radiation has been stretched. It would follow that stars, planets, etc. have also been stretching, but we just can't look into the past to see.