Now meltdown has a bad sound to it, and prompt critical reaction sounds too technical/scientific, so I propose a new term to endear the public to nuclear power: "unexpected suplus of fission".
Re:Don't forget lost education....
on
Star Wars Sickout
·
· Score: 0
It's a little known fact: it's really spelt American, but the n is silent. We don't correct people cause we don't wanna sound french.
No, the parent was right, whether you get to 8km/s by a railgun or a rocket, you still have to be going 8km/s to orbit the earth, it's basic orbital mechanics.
Make sure you know you're talking about before you correct someone.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=off-shore offshore: Of or relating to a financial organization whose headquarters lies outside the United States. Although offshore institutions must abide by U.S. regulations for operations carried on within the U.S., other activities generally escape domestic regulation.
Gee, some words have more than two meanings, and context clues tell you what the person is saying.
You're right, statistics, math and physics aren't what I say they are, they're what the dictionary says they are. You make the mistake of thinking that if all physics uses statistics, then all physics must statistical physics, when even you point out that statistical physics is a subset of physics. Just because A implies B doesn't mean B implies A. You lose.
20240/2200 = 9.2 Gflops/CPU max for Virginia Tech.
2048/256 = 8 Gflops/CPU max for UCLA.
Gee, I was off by 1.2Gflops/CPU.
Maybe YOU should't be such a delusional apple fanboy, and notice that even using virginia tech's numbers, 35 Gflops/xserve = 1.9*9.2*2. Notice the 1.9 in there, that would seem to indicate that a dual xserve does not get 35 Glfops, and that apple lied about 8.3 Gflops/CPU.
If the object was to have the cheapest system, you'd be using racks of dual 1U p4, at 1.5x the performance of xserves for half the price.
Ease of use means very little when you're trying to get work distrubuted to > 1 processor effectively, it's like adding a picture to the finished product in a 300 page instruction manual.
A post on slashdot that isn't about how he could do a much better/faster/cheaper job that what's in the article?!? My god, it must be the end of the world!
That said, to the GP, if you've ever taken a computer architecture course, you'd know that supercomputer makers bend over backwords, jump through hoops, and thread camels through needles to get half the theoretical max performance.
You need to learn to read - I spoke about data points and confidence levels because that's how science does things, call it sampling or collection of data, it's the same thing. Now we come to the crux of the matter - all dictionaries don't define statistics the way you want it to, so you have to find fault with that. I suppose in your infinite wisdeom, all these poor dictionary makers are morons, and that your word is the absolute truth.
Also, note the differences in the defns. of statistics: The mathematics of the collection, organization, and interpretation of numerical data, especially the analysis of population characteristics by inference from sampling. and mathematics: The study of the measurement, properties, and relationships of quantities and sets, using numbers and symbols.
So let's see, you're pissy because statistics doesn't mean what you want it to, you have absolutely no idea what mathematics is about, and you're too stupid to use you brain to realize either one of these.
I repeat, physics without statistics is worthless, go find out how many physicists don't take string theory seriously without data/statistics to back it up. Physics would be nowhere without statistics, from Tycho's data of the planets, to modern accelerators producing terabytes of data.
You need to go learn the definitions of words, and something called logical thinking.
I was wrong to say that science without statistics is bad science, or reeks of it.
I should have said that science without statistics is completely worthless.
Statistics: (from dictionary.com) The mathematics of the collection, organization, and interpretation of numerical data, especially the analysis of population characteristics by inference from sampling. Science: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Physics uses experiments with a large number of datapoints, the number of papers on a subject mean jack to the validity of a theory.
Statistics don't help determine the law, they provide the vital data to determine the law. Experiments have always been designed to use statistical methods, by the very definitions above.
You are correct about the the start of statistics and science.
QM says that the behavior of systems are governed by their wavefunction, which when multiplied by its complex conjugate gives a probability distribution. So for a system like an electron in an finite quantum well of width a, so for a certain energy you can know 100% that the electron can't be at a/2, that it is most likely to be at a/4 and 3a/4, and that there is a very low probability of it (tunneling) being slightly outside the well. So QM is not random in the sense that it's possible to have a good idea of where the electron is, though it is playing dice.
I am intrigued by your idea of gathering random numbers by sampling TV channels/radio at a random time. However, might I suggest using the random time number as your random number instead?
Slashdot Mirror
Now meltdown has a bad sound to it, and prompt critical reaction sounds too technical/scientific, so I propose a new term to endear the public to nuclear power: "unexpected suplus of fission".
It's a little known fact: it's really spelt American, but the n is silent. We don't correct people cause we don't wanna sound french.
Damn, and I wouldn't have needed a bag cause I was gonna wear it home.
No, the parent was right, whether you get to 8km/s by a railgun or a rocket, you still have to be going 8km/s to orbit the earth, it's basic orbital mechanics.
Make sure you know you're talking about before you correct someone.
1. Solids can also evaporate, but they do so at a rate about 10^40 slower than say water, so it makes no sense to say that solids flow./ app-a1.htm
2. Glass does not flow, in fact it is about a billion times less viscous than lead http://www.cmog.org/index.asp?pageId=745
http://www.glassnotes.com/WindowPanes.html
3. Hydrogen cools when heated, per the Joule-Thompson effect. Search for the second instance of "James Dewar" http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4404
And yooouuurrrreeee out!
Search dual 1U server in google& num=3&q=http://clickfrom.buy.com/default.asp%3Fadi d%3D17379%26sURL%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.buy.com% 252Fretail%252Fproduct.asp%253Fsku%253D10360574%25 26SearchEngine%253DFroogle%2526SearchTerm%253D1036 0574%2526Type%253DPE%2526Category%253DComp%2526Gad %253D0&fr=ADPvvQIk7gt1t8FsXgsOEMdONhfP6by19qBqTq6y uy9OAAAAAAAAAAA
Click the buy.com link http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&oi=froogle&start=0
Case = $600 Search for Xeon 3.06 2*$350, 80gb HDD $100, 512mb RAM $100 = $1500.
So even using $/Gflops as the benchmark, the p4 is $122/Gflop.
But this completely ignores what they drill into your head in any decent computer architecture class - the best benchmarks in order are: time to complete > some indication of real world performance ie specFp > Gflops.
So if we use the best benchmark that we can, then the p4 system has 3x the performance/$ compared to the mac, since it is 1.5x performance and half the price.
Try again mac fanboy.
Correction, Anonymous Coward: you're the second.
You need to learn to use a dictionary
e offshore: Of or relating to a financial organization whose headquarters lies outside the United States. Although offshore institutions must abide by U.S. regulations for operations carried on within the U.S., other activities generally escape domestic regulation.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=off-shor
Gee, some words have more than two meanings, and context clues tell you what the person is saying.
That was a movie?!?
All this time I stayed away from Australia because I thought it was a documentary!
Or maybe trainspotting died when they realized it was more fun to shoot up than to NOTE THE FUCKING ARRIVAL TIMES OF TRAINS!
You're right, statistics, math and physics aren't what I say they are, they're what the dictionary says they are. You make the mistake of thinking that if all physics uses statistics, then all physics must statistical physics, when even you point out that statistical physics is a subset of physics. Just because A implies B doesn't mean B implies A. You lose.
20240/2200 = 9.2 Gflops/CPU max for Virginia Tech.
2048/256 = 8 Gflops/CPU max for UCLA.
Gee, I was off by 1.2Gflops/CPU.
Maybe YOU should't be such a delusional apple fanboy, and notice that even using virginia tech's numbers, 35 Gflops/xserve = 1.9*9.2*2. Notice the 1.9 in there, that would seem to indicate that a dual xserve does not get 35 Glfops, and that apple lied about 8.3 Gflops/CPU.
And there still is the matter of an dual xserve being 2/3 as slow as a 3ghz dual p4, while costing twice as much.http://spl.haxial.net/apple-powermac-G5/
The correct link is http://spl.haxial.net/apple-powermac-G5/ where it does document Apple's blatent lies.
It might be useful to buy the macs if:
You didn't want one box.
Apple didn't put compulsively lie about it's performance http://www.top500.org/sublist/System.php?id=7309
If the object was to have the cheapest system, you'd be using racks of dual 1U p4, at 1.5x the performance of xserves for half the price.
Ease of use means very little when you're trying to get work distrubuted to > 1 processor effectively, it's like adding a picture to the finished product in a 300 page instruction manual.
A post on slashdot that isn't about how he could do a much better/faster/cheaper job that what's in the article?!? My god, it must be the end of the world!
That said, to the GP, if you've ever taken a computer architecture course, you'd know that supercomputer makers bend over backwords, jump through hoops, and thread camels through needles to get half the theoretical max performance.
You need to learn to read - I spoke about data points and confidence levels because that's how science does things, call it sampling or collection of data, it's the same thing.
Now we come to the crux of the matter - all dictionaries don't define statistics the way you want it to, so you have to find fault with that. I suppose in your infinite wisdeom, all these poor dictionary makers are morons, and that your word is the absolute truth.
Also, note the differences in the defns. of statistics: The mathematics of the collection, organization, and interpretation of numerical data, especially the analysis of population characteristics by inference from sampling.
and mathematics: The study of the measurement, properties, and relationships of quantities and sets, using numbers and symbols.
So let's see, you're pissy because statistics doesn't mean what you want it to, you have absolutely no idea what mathematics is about, and you're too stupid to use you brain to realize either one of these.
I repeat, physics without statistics is worthless, go find out how many physicists don't take string theory seriously without data/statistics to back it up. Physics would be nowhere without statistics, from Tycho's data of the planets, to modern accelerators producing terabytes of data.
You need to go learn the definitions of words, and something called logical thinking.
Hahaha.
You lose, dipshit. Take a look at yourself man, you're freakin argueing with a dictionary.
To bad the world isn't how you *feel* it should be, and you're gonna get knocked on your ass time and again because of your pissy immature arrogance.
I was wrong to say that science without statistics is bad science, or reeks of it.
I should have said that science without statistics is completely worthless.
Statistics: (from dictionary.com) The mathematics of the collection, organization, and interpretation of numerical data, especially the analysis of population characteristics by inference from sampling.
Science: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Physics uses experiments with a large number of datapoints, the number of papers on a subject mean jack to the validity of a theory.
Statistics don't help determine the law, they provide the vital data to determine the law. Experiments have always been designed to use statistical methods, by the very definitions above.
You are correct about the the start of statistics and science.
QM says that the behavior of systems are governed by their wavefunction, which when multiplied by its complex conjugate gives a probability distribution. So for a system like an electron in an finite quantum well of width a, so for a certain energy you can know 100% that the electron can't be at a/2, that it is most likely to be at a/4 and 3a/4, and that there is a very low probability of it (tunneling) being slightly outside the well. So QM is not random in the sense that it's possible to have a good idea of where the electron is, though it is playing dice.
I am intrigued by your idea of gathering random numbers by sampling TV channels/radio at a random time. However, might I suggest using the random time number as your random number instead?
The best method I can think of to find that a number = sqrt(5pi)^(pi-1) would probably be something like this http://home.pipeline.com/~hbaker1/hakmem/cf.html
Nono, the original poster was right. The compression is incredibly efficient, it's the decompression that's a bitch.
The same guy came up with a new proof that allows computation in any base, check it out http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/pi/pi_n2/pi_n2.html
He's absolutely right http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NormalNumber.html
It's simply:
3.
1415926535 8979323846 2643383279 5028841971 6939937510 5820974944 5923078164 0628620899 8628034825 3421170679 8214808651 3282306647 0938446095 5058223172 5359408128 4811174502 8410270193 8521105559 6446229489 5493038196 4428810975 6659334461 2847564823 3786783165 2712019091 4564856692 3460348610 4543266482 1339360726 0249141273 7245870066 0631558817 4881520920 9628292540 9171536436 7892590360 0113305305 4882046652 1384146951 9415116094 3305727036 5759591953 0921861173 8193261179 3105118548 0744623799 6274956735 1885752724 8912279381 8301194912 9833673362 4406566430 8602139494 6395224737 1907021798 6094370277 0539217176 2931767523 8467481846 7669405132 0005681271 4526356082 7785771342 7577896091 7363717872 1468440901 2249534301 4654958537 1050792279 6892589235 4201995611 2129021960 8640344181 5981362977 4771309960 5187072113 4999999 and so on.