Replying to myself, sorry. Actually orbits are stable in dimension d=2 and 3 and no other. In both orbits are elliptical. With d=2 the center of mass is the center of the ellipse. For d=3 the center of mass is at one of the focal points.
I wouldn't want to work for TEPCO in Fukushima right now, however there is at this stage nobody who knows as much about the plant as they do. Whatever they are trying to do is probably not optimal, but unfortunately showering them with unsolicited, half baked advice is not improving matters.
As you know, adding more personnel and confusion to a project going badly can make things much worse. Where are we going to find competent, Japanese-speaking nuclear engineers that can actually make a positive contribution at this stage instead of diverting precious resources away from actually solving the many different, varied, complex and dangerous problems that this site has?
How then can you have in a single 2D frame two (or more) point sources, both in focus, with significant different depth from the aperture? In a system with a large numerical aperture like in confocal microscopy, I think you cannot, since by definition you have very low depth of field. Hence the angle only allows one to compute the depth with more precision. It seems this idea only works for point sources as well.
So overall, what you suggest is a different idea applicable to a different field. There are many other variants on the idea of using a mask at the aperture, leading to the field of computational photography, and particularly the subfield of coded aperture, which is very much a field of interest in image processing right now.
Note that there doesn't exist a nice solution that works for every situation, as usual.
Reminding all whipper-snappers here that UNISYS is the nice patent troll society who wanted everyone to pay royalties for using the GIF image format because they claimed a patent on LZW compression. This was after GIF had become popular. This led to the development of the PNG open format. The patents have all expired in 2004 but that doesn't make UNISYS a nice company.
Most European countries have their own sizeable military. Yes it is smaller than that of America, but at least that way they don't have delusions of forcing some version of Pax Europeana over the rest of the world with little to no results.
Because no surgery is benign. If a mole is indeed say a melanoma, you need to remove a *large* and *thick* area of the skin around it. Think inches in diameter, otherwise is does more harm than good.
To avoid skin cancer, simple monitoring (checking that nothing changes) every 3 months for a suspicious mole is cheaper and less dangerous than surgery.
Are you quite sure of what you write? Cancer was quite well known before 1900 and people were dying of it all the time. Of the top of my head, it seems queen Hatcheptsut of ancient Egypt died of cancer. Marie de Medicis died of breast cancer.
The cure rate has changed dramatically since the 1900s. Before then there was only surgery, with mixed results. Then radiation and chemoterapy have made huge progress since the discovery of radium. The cure rate over all cancers is about 50% right now, I doubt it was that high even 50 years ago.
This argument shows beyond any doubt that our historical rate of growth must be very close to zero, and that our beloved economists and politicians who keep dreaming about a sustained 3-5% growth rate are deluded, and deluding us.
Or it will be come extremely conservative. The few people at first, presumably rich to begin with, who will be able to live longer via presumably expensive treatments will amass even more wealth than they already have.
Those died in 1975 or so, and there will hopefully never be another boom in the West like the one between 1945 and 1975. The reason is simple: everything was destroyed in 1945, hundreds of millions had died, and everything was there to be rebuilt. This is fortunately no longer the case.
However this is not a normal situation. In peace, we should all expect a small, steady growth, more or less proportional to the population increase, but not much more, e.g. in the West anywhere between 0.5 to 2% a year. Anything more means someone is losing out somewhere. It is not quite a zero sum game, but almost.
The thing we should be doing is invest in the long term future, but our political, economic and sociologic systems are not geared up to it. Everybody wants to become rich quick. Like the internet boom of the 2000, or the investment products craziness of 2008 or so, this is a game were only a very few win, and many lose. We should concentrate on avoiding investment bubbles and painful downturns. This will have to wait until the machines rise and make it happen for us (in the best possible outcome).
As I understand it, you can run an unlimited number of VM instances on Win2k12R2, but don't you need a license for each and every one of these VM ? That must cost something, no?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, Nature does not need to simulate annealing, she just does it. Also she never stops, so the solution she finds is pretty good.
It may still be since you can memory-map more than 4GB of storage.
Where did this 4D supernova originate from ? A 5D universe ? This is fun but to my untrained eye, fairly pointless.
Replying to myself, sorry. Actually orbits are stable in dimension d=2 and 3 and no other. In both orbits are elliptical. With d=2 the center of mass is the center of the ellipse. For d=3 the center of mass is at one of the focal points.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/50142/gravity-in-other-dimensions-than-3-and-stable-orbits
From what I recall 4+1 is also unstable, actually any N+1 for N != 3.
Well, you do have (usually) 10 fingers, and all fingerprints are different. If more are needed, use toes.
I never knew that Dropbox had two-factor authentication. They only ask for a single password.
I wouldn't want to work for TEPCO in Fukushima right now, however there is at this stage nobody who knows as much about the plant as they do. Whatever they are trying to do is probably not optimal, but unfortunately showering them with unsolicited, half baked advice is not improving matters.
As you know, adding more personnel and confusion to a project going badly can make things much worse. Where are we going to find competent, Japanese-speaking nuclear engineers that can actually make a positive contribution at this stage instead of diverting precious resources away from actually solving the many different, varied, complex and dangerous problems that this site has?
I agree, but a 300 m depth is huge already. This is basically the operational depth of most nuclear subs. Military sub of WWII never went below 200m.
Sorry replying to myself, actually this is only a nice and expensive concept.
AFAIK you can buy this one...
My perfectly standard Gigabyte X58-UD5 + core i7 i920 from 2009 stubbornly refuses to sleep with win7. Works fine with Linux.
Sorry for the late answer too.
How then can you have in a single 2D frame two (or more) point sources, both in focus, with significant different depth from the aperture? In a system with a large numerical aperture like in confocal microscopy, I think you cannot, since by definition you have very low depth of field. Hence the angle only allows one to compute the depth with more precision. It seems this idea only works for point sources as well.
So overall, what you suggest is a different idea applicable to a different field. There are many other variants on the idea of using a mask at the aperture, leading to the field of computational photography, and particularly the subfield of coded aperture, which is very much a field of interest in image processing right now.
Note that there doesn't exist a nice solution that works for every situation, as usual.
Reminding all whipper-snappers here that UNISYS is the nice patent troll society who wanted everyone to pay royalties for using the GIF image format because they claimed a patent on LZW compression. This was after GIF had become popular. This led to the development of the PNG open format. The patents have all expired in 2004 but that doesn't make UNISYS a nice company.
Most European countries have their own sizeable military. Yes it is smaller than that of America, but at least that way they don't have delusions of forcing some version of Pax Europeana over the rest of the world with little to no results.
Because no surgery is benign. If a mole is indeed say a melanoma, you need to remove a *large* and *thick* area of the skin around it. Think inches in diameter, otherwise is does more harm than good.
To avoid skin cancer, simple monitoring (checking that nothing changes) every 3 months for a suspicious mole is cheaper and less dangerous than surgery.
It is easy to design a $0 test with 0% false negative rate.
Are you quite sure of what you write? Cancer was quite well known before 1900 and people were dying of it all the time. Of the top of my head, it seems queen Hatcheptsut of ancient Egypt died of cancer. Marie de Medicis died of breast cancer.
The cure rate has changed dramatically since the 1900s. Before then there was only surgery, with mixed results. Then radiation and chemoterapy have made huge progress since the discovery of radium. The cure rate over all cancers is about 50% right now, I doubt it was that high even 50 years ago.
[citation needed].
Thanks.
This argument shows beyond any doubt that our historical rate of growth must be very close to zero, and that our beloved economists and politicians who keep dreaming about a sustained 3-5% growth rate are deluded, and deluding us.
The most insightful comment on this thread so far.
Or it will be come extremely conservative. The few people at first, presumably rich to begin with, who will be able to live longer via presumably expensive treatments will amass even more wealth than they already have.
There is nothing simple about this idea.
Those died in 1975 or so, and there will hopefully never be another boom in the West like the one between 1945 and 1975. The reason is simple: everything was destroyed in 1945, hundreds of millions had died, and everything was there to be rebuilt. This is fortunately no longer the case.
However this is not a normal situation. In peace, we should all expect a small, steady growth, more or less proportional to the population increase, but not much more, e.g. in the West anywhere between 0.5 to 2% a year. Anything more means someone is losing out somewhere. It is not quite a zero sum game, but almost.
The thing we should be doing is invest in the long term future, but our political, economic and sociologic systems are not geared up to it. Everybody wants to become rich quick. Like the internet boom of the 2000, or the investment products craziness of 2008 or so, this is a game were only a very few win, and many lose. We should concentrate on avoiding investment bubbles and painful downturns. This will have to wait until the machines rise and make it happen for us (in the best possible outcome).
Interesting definition, I guess not quite what "innovation" meant when I was a wee lad. Then it only meant "a new idea".
As I understand it, you can run an unlimited number of VM instances on Win2k12R2, but don't you need a license for each and every one of these VM ? That must cost something, no?