What we've seen since the technological advances after Chernobyl is that nuclear power is 100% safe. Anyone who thinks otherwise must be a Jane Fonda fan. I dare you to name just a single nuclear accident in the last few years.
You sir are spreading nonsensical and malicious rumors about our astronauts. The astronaut we are discussing did not have any duct tape, on her person or in the trunk of her car parked at the airport. I think you are confusing it with the surgical tubing and/or the folding knife.
I remember a friend who was really into slackware telling me he could put it right on my new Sony Vaio around 2000. Sure I said, and then after 10 hours of stubborn attempts he had it on. Not much worked, but it was dual bootable with win98. So anytime I needed to connect with the outside world, I'd dump whatever files into some dual drive space and reboot into linux so the modem would work. I am a little more practical now and over my need to have the most macho linux.
Optical computer - yes there were articles about these in Scientific American in the early 80s - anyone got the reference? Even older I am sure. And holography was going to replace magnetic memory of all sorts. I think there is an article about flying cars in that issue. Oh and one day we'd all have portable phones as small as Star Trek communicators...
OK, sure, you certainly do want that. From a geometer's point of view though, one of course always defines things first with the inner product. Either direction is fine, but they are both exceeding easy to show. I shot from the hip, I admit. The idiotic statement was really reacting to this latter point that this isn't hard to show. It call me back to classical mechanics texts/courses where there is a huge amount of effort put in to showing that an element of O(3) has an eigenvector, when it is a 3 line observation. (Try looking it up in Goldstein for example, and compare with Artin.)
It's idiotic to prove that. The right way to do things is define them as inner product preserving and then it's immediate that they are length preserving.
As someone interested in algorithms, and the sorts of things in Knuth (complexity, number theoretic things, etc.) I have to agree. It's a huge mess that no one is willing to criticize and fewer people read. You're better off starting with a book by Herb Wilf, Dexter Kozen or any of a dozen other well written books. Note that this also goes for Knuth's Discrete Math book.
So true. They should have a TV show about this sort of thing. Instead of focusing on the cops entirely, it could have a whole diverse cast of characters who work together to solve crimes. Oh wait....
A likely reason they may be computing pi^2 is because it is a pretty straightforward infinite series: pi^2 over 6 is the sum of 1 over n^2, n ranging from 1 to infinity.
Slashdot Mirror
What we've seen since the technological advances after Chernobyl is that nuclear power is 100% safe. Anyone who thinks otherwise must be a Jane Fonda fan. I dare you to name just a single nuclear accident in the last few years.
You sir are spreading nonsensical and malicious rumors about our astronauts. The astronaut we are discussing did not have any duct tape, on her person or in the trunk of her car parked at the airport. I think you are confusing it with the surgical tubing and/or the folding knife.
Don't count yourself out just yet. If you can tolerate a kraft dinner you certainly could live on whatever astronauts are fed.
Yes, that would be a real treat to see a sketch of the Mona Lisa in there. Let me know when you find it.
Do you think OO programming is closer to how the hardware works?
I'll chime in with the correct answer. If we all programmed in Haskell or OCaml the world would be a better place. Lisp even.
But I won't go on with a full rant. Functional programming is silently winning the war.
I thought it was a parody of what Stallman said until I read the article. It's not like the Dell joke above though - it is actually what he said.
In fact, if I remember correctly, the big discussion at the time was when was linux going to provide usb support.
I remember a friend who was really into slackware telling me he could put it right on my new Sony Vaio around 2000. Sure I said, and then after 10 hours of stubborn attempts he had it on. Not much worked, but it was dual bootable with win98. So anytime I needed to connect with the outside world, I'd dump whatever files into some dual drive space and reboot into linux so the modem would work. I am a little more practical now and over my need to have the most macho linux.
Optical computer - yes there were articles about these in Scientific American in the early 80s - anyone got the reference? Even older I am sure. And holography was going to replace magnetic memory of all sorts. I think there is an article about flying cars in that issue. Oh and one day we'd all have portable phones as small as Star Trek communicators...
Because: I've never known a single person who uses it.
OK, sure, you certainly do want that. From a geometer's point of view though, one of course always defines things first with the inner product. Either direction is fine, but they are both exceeding easy to show. I shot from the hip, I admit. The idiotic statement was really reacting to this latter point that this isn't hard to show. It call me back to classical mechanics texts/courses where there is a huge amount of effort put in to showing that an element of O(3) has an eigenvector, when it is a 3 line observation. (Try looking it up in Goldstein for example, and compare with Artin.)
Right. Which is the correct logical order, since unitary transformations are isometries. Then the property you mention follows easily.
It's idiotic to prove that. The right way to do things is define them as inner product preserving and then it's immediate that they are length preserving.
As someone interested in algorithms, and the sorts of things in Knuth (complexity, number theoretic things, etc.) I have to agree. It's a huge mess that no one is willing to criticize and fewer people read. You're better off starting with a book by Herb Wilf, Dexter Kozen or any of a dozen other well written books. Note that this also goes for Knuth's Discrete Math book.
Yes! Down with the clicking twice. I use it regularly and still don't feel comfortable with it. It's just all sort of out of sync with what I expect.
Don't forget that gas spores look just like beholders.
It's called a train.
So true. They should have a TV show about this sort of thing. Instead of focusing on the cops entirely, it could have a whole diverse cast of characters who work together to solve crimes. Oh wait....
Have you heard of Jesux?
No, it is entertaining, sort of the reason I browse at -1.
I believe this thing is called a "javawocky."
No. You misunderstand that word, or what the grandparent said.
A likely reason they may be computing pi^2 is because it is a pretty straightforward infinite series: pi^2 over 6 is the sum of 1 over n^2, n ranging from 1 to infinity.
Why not compute digits of e? What's all this obsession with pi? For me, this time it's personal.