It's accelerated by the tension of the space elevator cable, which is attached to a large counterweight beyond geo-synch orbit. This causes the elevator cable to pull on the counterweight and on the Earth. Eventually the orbital energy comes from the rotation of the Earth, slowing it ever so slightly. The system naturally returns to a state where the elevator cable is perpendicular to the plane tangent to the earth's surface at the attachment point as the counterweight drifts back into a higher orbit via centripetal force.
Actually it sounds like your friend had an hemorrhage, which is not the most common type of stroke, and is typically avoidable (e.g. by avoiding such spikes in blood pressure).
I lack the credentials to argue whether or not the idea of this universe being particularly suited to life is a valid one
Actually, I don't believe there are any particular credentials that would really qualify anyone to argue about this idea, since it is ultimately a philosophical argument, not a scientific one. In particular, the anthropic principle is neither falsifiable nor predictive, and thus cannot be a scientific theory.
As a philosophical argument, however, it is essentially consistent, but circular.
The government is paying a good chunk of your tuition in exchange for 100 hours of community service. Sounds like a fair exchange for me.
In my day, us college students would get this thing called a j-o-b where we worked and got money to pay for tuition....weird concept.
Why doesn't Obama just offer these people a temporary job in the federal government and to hell with this silly "tax credit" sham? Oh, because that shows up as "spending" and not a loss in tax revenue.
That's actually a really huge microcontroller, on the order of $10 a unit. The cheaper ones, under $1, often have 256 bytes or fewer of RAM. Some don't even have RAM, just a set of general purpose registers and some IO addresses. And RAM is relatively power hungry, which acts as a continual anchor on microcontroller designs. Power is far more important than memory size.
Personally, I think 2KB of RAM is ludicrous for a software stack. But the again, my favorite model has just 4KB.
802.15.4 can be implemented in 100 bytes of RAM. Who in hell needs IPv6 on a MCU? And why in hell would manufacturers add $10 to their unit costs (of say, a $.50 light socket) to enable IPv6 and its attendant problems?
Is Slashdot now becoming the marketing arm of Google? I swear this is like the 90th article about some new whiz-bang software they developed. There are other companies writing software!
Why 1978? Do the first two years of Carter's term not matter? How about going back a bit further?
I'd like to point out that there has been only one other Democratic administration (Clinton's) since that time. He (happened to, some would say) preside over record economic growth and unemployment. During 6 of his 8 years in office, Congress was controlled by Republicans, who, incidently, took power from the Democrats who (almost uninterruptedly) held it nearly 40 years.
Overall, I think that the "one bit" approach to economic growth, being either a Democrat or Republican president, is an oversimplication.
Gee let's see. Alarmist reports causes stock prices to rise/fall dramatically due to bad information. People make/lose a pile of money based on irrationality, armed with billions of dollars of other people's money. Welcome to every single day on the stock market.
not true. He needed land grants and money from JP Morgan.
^ Not the government.
He purchased much of the railroad from failing companies.
^ Not the government.
There was huge corruption and wall street issues from the trust.
^ Please define and elaborate on this corruption.
Something that required^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H government intervention [was used] to break up.
^ Fixed that.
The practically destroyed wall street.
^ Not the government. Please define "destroy" and elaborate.
He was able to stay in business by giving an unfair advantage to his other business using the rail road during hard times. Basically shifting money on paper.
^ Please define "unfair" and elaborate.
He did build 1700 miles of track, but at nearly slave labor rates.
^ I'd like to point out that slaves, in fact, do not earn wages.
The US government has done many very large and complex projects without corruption. Nobody in the US has enough money to fix the grid. The grid must be fixed for us to move into a new distributed system.
It's a perfect job for the government. Not to private contractors. That is where you get corruption, and failed projects.
^ I dispute all of above points, except the first, which I consider irrelevant.
You're going to argue that NYC is a free market? What are you on? Keep in mind that this is the same city that Mayor LaGuardia decreed could only have 50 licensed architects--back in the 1930s.
Funny, I don't remember our Innuit ancestors who discovered bronze working, iron, or eventually the scientific revolution. Oh wait. That's right. That was mostly meat-eaters.
Yes I know about loop labels. Java restricts the usage of labelled breaks and continues (i.e. breaks and continues that specify a label) to refer to labels of loops in which the break or continue occurs. This is what I meant by "breaks and continues to refer to" in my first sentence. If a break or a continue doesn't specify a label, it implicitly refers to the closest enclosing loop (or switch).
Even with labelled breaks and continues, the CFG of Java source programs is always reducible.
Don't forget that things like break and continue are also gotos with funny sounding names.
Actually no, if the language you're using (e.g. Java) restricts break and continues to refer only to loops that they appear in the body of, then the program's control flow graph is still reducible. Break and continue without this restriction lead to irreducible flow graphs. This makes a big difference in the conceptual complexity (and sometimes runtime complexity) of compiler algorithms, in particular the construction of SSA form.
Actually, while you do tend to see those people and they are quite annoying, displaying the common human tendency to adopt a "holier than thou" position by whatever means necessary, with increasingly socialized medicine they (and all other people) in the system are paying for the consequences of others poor health and poor health choices. When they pay higher rates for insurance and higher taxes for socialized medicine, they actually do have a valid argument.
They aren't suggesting that you should suffer more than necessary (presumably you mean suffering during exercise). But one can make the argument that if you can't be bothered to put your own effort and time into becoming healthy, then why the hell should they help you pay for a pill to achieve what they did with their own efforts?
If you want to pay the full cost of the pill to make yourself more healthy, by all means, do so. But something tells me that this is NOT what is going to happen. People are going to claim that this miracle pill is absolutely vital to their health and then demand insurance cover it, or it be subsidized, and the like.
If one person enjoys rich creamy deserts and another person enjoys basketball how can you attribute "moral" superiority to one or the other. They're both doing things they enjoy. There's absolutely no moral implication that one of those things tends to increase weight and the other tends to decrease weight.
No, there isn't any moral question until one starts demanding the other help him out with the problems that arise from their behavior.
Everybody knows that if you're fighting an asymmetric war, you make your moves at the time when you can strike and minimize your losses, and you wait patiently at all other times. Anyone who thinks the violence against US targets isn't going to go back up as soon as the surge ends OR it becomes clear by observing US political and military statements and operations that the "surge" is permanent, is kidding themselves.
Wow, "everybody knows" how to fight an asymmetrical war. I guess I was absent that day in school. What is your reference for such strategy, I'd like to see it.
I appreciate the preemptive insult on those who disagree with you. I guess I must be kidding myself. Are you still waiting for the insurgency to flare up again in Germany or the Phillipines, or Japan?
I'd also like to point out that it is very unfair and biased to measure violence "in the form of attacks, and the number of US casualties in Iraq" - what about Iraqi causalities? Civilian casualties? Shouldn't those be at least as important, if not more important, now that it's clear the war isn't being fought for WMDs?
Oh I guess that is unfair. BTW, civilian attacks and deaths are at their lowest levels, too, with drops in proportion.
I love the cognitive dissonance inherent in your statement, however.
<Mock> Violence is going down, but I *swear* we are still losing! No, don't look at that measure, look at this measure! No wait, not that one, that one! No...not that one....but it was all based on a lie!! GWB neocon evil! Blood for oil! Halliburton! Bush is Satan..lallalal </Mock>
ad hominem -everyone who doesn't see this astonishing departure is blind
Technically, that one is "Poisoning the well" where you issue a pre-emptive insult either to the person making the argument, or to anyone who might make the argument. This has the effect that few people will have courage to accept the insult by trying to argue the point. Classic logical fallacy. And all over slashdot and every other political discussion the world over.
I appreciate your comment, it doesn't contain any of those obnoxious well-reasoned "intellectual arguments" but resorts directly to ad-hominem and poisoning-the-well.
I, for one, am convinced you are right because you say others are dumb. Brilliant.
Because the inheritance graph of humans is a DAG flowing backward in time (thus cannot create cycles), with each individual having exactly two parents. These research results estimate the number of unique nodes of this graph at a specified point in time by essentially tracing backwards from who is alive today.
People don't "intermingle", they have children. If the children die, or all the children's children die (or all the children's children's children die, ad inifinitum), then your unique genetic code is erased (except the portion of your genetic code that you shared with other individuals who got it through a different path in the graph).
In fact, it's slightly more complicated than that because when you have children you only pass on (an essentially random) half of your genetic code. You might have the dumb luck that none of the unique mutations in your code gets passed on to your children because they never land in your children's 50%. You therefore might have had a unique mutation that cannot ever be detected in the future genetic record because by chance you passed on the "common" portion of your DNA code and not the unique mutation.
So yes, branches of this DAG can and do die off. Nothing "points" to them, so they die. In fact, this is the very mechanism by which natural selection and speciation occurs.
The arguments they use in the article are statistical and even though they account for many factors, in the end they can only work on information available from surviving DNA.
Actually the study can't support the statement that there were only 2,000 of us at that time. What it does say is that only 2,000 of us alive at that time managed to pass down their genes until today. There might have been a larger population whose genes we have lost in the intervening time (e.g. during the Bubonic plague).
The problem with these studies is that there isn't any DNA record of the humans that didn't make it. The only evidence we could hope to find of the humans that have died out is fossilized remains, which are few and far between.
Slashdot Mirror
It's accelerated by the tension of the space elevator cable, which is attached to a large counterweight beyond geo-synch orbit. This causes the elevator cable to pull on the counterweight and on the Earth. Eventually the orbital energy comes from the rotation of the Earth, slowing it ever so slightly. The system naturally returns to a state where the elevator cable is perpendicular to the plane tangent to the earth's surface at the attachment point as the counterweight drifts back into a higher orbit via centripetal force.
But with a word you can get what you came for. *oooooOOOoo*
Actually it sounds like your friend had an hemorrhage, which is not the most common type of stroke, and is typically avoidable (e.g. by avoiding such spikes in blood pressure).
An explanation that requires whole alternative universes fails the occam's razor test for me.
I'd like to point out that Occam's razor isn't a test for scientific validity.
I lack the credentials to argue whether or not the idea of this universe being particularly suited to life is a valid one
Actually, I don't believe there are any particular credentials that would really qualify anyone to argue about this idea, since it is ultimately a philosophical argument, not a scientific one. In particular, the anthropic principle is neither falsifiable nor predictive, and thus cannot be a scientific theory.
As a philosophical argument, however, it is essentially consistent, but circular.
In my day, us college students would get this thing called a j-o-b where we worked and got money to pay for tuition....weird concept.
Why doesn't Obama just offer these people a temporary job in the federal government and to hell with this silly "tax credit" sham? Oh, because that shows up as "spending" and not a loss in tax revenue.
Umm, you paid $1000 up front to the dealer for maintenance on a car you lease from them. I'm afraid your analogy does not quite transfer.
So, should I be paying the hospital $100000 up front and turn myself in for an upgrade after 3 years?
Four words:
One time for Earth.
That's actually a really huge microcontroller, on the order of $10 a unit. The cheaper ones, under $1, often have 256 bytes or fewer of RAM. Some don't even have RAM, just a set of general purpose registers and some IO addresses. And RAM is relatively power hungry, which acts as a continual anchor on microcontroller designs. Power is far more important than memory size.
Personally, I think 2KB of RAM is ludicrous for a software stack. But the again, my favorite model has just 4KB.
802.15.4 can be implemented in 100 bytes of RAM. Who in hell needs IPv6 on a MCU? And why in hell would manufacturers add $10 to their unit costs (of say, a $.50 light socket) to enable IPv6 and its attendant problems?
Braindead.
To answer my own question,
yes, Slashdot is the marketing arm of Google now.
How much does Google pay you guys for this kind of coverage?
Is Slashdot now becoming the marketing arm of Google? I swear this is like the 90th article about some new whiz-bang software they developed. There are other companies writing software!
Hi,
Why 1978? Do the first two years of Carter's term not matter? How about going back a bit further?
I'd like to point out that there has been only one other Democratic administration (Clinton's) since that time. He (happened to, some would say) preside over record economic growth and unemployment. During 6 of his 8 years in office, Congress was controlled by Republicans, who, incidently, took power from the Democrats who (almost uninterruptedly) held it nearly 40 years.
Overall, I think that the "one bit" approach to economic growth, being either a Democrat or Republican president, is an oversimplication.
Gee let's see. Alarmist reports causes stock prices to rise/fall dramatically due to bad information. People make/lose a pile of money based on irrationality, armed with billions of dollars of other people's money. Welcome to every single day on the stock market.
not true.
He needed land grants and money from JP Morgan.
^ Not the government.
He purchased much of the railroad from failing companies.
^ Not the government.
There was huge corruption and wall street issues from the trust.
^ Please define and elaborate on this corruption.
Something that required^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H government intervention [was used] to break up.
^ Fixed that.
The practically destroyed wall street.
^ Not the government. Please define "destroy" and elaborate.
He was able to stay in business by giving an unfair advantage to his other business using the rail road during hard times. Basically shifting money on paper.
^ Please define "unfair" and elaborate.
He did build 1700 miles of track, but at nearly slave labor rates.
^ I'd like to point out that slaves, in fact, do not earn wages.
The US government has done many very large and complex projects without corruption.
Nobody in the US has enough money to fix the grid.
The grid must be fixed for us to move into a new distributed system.
It's a perfect job for the government. Not to private contractors. That is where you get corruption, and failed projects.
^ I dispute all of above points, except the first, which I consider irrelevant.
You're going to argue that NYC is a free market? What are you on? Keep in mind that this is the same city that Mayor LaGuardia decreed could only have 50 licensed architects--back in the 1930s.
Funny, I don't remember our Innuit ancestors who discovered bronze working, iron, or eventually the scientific revolution. Oh wait. That's right. That was mostly meat-eaters.
Yes I know about loop labels. Java restricts the usage of labelled breaks and continues (i.e. breaks and continues that specify a label) to refer to labels of loops in which the break or continue occurs. This is what I meant by "breaks and continues to refer to" in my first sentence. If a break or a continue doesn't specify a label, it implicitly refers to the closest enclosing loop (or switch).
Even with labelled breaks and continues, the CFG of Java source programs is always reducible.
Don't forget that things like break and continue are also gotos with funny sounding names.
Actually no, if the language you're using (e.g. Java) restricts break and continues to refer only to loops that they appear in the body of, then the program's control flow graph is still reducible. Break and continue without this restriction lead to irreducible flow graphs. This makes a big difference in the conceptual complexity (and sometimes runtime complexity) of compiler algorithms, in particular the construction of SSA form.
Actually, while you do tend to see those people and they are quite annoying, displaying the common human tendency to adopt a "holier than thou" position by whatever means necessary, with increasingly socialized medicine they (and all other people) in the system are paying for the consequences of others poor health and poor health choices. When they pay higher rates for insurance and higher taxes for socialized medicine, they actually do have a valid argument.
They aren't suggesting that you should suffer more than necessary (presumably you mean suffering during exercise). But one can make the argument that if you can't be bothered to put your own effort and time into becoming healthy, then why the hell should they help you pay for a pill to achieve what they did with their own efforts?
If you want to pay the full cost of the pill to make yourself more healthy, by all means, do so. But something tells me that this is NOT what is going to happen. People are going to claim that this miracle pill is absolutely vital to their health and then demand insurance cover it, or it be subsidized, and the like.
If one person enjoys rich creamy deserts and another person enjoys basketball how can you attribute "moral" superiority to one or the other. They're both doing things they enjoy. There's absolutely no moral implication that one of those things tends to increase weight and the other tends to decrease weight.
No, there isn't any moral question until one starts demanding the other help him out with the problems that arise from their behavior.
Everybody knows that if you're fighting an asymmetric war, you make your moves at the time when you can strike and minimize your losses, and you wait patiently at all other times. Anyone who thinks the violence against US targets isn't going to go back up as soon as the surge ends OR it becomes clear by observing US political and military statements and operations that the "surge" is permanent, is kidding themselves.
Wow, "everybody knows" how to fight an asymmetrical war. I guess I was absent that day in school. What is your reference for such strategy, I'd like to see it.
I appreciate the preemptive insult on those who disagree with you. I guess I must be kidding myself. Are you still waiting for the insurgency to flare up again in Germany or the Phillipines, or Japan?
I'd also like to point out that it is very unfair and biased to measure violence "in the form of attacks, and the number of US casualties in Iraq" - what about Iraqi causalities? Civilian casualties? Shouldn't those be at least as important, if not more important, now that it's clear the war isn't being fought for WMDs?
Oh I guess that is unfair. BTW, civilian attacks and deaths are at their lowest levels, too, with drops in proportion.
I love the cognitive dissonance inherent in your statement, however.
<Mock>
Violence is going down, but I *swear* we are still losing! No, don't look at that measure, look at this measure! No wait, not that one, that one! No...not that one....but it was all based on a lie!! GWB neocon evil! Blood for oil! Halliburton! Bush is Satan..lallalal
</Mock>
You present at least 3 argumentative fallacies:
ad hominem -everyone who doesn't see this astonishing departure is blind
Technically, that one is "Poisoning the well" where you issue a pre-emptive insult either to the person making the argument, or to anyone who might make the argument. This has the effect that few people will have courage to accept the insult by trying to argue the point. Classic logical fallacy. And all over slashdot and every other political discussion the world over.
I appreciate your comment, it doesn't contain any of those obnoxious well-reasoned "intellectual arguments" but resorts directly to ad-hominem and poisoning-the-well.
I, for one, am convinced you are right because you say others are dumb. Brilliant.
There are 0 types of people in the world....well Scheme doesn't have any types, anyway....
Because the inheritance graph of humans is a DAG flowing backward in time (thus cannot create cycles), with each individual having exactly two parents. These research results estimate the number of unique nodes of this graph at a specified point in time by essentially tracing backwards from who is alive today.
People don't "intermingle", they have children. If the children die, or all the children's children die (or all the children's children's children die, ad inifinitum), then your unique genetic code is erased (except the portion of your genetic code that you shared with other individuals who got it through a different path in the graph).
In fact, it's slightly more complicated than that because when you have children you only pass on (an essentially random) half of your genetic code. You might have the dumb luck that none of the unique mutations in your code gets passed on to your children because they never land in your children's 50%. You therefore might have had a unique mutation that cannot ever be detected in the future genetic record because by chance you passed on the "common" portion of your DNA code and not the unique mutation.
So yes, branches of this DAG can and do die off. Nothing "points" to them, so they die. In fact, this is the very mechanism by which natural selection and speciation occurs.
The arguments they use in the article are statistical and even though they account for many factors, in the end they can only work on information available from surviving DNA.
Actually the study can't support the statement that there were only 2,000 of us at that time. What it does say is that only 2,000 of us alive at that time managed to pass down their genes until today. There might have been a larger population whose genes we have lost in the intervening time (e.g. during the Bubonic plague).
The problem with these studies is that there isn't any DNA record of the humans that didn't make it. The only evidence we could hope to find of the humans that have died out is fossilized remains, which are few and far between.