Since you seem to know, and I'm too lazy to hunt it down, where, precisely (article and section), in the US constitution is this "right" (I presume you really mean "power") given to the executive branch of the federal government?
Just to clarify an oft-misunderstood point: GPS is a receiver thing. Your GPS unit need only receive signals from the satellites to identify your location. Your GPS unit does not ever have to transmit anything at all. A road-map-path-finding GPS navigation unit could conceivably contain all the map data and a processor powerful enough to do the path finding, and you could use it with every assurance that you were disclosing your location to no one. I have no idea whether or not GPS nav units on the market are so self contained, but nothing inherent about GPS involves the ability of anyone to track you.
You're still missing something. The aphorism "Correlation does not imply causation" says nothing about the direction of the causal chain. There is such a thing as chance correlation, even in a complete absence of any causation at all. That is the point of the aphorism. Of course, you can look at the significance of the correlation and determine the likelihood that it occurs by chance, etc, which helps a lot.
Agree. For a good example, see this blurb that has appeared in every version of the Scheme language standard:
We intend this report to belong to the entire Scheme community, and so we grant permission to copy it in whole or in part without fee. In particular, we encourage implementors of Scheme to use this report as a starting point for manuals and other documentation, modifying it as necessary.
Huh. I'm sitting in Columbus right now, looking out my window. Looks pretty blue to me. When I lived in Chicago (also part of the Midwest), the sky was generally blue. During the time I've spent in Indianapolis, Dayton, St. Louis, Tulsa, and on the road between, the sky has generally been blue. I was in Sandusky last Saturday and Sunday, and the sky was blue. Seems to me that you had a weird special case.
I both like and dislike Jordan. I think he found himself unable to control his story and characters, and that the series suffered for it. However, I have every intention of buying and reading the remaining books, and expect to enjoy them.
OTOH, there are most likely some people who have never heard of the Wheel of Time series. Reviews of the series (which is what many posts here amount to) are useful to them in determining whether or not they might enjoy it and thus should begin reading it. OTGH, these "reviews" (on both sides of the issue, mind you) are generally not very well done, written, or thought out. In short, I think that posts that amount to "I think Jordan is not a very good writer for these reasons" certainly add something to the discussion, although perhaps not as much as they could.
I'm sure as heck no expert on this sort of thing, but if you have (in the extreme case) as many cores as you have threads, why would you ever have a context switch at all? It seems that increasing the number of cores serves precisely to decrease the number of context switches required.
Supersymmetry is a bigger deal than the Higgs, I would judge. The LHC is expected to find SUSY quite rapidly. Additionally, we will want to measure Higgs properties, perform precision measurements of various things such as the single top cross section, B_s mixing (and CP violation, and maaaaybe CPT violation), the top mass, the W and Z masses, etc. More exotic things include searching for (yes, really) black hole production, large extra dimensions, technicolor (an alternative model to the standard model Higgs mechanism), WIMPs, dark matter, excited states of the W and Z, a fourth fermion generation, glueballs, tetraquarks, pentaquarks, magnetic monopoles, leptoquarks, sterile neutrinos, etc, and other, completely unexpected, new physics.
On the contrary. The Higgs is discoverable at a 5 sigma significance level (PhysRev standard for "discovery") with about 1 year's worth of data at design energy and luminosity.[1] Furthermore, since people have already worked on analyses, it will only take probably about 6 months to run the analyses on the data and get the results approved by the collaboration. So, with the current startup schedule, barring any more problems, we should expect to see a Higgs discovery paper from CMS and ATLAS in time for the Winter 2011-12 conference cycle.
Just cut one off like Paul Newman in Cool Hand Luke and take it home with you. When you're done, dump it someplace. No one's the wiser. OTOH, you could move away from San Francisco and enjoy free parking in most of the rest of the country.
Are you sure of that? If it weren't for Windows' stranglehold, OS design would be probably a decade ahead of where it is now, millions of man-hours would not have been lost to fixing/cleaning up malware/etc, and we'd all probably be a little bit richer. Is one multi-billionaire philanthropist worth a thousand multi-millionaire philanthropists?
Why not start by building digital logic circuits out of transistors? Wait, first we'd better teach them about semiconductors and make them build their own transistors. Ooh, I have an idea, let's get them to assemble the silicon atoms by fusing hydrogen! That's how a computer really works after all, right?
Programming is about understanding, creating, modifying, and using abstractions. If you can't think about a tcp connection (or an industrial robot, or a business transaction) as an item in its own right, as opposed to a bunch of register states, you're not really going to get very far.
Cf. learning about atoms, molecules, cells before you learn about dogs. In order to get anywhere working in a pet store, you'll have to learn to ignore the vast differences in number, type, and arrangement of cells and think about each dog as being that extremely high level abstraction: a dog.
Almost. The delayed neutrons are actually the ones emitted by the fission products as they decay to more stable isotopes (by neutron emission, obviously). What you are thinking of is fast neutrons. Most neutrons emitted by fission reactions (whether prompt or delayed) are fast. Depending on your fuel and reactor design, you may be able to use fast neutrons to cause fission (hence fast breeder reactor), or you may need to slow them down (turn them into thermal neutrons) using a moderator first. Other than that nitpick, you're spot on.
Aren't we all deterministic automotons governed by the laws of physics?
IAAPhysicist. We might well all be automatons governed by the laws of physics. You'd know better than I, I suppose. But the laws of physics are definitely not deterministic (or non-local, but non-locality doesn't really seem to get you much of anywhere useful). Read up on the EPR paradox and Bell's inequality sometime. That case is closed.
A BASIC program is approximately deterministic, which is to say, not actually deterministic. That 1 in whatever (not sure what you want the Planck time to do with anything here) is pretty dang important.
The Congress is also worried about not getting the United States blown up.
Mein Gott, will we ever stop hearing such ridiculous nonsense? Please, tepples, do a little bit of research. Learn a little bit about the design of nuclear power plants (modern designs, that is), and about the real risks and dangers. Learn about the absolute worst that could happen and discover that it really isn't that bad especially when compared to the number of people who are killed per kilowatt hour by coal, natural gas, or oil plants. Then stop spouting this tripe!
I expect that SSDs will in fact replace HDDs. But probably not with FLASH. Other solid state non-volatile random access memory technologies are likely to come around, hopefully with better wear and density characteristics. There is a general fallacy here where some people seem to believe that SSDs can only ever be composed of FLASH
Slashdot Mirror
The predilection to go wild about poll numbers is due to the fact that our voting system greatly encourages, perhaps necessitates, strategic voting.
ICE has the constitutional right
Since you seem to know, and I'm too lazy to hunt it down, where, precisely (article and section), in the US constitution is this "right" (I presume you really mean "power") given to the executive branch of the federal government?
Just to clarify an oft-misunderstood point: GPS is a receiver thing. Your GPS unit need only receive signals from the satellites to identify your location. Your GPS unit does not ever have to transmit anything at all. A road-map-path-finding GPS navigation unit could conceivably contain all the map data and a processor powerful enough to do the path finding, and you could use it with every assurance that you were disclosing your location to no one. I have no idea whether or not GPS nav units on the market are so self contained, but nothing inherent about GPS involves the ability of anyone to track you.
However, the contracts that their members are signatory to are still binding.
You're still missing something. The aphorism "Correlation does not imply causation" says nothing about the direction of the causal chain. There is such a thing as chance correlation, even in a complete absence of any causation at all. That is the point of the aphorism. Of course, you can look at the significance of the correlation and determine the likelihood that it occurs by chance, etc, which helps a lot.
We intend this report to belong to the entire Scheme community, and so we grant permission to copy it in whole or in part without fee. In particular, we encourage implementors of Scheme to use this report as a starting point for manuals and other documentation, modifying it as necessary.
That's how a standard should be.
Huh. I'm sitting in Columbus right now, looking out my window. Looks pretty blue to me. When I lived in Chicago (also part of the Midwest), the sky was generally blue. During the time I've spent in Indianapolis, Dayton, St. Louis, Tulsa, and on the road between, the sky has generally been blue. I was in Sandusky last Saturday and Sunday, and the sky was blue. Seems to me that you had a weird special case.
Let me know when the AI community figures out how to code something as high level as motivation...
You forgot "crossed her arms underneath her breasts".
I both like and dislike Jordan. I think he found himself unable to control his story and characters, and that the series suffered for it. However, I have every intention of buying and reading the remaining books, and expect to enjoy them.
OTOH, there are most likely some people who have never heard of the Wheel of Time series. Reviews of the series (which is what many posts here amount to) are useful to them in determining whether or not they might enjoy it and thus should begin reading it. OTGH, these "reviews" (on both sides of the issue, mind you) are generally not very well done, written, or thought out. In short, I think that posts that amount to "I think Jordan is not a very good writer for these reasons" certainly add something to the discussion, although perhaps not as much as they could.
I'm sure as heck no expert on this sort of thing, but if you have (in the extreme case) as many cores as you have threads, why would you ever have a context switch at all? It seems that increasing the number of cores serves precisely to decrease the number of context switches required.
people won't be able to just walk into our property.
You have a moat, I take it?
Supersymmetry is a bigger deal than the Higgs, I would judge. The LHC is expected to find SUSY quite rapidly. Additionally, we will want to measure Higgs properties, perform precision measurements of various things such as the single top cross section, B_s mixing (and CP violation, and maaaaybe CPT violation), the top mass, the W and Z masses, etc. More exotic things include searching for (yes, really) black hole production, large extra dimensions, technicolor (an alternative model to the standard model Higgs mechanism), WIMPs, dark matter, excited states of the W and Z, a fourth fermion generation, glueballs, tetraquarks, pentaquarks, magnetic monopoles, leptoquarks, sterile neutrinos, etc, and other, completely unexpected, new physics.
On the contrary. The Higgs is discoverable at a 5 sigma significance level (PhysRev standard for "discovery") with about 1 year's worth of data at design energy and luminosity.[1] Furthermore, since people have already worked on analyses, it will only take probably about 6 months to run the analyses on the data and get the results approved by the collaboration. So, with the current startup schedule, barring any more problems, we should expect to see a Higgs discovery paper from CMS and ATLAS in time for the Winter 2011-12 conference cycle.
[1] http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.1458
Just cut one off like Paul Newman in Cool Hand Luke and take it home with you. When you're done, dump it someplace. No one's the wiser. OTOH, you could move away from San Francisco and enjoy free parking in most of the rest of the country.
Are you sure of that? If it weren't for Windows' stranglehold, OS design would be probably a decade ahead of where it is now, millions of man-hours would not have been lost to fixing/cleaning up malware/etc, and we'd all probably be a little bit richer. Is one multi-billionaire philanthropist worth a thousand multi-millionaire philanthropists?
Why not start by building digital logic circuits out of transistors? Wait, first we'd better teach them about semiconductors and make them build their own transistors. Ooh, I have an idea, let's get them to assemble the silicon atoms by fusing hydrogen! That's how a computer really works after all, right?
Programming is about understanding, creating, modifying, and using abstractions. If you can't think about a tcp connection (or an industrial robot, or a business transaction) as an item in its own right, as opposed to a bunch of register states, you're not really going to get very far.
Cf. learning about atoms, molecules, cells before you learn about dogs. In order to get anywhere working in a pet store, you'll have to learn to ignore the vast differences in number, type, and arrangement of cells and think about each dog as being that extremely high level abstraction: a dog.
Almost. The delayed neutrons are actually the ones emitted by the fission products as they decay to more stable isotopes (by neutron emission, obviously). What you are thinking of is fast neutrons. Most neutrons emitted by fission reactions (whether prompt or delayed) are fast. Depending on your fuel and reactor design, you may be able to use fast neutrons to cause fission (hence fast breeder reactor), or you may need to slow them down (turn them into thermal neutrons) using a moderator first. Other than that nitpick, you're spot on.
Aren't we all deterministic automotons governed by the laws of physics?
IAAPhysicist. We might well all be automatons governed by the laws of physics. You'd know better than I, I suppose. But the laws of physics are definitely not deterministic (or non-local, but non-locality doesn't really seem to get you much of anywhere useful). Read up on the EPR paradox and Bell's inequality sometime. That case is closed.
A BASIC program is approximately deterministic, which is to say, not actually deterministic. That 1 in whatever (not sure what you want the Planck time to do with anything here) is pretty dang important.
Hey man, I think you've had enough. I'll call a taxi.
Conservation is the easiest and cheaper way to implement technically, but it seems, at least in the USA, very difficult for the people to accept.
Also the least future proof. Electricity or at least energy consumption will increase, barring some disaster that leaves this all a moot point anyway.
The Congress is also worried about not getting the United States blown up.
Mein Gott, will we ever stop hearing such ridiculous nonsense? Please, tepples, do a little bit of research. Learn a little bit about the design of nuclear power plants (modern designs, that is), and about the real risks and dangers. Learn about the absolute worst that could happen and discover that it really isn't that bad especially when compared to the number of people who are killed per kilowatt hour by coal, natural gas, or oil plants. Then stop spouting this tripe!
I expect that SSDs will in fact replace HDDs. But probably not with FLASH. Other solid state non-volatile random access memory technologies are likely to come around, hopefully with better wear and density characteristics. There is a general fallacy here where some people seem to believe that SSDs can only ever be composed of FLASH
It was a marketing class, right? The "obvious racket" was just part of what the textbook was supposed to teach you.