Where is it written that cyber criminals can steal our identities...
The actual wording is that if you steal someone's identity you're a criminal. But don't despair! You can choose to do the exact same thing and that would make you a criminal just like the ones you so envy and admire!
Americans do drive twice as much per capita as Europeans but they actually manage to consume four times as much gas.
It's interesting in the context of the fuel economy demands for the year 2025 (2020? I forget) that have been debated in the US. I checked what the situation in the EU is, and cars sold here actually would be close to these limits already. I suspect most of the difference is due to American consumers simply wanting larger cars and more powerful engines.
The list of winners contains all the recent heavy hitters in string theory research. This isn't as limited as it seems since they're mostly trying to figure out how plain old QFT works. And succeeding. Nima Arkani-Hamed's recent work in particular simplifies the calculations for scattering amplitudes greatly and are already in use for background calculations in the LHC.
They'll have quite the weight in the field in the future, especially since the current / original winners are all on the board for deciding future winners. Not that getting someone like (Fields medalist) Ed Witten interested in your work hasn't meant instant recognition before, but now he has the money to fund the research as well.
All in all, I think this gives the most influential people in the field a channel that makes them actively wield their influence.
Ivy Bridge is smaller in area than Sandy Bridge. Assuming I got the right numbers from Wikipedia, 160 mm^2 vs 216. That's 74% the area for heat transfer.
I'm just amazed that this isn't illegal in many ways. Tortious interference for requiring you to break your agreement with Facebook, fraud for impersonating you when they login, whatever crime hacking is considered for accessing Facebook in a way not approved by them, etcetc.
I mean, if someone blackmailed you into giving them your passwords to work email accounts and other servers, the company having their stuff accessed without permission would obviously have a case. What about the login credentials Kevin Mitnick got using social engineering? How is this different?
I find that hard to believe. Win7 only requires a 1 GHz processor and 1G of RAM; surely you can tweak an Ubuntu distro to run fine on a current phone?
If you use software that doesn't run smoothly enough on current phone, your requirements are likely to scale up with increased processing power so you'll never feel anything but a desktop is sufficiently powerful.
The bump around 125 is fairly close to a discovery already. The first time they release fully analyzed data at all this year will be enough for a five sigma discovery. After seeing what kind of lag they have between data gathering and release, I'd say the discovery will be announced in August.
This one costs whatever one quote plus two downloads of your post makes. Additionally, for some obscure reason I now have the rights to anything you write using Microsoft Word.
Here it's claimed that the limit for a white dwarf collapsing to a neutron star is about 1.4 solar masses. Some statistics of how common black holes are relative to neutron stars could probably narrow down that 1.5 to 3.0 maximum for a neutron star quite a bit. At the lower end neutron stars should be fairly rare, shouldn't they?
Second, almost nobody really bets this way. Most people don't go to a casino looking to win N dollars. Instead, they go to the casino hoping to play for time T without losing more than N dollars (although people might not be up front about that goal).
People usually go to a casino with as much money as they are willing to lose. I also think the idea of spending at least a given time wile losing a set amount is a bit absurd unless it involves the chance of winning.
You could make a case for a fun casino evening involving maximizing your chances of winning N dollars within time T1 while still not going broke before time T2. A strategy of proportional betting (I assume the paper does that) will limit your chances of going broke regardless.
You can probably find some examples by doing a search for the start of the code. The problem right now is that all the hits are on the challenge itself.
How about jokes perpetuating stereotypes about minorities or whatever strongly-held views the audience has? Jokes that would offend an average audience but not the intended one.
Sadly, I don't have any deeply religious friends to experiment on.
I thought about linking to another particle physics blog I follow for LHC news, but I realized I don't want the comments to be even more full of crackpot spam.
Strassler's blog is good stuff, with few enough comments that he has time to answer questions.
At least the first three links contain nothing about "a point where massive feedbacks start making the planet vastly hotter than what CO2 could do on its own". I also think the claims in the article are more relevant to a discussion on the article than a selection of seven articles spanning more than five years.
I concede that "no one is saying that" may technically have been misleading as it's possible someone somewhere may have said it at some point. Still, no one in the article is saying it and it's far from the mainstream view.
But saying that there is a 'point of no return,' a point where massive feedbacks start making the planet vastly hotter than what CO2 could do on its own, where ocean currents stop flowing.......that stretches belief.
No one is saying that. The "Irreversible Climate Change" in the article means the 2C warming considered unsafe will be unavoidable.
The evidence for it is sparse. In fact, there is good evidence to believe the opposite: that each successive ton of CO2 causes a smaller and smaller effect on the earth's climate (see the above equation and consider its implications if you are in doubt). Thus going from 380ppm to 480ppm atmospheric CO2 will have a smaller effect than going from 280ppm to 380ppm.
Yes, the warming is proportional to the exponential of CO2, so every doubling of C02 will give roughly the same amount of warming. This is well known.
I would have used a greedy algorithm that simply places balls in the lowest position available that touches another ball (a priority queue can be used, when you place a ball, add the possible positions of the next ball to the queue, queued by height). This approach could be made to perform the same optimal packing in a narrow tube, by starting against the edge and would degrade to a suboptimal but decent approximation beyond that.
Wouldn't this reduce to a 2d problem where you just go left-right-left-right? Place one ball against the wall of your narrow tube, two others touching that ball and the opposite side of the tube and so on?
Slashdot Mirror
Just look at the curve The rise is so steady every year in the last fifty has set a record and every year in the next fifty probably will too.
He has the correct explanation.
Where is it written that cyber criminals can steal our identities...
The actual wording is that if you steal someone's identity you're a criminal. But don't despair! You can choose to do the exact same thing and that would make you a criminal just like the ones you so envy and admire!
Americans do drive twice as much per capita as Europeans but they actually manage to consume four times as much gas.
It's interesting in the context of the fuel economy demands for the year 2025 (2020? I forget) that have been debated in the US. I checked what the situation in the EU is, and cars sold here actually would be close to these limits already. I suspect most of the difference is due to American consumers simply wanting larger cars and more powerful engines.
The list of winners contains all the recent heavy hitters in string theory research. This isn't as limited as it seems since they're mostly trying to figure out how plain old QFT works. And succeeding. Nima Arkani-Hamed's recent work in particular simplifies the calculations for scattering amplitudes greatly and are already in use for background calculations in the LHC.
They'll have quite the weight in the field in the future, especially since the current / original winners are all on the board for deciding future winners. Not that getting someone like (Fields medalist) Ed Witten interested in your work hasn't meant instant recognition before, but now he has the money to fund the research as well.
All in all, I think this gives the most influential people in the field a channel that makes them actively wield their influence.
Ivy Bridge is smaller in area than Sandy Bridge. Assuming I got the right numbers from Wikipedia, 160 mm^2 vs 216. That's 74% the area for heat transfer.
I'm just amazed that this isn't illegal in many ways. Tortious interference for requiring you to break your agreement with Facebook, fraud for impersonating you when they login, whatever crime hacking is considered for accessing Facebook in a way not approved by them, etcetc.
I mean, if someone blackmailed you into giving them your passwords to work email accounts and other servers, the company having their stuff accessed without permission would obviously have a case. What about the login credentials Kevin Mitnick got using social engineering? How is this different?
Is any current neutrino detector sensitive enough to pick up a signal? 40 million light years should/could be enough to get a lower bound on the mass.
I find that hard to believe. Win7 only requires a 1 GHz processor and 1G of RAM; surely you can tweak an Ubuntu distro to run fine on a current phone?
If you use software that doesn't run smoothly enough on current phone, your requirements are likely to scale up with increased processing power so you'll never feel anything but a desktop is sufficiently powerful.
The bump around 125 is fairly close to a discovery already. The first time they release fully analyzed data at all this year will be enough for a five sigma discovery. After seeing what kind of lag they have between data gathering and release, I'd say the discovery will be announced in August.
Here.. Looks quite competitive to me.
btw this post is copyrighted. $1.23 per download
This one costs whatever one quote plus two downloads of your post makes. Additionally, for some obscure reason I now have the rights to anything you write using Microsoft Word.
Here it's claimed that the limit for a white dwarf collapsing to a neutron star is about 1.4 solar masses. Some statistics of how common black holes are relative to neutron stars could probably narrow down that 1.5 to 3.0 maximum for a neutron star quite a bit. At the lower end neutron stars should be fairly rare, shouldn't they?
Second, almost nobody really bets this way. Most people don't go to a casino looking to win N dollars. Instead, they go to the casino hoping to play for time T without losing more than N dollars (although people might not be up front about that goal).
People usually go to a casino with as much money as they are willing to lose. I also think the idea of spending at least a given time wile losing a set amount is a bit absurd unless it involves the chance of winning.
You could make a case for a fun casino evening involving maximizing your chances of winning N dollars within time T1 while still not going broke before time T2. A strategy of proportional betting (I assume the paper does that) will limit your chances of going broke regardless.
You can probably find some examples by doing a search for the start of the code. The problem right now is that all the hits are on the challenge itself.
How about jokes perpetuating stereotypes about minorities or whatever strongly-held views the audience has? Jokes that would offend an average audience but not the intended one.
Sadly, I don't have any deeply religious friends to experiment on.
Soviet Russia jokes are the other way around..
You really should install an antivirus program.
I thought about linking to another particle physics blog I follow for LHC news, but I realized I don't want the comments to be even more full of crackpot spam.
Strassler's blog is good stuff, with few enough comments that he has time to answer questions.
At least the first three links contain nothing about "a point where massive feedbacks start making the planet vastly hotter than what CO2 could do on its own". I also think the claims in the article are more relevant to a discussion on the article than a selection of seven articles spanning more than five years.
I concede that "no one is saying that" may technically have been misleading as it's possible someone somewhere may have said it at some point. Still, no one in the article is saying it and it's far from the mainstream view.
But saying that there is a 'point of no return,' a point where massive feedbacks start making the planet vastly hotter than what CO2 could do on its own, where ocean currents stop flowing.......that stretches belief.
No one is saying that. The "Irreversible Climate Change" in the article means the 2C warming considered unsafe will be unavoidable.
The evidence for it is sparse. In fact, there is good evidence to believe the opposite: that each successive ton of CO2 causes a smaller and smaller effect on the earth's climate (see the above equation and consider its implications if you are in doubt). Thus going from 380ppm to 480ppm atmospheric CO2 will have a smaller effect than going from 280ppm to 380ppm.
Yes, the warming is proportional to the exponential of CO2, so every doubling of C02 will give roughly the same amount of warming. This is well known.
After 5 secs of careful thought, I think I've discovered the optimal packing in tubes at most 1 + sqrt(3)/2 sphere diameters wide.
I would have used a greedy algorithm that simply places balls in the lowest position available that touches another ball (a priority queue can be used, when you place a ball, add the possible positions of the next ball to the queue, queued by height). This approach could be made to perform the same optimal packing in a narrow tube, by starting against the edge and would degrade to a suboptimal but decent approximation beyond that.
Wouldn't this reduce to a 2d problem where you just go left-right-left-right? Place one ball against the wall of your narrow tube, two others touching that ball and the opposite side of the tube and so on?
I see this anti-dark matter / dark energy stuff a lot on Slashdot. It would be nice if Phil Plait could give a good explanation of the evidence.
Yeah, the horrible leftist Slashdotters would probably even object to Kinect killing terrorists based on their head width to shoulder width ratio.
Damn you terrorist enablers!