I'm not envious. I wouldn't want that job. I just think you make tradeoffs in life, and if you want to make millions a year, maybe you have to answer some e-mails from home.
I didn't say "he" made hundreds of millions. The comment that reading all of those e-mails meant longer working hours was directed at CEOs in general, many of whom do make hundreds of millions.
BTW, he made over $40 million in the last five years. I still have no sympathy for his work schedule.
I know there's a problem with Pioneer, but it may or may not be related to gravity.
As far as mercury is concerned, there's no issue associated with its orbit. We can explain the changes of its orbit within 0.3 arc seconds per century. I don't think it gets much better than that.
Oh, cry me a river. So a guy making hundreds of millions has to extend his workday. Isn't that the price you pay for having that job? You want an easier job, just be some other senior executive, make 20-25% as much money, and have an easier life.
This GR calculation still requires a disk of currently unseen matter in galaxies. However, the disk it requires has roughly the same distribution as luminous matter (the stuff we can see) and is many times smaller than the amount of Dark Matter that would be needed. An astrophycist looking to follow up on this would probably want to start looking for missed "real" matter in galaxies, rather than looking for Dark Matter.
That's not my understanding from the article. I haven't followed galaxy modeling very much, but the article makes the assertion that previous galactic models assumed Newtonian gravity would suffice, since it generally does for distant objects moving at non-relativistic speeds. For example, in our solar system, all of the planets rotations can be explained using Newtonian physics, except for Mercury which is close enough to the sun for the non-linear parts of general relativity to come into effect. So galaxies were modeled as lots of large particles orbiting far from the central gravitational well and far from each other. The authors of this article assert that this model misses the extent to which general relativity is required to model the interaction between masses within the galaxy. To go back to the solar system example, Jupiter and Saturn are probably big enough, for example, that if their orbits were closer we would need general relativity to explain their interaction.
They do, however, need additional mass in the galaxy to explain its motion, just not nearly as much as the Dark Matter theories and the mass is roughly distributed in the same manner as the luminous matter, rather than being further away from the core, as DArk Matter mysteriously would need to be.
I read the article and I fail to see how this criticism holds water. The article under discussion proposes a thin disk of non-luminous (as opposed to "Dark") matter on the same plane as the galaxy, in roughly the same distribution as the luminous matter. Such a disk could be made of dust or other particles, would be an order of magnitude smaller than the proposed Dark Matter, and would potentially be difficult to observe. One wonders whether the refuting author finds Dark Matter more or less "physical" than a thin disk of real matter.
"Maybe there's something we don't understand about gravity" is different than "oh, we were modeling galaxies inaccurately all along". The former requires a new theory of gravity or at least an extension to general relativity, the latter merely requires a correct application of the existing theory.
I didn't say "falls out automatically", I said that someone knowledgeable in the field could invent something similar given the basic outline of the invention.
There is no magic to invention. Any invention can be replicated by another inventor without referencing the patent, given enough time, effort, and capital. The test you give would fail for every patent.
Q. "Would an average [electrical engineer] with an average education and average experience in [electricity and magnetism] ever need to refer to [Bell's] patent on the [telephone], either directly or indirectly, in order to introduce [a device to transmit sound over wires]?"
...that even if this program exists, that the 'toxic dart' guns are permanently attached to the dolphins or that someone left them attached during the hurricane?
My father is a radiologist. I've asked him this question before. With a few exceptions (colon fly-throughs, for instance) there is no value to a radiologist in having a 3d view. In fact, 3d would hinder their ability to see things because foreground objects would obscure background objects. Radiologists have no problem constructing 3d views in their heads using 2d films.
Just because there's a couple dark dots and a light dot near where the lander is supposed to be, doesn't mean that that's the lander. This is especially true since the sunlight seems to be coming from the right side of the picture, so the shadow should be to the left of the lander, while here the shadow is to the right side of the white dot, just like if it were a crater.
Add to that the fact that there is NO WAY the 4.3 m wide lander and/or its shadow would show up on a picture taken from 100 km in orbit with a hand-held camera.
Specifically, delete all the 'x's before running anything through dbacl. Put back the 'x' where necessary in returning the move to the chess program.
That way Nxd5 = Nd5
The idea being that whether or not you make a specific move is not always dependent on whether you make a capture. Sometimes you just want the piece on that spot on the board. The program currently treats those two instances (moving a piece for a to b, and moving a piece from a while capturing the piece at b) as different moves, so that the presence of a piece at b alters the outcome of the decision process.
"it is a successful tiny step in a direction that no-one else has thought of going"
Except for the fact that the bayesian filter in question was originally designed for identifying spam, this statement is incorrect. Bayesian filters have been applied to chess in a variety of ways, including analyzing move sequences and analyzing the current placement of pieces. In general, the strategic algorithms (that project the game forward) have been better competitors.
Not that chess algorithms do not contain statistics-based procedures, only that ones that also look forward in the game have provided better outcomes.
I'm almost positive that I remember hearing in one of the quarterly conference calls that any time Apple announces a number of songs downloaded for iTMS, that they always mean _paid_ downloads only. Frankly, if they were including free downloads, they could leave themselves open for claims of securities fraud -- what if 500 million songs only meant $200 million, when everyone clearly assumes its close to $1 per song. (Its not quite $1 because a lot of songs are bought in albums, where there is a bulk discount. But Apple has provided guidance in the past what the average $ per song is.)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not envious. I wouldn't want that job. I just think you make tradeoffs in life, and if you want to make millions a year, maybe you have to answer some e-mails from home.
I didn't say "he" made hundreds of millions. The comment that reading all of those e-mails meant longer working hours was directed at CEOs in general, many of whom do make hundreds of millions.
BTW, he made over $40 million in the last five years. I still have no sympathy for his work schedule.
I know there's a problem with Pioneer, but it may or may not be related to gravity.
As far as mercury is concerned, there's no issue associated with its orbit. We can explain the changes of its orbit within 0.3 arc seconds per century. I don't think it gets much better than that.
I don't think its that hard to register your RSS feed at multiple sites. It only takes about 10 seconds.
"and extends already long workdays"
Oh, cry me a river. So a guy making hundreds of millions has to extend his workday. Isn't that the price you pay for having that job? You want an easier job, just be some other senior executive, make 20-25% as much money, and have an easier life.
This GR calculation still requires a disk of currently unseen matter in galaxies. However, the disk it requires has roughly the same distribution as luminous matter (the stuff we can see) and is many times smaller than the amount of Dark Matter that would be needed. An astrophycist looking to follow up on this would probably want to start looking for missed "real" matter in galaxies, rather than looking for Dark Matter.
That's not my understanding from the article. I haven't followed galaxy modeling very much, but the article makes the assertion that previous galactic models assumed Newtonian gravity would suffice, since it generally does for distant objects moving at non-relativistic speeds. For example, in our solar system, all of the planets rotations can be explained using Newtonian physics, except for Mercury which is close enough to the sun for the non-linear parts of general relativity to come into effect. So galaxies were modeled as lots of large particles orbiting far from the central gravitational well and far from each other. The authors of this article assert that this model misses the extent to which general relativity is required to model the interaction between masses within the galaxy. To go back to the solar system example, Jupiter and Saturn are probably big enough, for example, that if their orbits were closer we would need general relativity to explain their interaction.
They do, however, need additional mass in the galaxy to explain its motion, just not nearly as much as the Dark Matter theories and the mass is roughly distributed in the same manner as the luminous matter, rather than being further away from the core, as DArk Matter mysteriously would need to be.
I read the article and I fail to see how this criticism holds water. The article under discussion proposes a thin disk of non-luminous (as opposed to "Dark") matter on the same plane as the galaxy, in roughly the same distribution as the luminous matter. Such a disk could be made of dust or other particles, would be an order of magnitude smaller than the proposed Dark Matter, and would potentially be difficult to observe. One wonders whether the refuting author finds Dark Matter more or less "physical" than a thin disk of real matter.
"Maybe there's something we don't understand about gravity" is different than "oh, we were modeling galaxies inaccurately all along". The former requires a new theory of gravity or at least an extension to general relativity, the latter merely requires a correct application of the existing theory.
I don't think I've ever seen General Relativity referred to as being the "simplest" of anything before. :)
And before anyone gets their panties in a wad, I know he means that GR is simpler than GR+DM, but I still find it amusing.
To which I responded:
So show me how this thread was about DRM and not price. Next time you suggest someone RTFA, maybe you should RTFT (thread) first.
Next time you feel like calling someone an idiot, maybe you should just fuck off.
Great, thanks for bringing up something unrelated to what we were talking about.
Mussolini was evil, but not for making the trains run on time.
Movie studios may be evil, but not for charging you a different amount to see a movie once or to see a movie as many times as you want.
Wow, $319 a gallon!
;)
Here its only a little over $3.00 a gallon.
Movie studio: "you forgot the part where we spend $100 million making the movie in the first place."
So they'll let you watch it once for £3 or as many times as you want for £15.
Ooh, that's so evil to give people choices.
I didn't say "falls out automatically", I said that someone knowledgeable in the field could invent something similar given the basic outline of the invention.
There is no magic to invention. Any invention can be replicated by another inventor without referencing the patent, given enough time, effort, and capital. The test you give would fail for every patent.
Q. "Would an average [electrical engineer] with an average education and average experience in [electricity and magnetism] ever need to refer to [Bell's] patent on the [telephone], either directly or indirectly, in order to introduce [a device to transmit sound over wires]?"
A. "No."
So the telephone shouldn't have been patented?
...that even if this program exists, that the 'toxic dart' guns are permanently attached to the dolphins or that someone left them attached during the hurricane?
My father is a radiologist. I've asked him this question before. With a few exceptions (colon fly-throughs, for instance) there is no value to a radiologist in having a 3d view. In fact, 3d would hinder their ability to see things because foreground objects would obscure background objects. Radiologists have no problem constructing 3d views in their heads using 2d films.
Ach, didn't click in to the close-up. It really does look like it could only be the lander. Oh, well, guess I'm not always right.
Just because there's a couple dark dots and a light dot near where the lander is supposed to be, doesn't mean that that's the lander. This is especially true since the sunlight seems to be coming from the right side of the picture, so the shadow should be to the left of the lander, while here the shadow is to the right side of the white dot, just like if it were a crater.
Add to that the fact that there is NO WAY the 4.3 m wide lander and/or its shadow would show up on a picture taken from 100 km in orbit with a hand-held camera.
... you ignore the 'x' altogether.
Specifically, delete all the 'x's before running anything through dbacl. Put back the 'x' where necessary in returning the move to the chess program.
That way Nxd5 = Nd5
The idea being that whether or not you make a specific move is not always dependent on whether you make a capture. Sometimes you just want the piece on that spot on the board. The program currently treats those two instances (moving a piece for a to b, and moving a piece from a while capturing the piece at b) as different moves, so that the presence of a piece at b alters the outcome of the decision process.
"it is a successful tiny step in a direction that no-one else has thought of going"
Except for the fact that the bayesian filter in question was originally designed for identifying spam, this statement is incorrect. Bayesian filters have been applied to chess in a variety of ways, including analyzing move sequences and analyzing the current placement of pieces. In general, the strategic algorithms (that project the game forward) have been better competitors.
Not that chess algorithms do not contain statistics-based procedures, only that ones that also look forward in the game have provided better outcomes.
Oh, except in the photos where the site creators drew in the tracks using photoshop or something.
I'm almost positive that I remember hearing in one of the quarterly conference calls that any time Apple announces a number of songs downloaded for iTMS, that they always mean _paid_ downloads only. Frankly, if they were including free downloads, they could leave themselves open for claims of securities fraud -- what if 500 million songs only meant $200 million, when everyone clearly assumes its close to $1 per song. (Its not quite $1 because a lot of songs are bought in albums, where there is a bulk discount. But Apple has provided guidance in the past what the average $ per song is.)
I would imagine he has some mode of transportation. My laptop works just fine plugged into my car. I think you're overreacting a little bit.