This might have been the ideal plot for a "survival" game for the 8-bit platforms. The mighty cannon takes 5 minutes to charge...the counter starting from 300 and dropping down...hordes of enemies crowding the cannon, some turrets or else controlled by the player which shoot down the enemies...I can even hear the frenzy music created by the oscillators of the C64 SID...Great plot, indeed.
How can it be interesting to discover that a cruder approximation can result in worse (under-, or over-extimations) results?
To the naive reader, this will sound pretty obvious. And funny enough there are tons of examples in numerical calculus of counter-intuitive results where a supposedly better approximation produces actually worst results (take numerical derivative just as the easiest example). Therefore, such vague statements and comparisons are often misleading if not blatantly wrong.
While I really wish I could read the paper, in the abstract the method is called "Tai's method" which shows a fundamental flaw in the paper: *no* research in literature has been made by the author.
Research is quite the opposite to autism.
Apparently, the crappy dev team of Chrome strike back. Mac is still waiting (oh well, not that one does not sleep at night) a port. And linux does not seem to live much better. Yet another masterpiece...
Plasmons can be easily created in metallic nanotubes. Furthermore, it is possible to create them into an entangled state. This _in principle_ might be exploited on the quantum computation scale.
Slashdot Mirror
This might have been the ideal plot for a "survival" game for the 8-bit platforms. The mighty cannon takes 5 minutes to charge...the counter starting from 300 and dropping down...hordes of enemies crowding the cannon, some turrets or else controlled by the player which shoot down the enemies...I can even hear the frenzy music created by the oscillators of the C64 SID...Great plot, indeed.
How can it be interesting to discover that a cruder approximation can result in worse (under-, or over-extimations) results? To the naive reader, this will sound pretty obvious. And funny enough there are tons of examples in numerical calculus of counter-intuitive results where a supposedly better approximation produces actually worst results (take numerical derivative just as the easiest example). Therefore, such vague statements and comparisons are often misleading if not blatantly wrong. While I really wish I could read the paper, in the abstract the method is called "Tai's method" which shows a fundamental flaw in the paper: *no* research in literature has been made by the author. Research is quite the opposite to autism.
Apparently, the crappy dev team of Chrome strike back. Mac is still waiting (oh well, not that one does not sleep at night) a port. And linux does not seem to live much better. Yet another masterpiece...
But, _could_ you read the paper? _Did_ you _try_ ? Can you understand what is written there? Why do you feel the need to give such nonsense comments?
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/cond-mat/0405325
Plasmons can be easily created in metallic nanotubes. Furthermore, it is possible to create them into an entangled state. This _in principle_ might be exploited on the quantum computation scale.