I was going to suggest M42 and M43. If you can see them they are beautiful. They are pretty dim though, so you need a clear night. Most importantly - go somewhere away from city lighting. If you can't arrange that, then stick to the bright things. There are many binary stars that make interesting viewing, especially when they are significantly different in color. Venus, Jupiter, Saturn and Mars are very bright. One thing to point out to the kids: the object slide out of view quickly, and this is due to the rotation of the Earth. It'll probably be the first time most of them will be able to experience that directly. Of course, that won't happen if your telescope tracks the objects! The difficulty with most objects is how dim they are. The Andromeda galaxy is huge in the sky: you need little magnification, but it's incredibly dim so you need to collect a lot of light (a 4" won't do it). M42 and M43 are much brighter, and comparatively easy to find.
Er, way to miss the point, mods... That post is quite relevant, drawing a parallel with the Canadian health care system and pointing out how that kind of rule has unintended consequences.
But the ban is not intended to permanently eliminate ebook readers to level the playing field, it's simply to encourage e-book vendors to provide an accessible version. It's really quite different, and thus I disagree with the analogy.
Nice idea, but unfortunately wrong. Escape velocity from Earth is dependent on not only the mass of the Earth, but also our starting distance from it's "center of mass". Thus, if the same mass of the Earth were packed into a smaller volume, we'd be starting from closer and the required velocity would be higher. In the case of a black hole, there will be an event horizon. Anything within the event horizon cannot escape, regardless of velocity.
Ah yes, but u = v is a mathematical statement, and can be false.
For example:
Assume for the purpose of contradiction that:
1=2...
Also, often used in sums:
Division operator(n) = sum( [ n mod i = 0 ] ) over positive I
Actually, the problem is the amount of energy that it takes to accelerate matter beyond the speed of light. As you impart more energy to matter, and as it approaches the speed of light, less of the energy goes into speed and more of it goes to mass. You see this effect in particle accelerators. According to current understanding it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate matter to the speed of light. Your analogy with sounds waves breaks down when you account for the fact that sound is waves in a medium, but light is not. Incidently, paritcles going backwards in time are mathematically identicle to their antimatter counterpart going forward in time. Curious, eh?
Completely agree. In addition, there is scientific evidence that some primates understand some concept of fairness. To me, this indicates that we still underestimate the capacity of primates, and animals in general. It suggests to me that they could have morality. I acknowledge that we anthropomorphize animals (amongst other things), but that doesn't mean that aminals in reality don't have human attributes.
PS we also consistently underestimate early humans. As evidence of art, music, dancing, care of the dead etc, was discovered we had to increase our estimation of early people and civilizations. That science does it to animals is hardly surprising.
The last boycott caused an 11% drop in "daily active users" The total number of users is nothing in comparison to the number of users that are active. 11% is pretty big - big enough to grab the attention of Zynga. Especially if that number is growing (and it looks like it is).
Terrorism has never shown any sign of being deterred by sentencing. If it's true that no terrorist is deterred in any way by sentences, as appears to be the case, should there be no punishment for their crimes?
A factoring algorithm that gives the correct answer with 50% probability (in a short enough time) would be very useful. Since you can check the answer with a single multiply, you keep trying until you have the correct answer.
This is one of a set of problems labeled "NP" - a characteristic is that you can verify an possible answer in polynomial time. Any of these problems can be solved with a polynomial time algorithm that gives the correct answer 50% of the time.
I read the article linked to at The Guardian, and A) it's not the publication but a post on a blog, and B) it doesn't say what you seem to think it's saying. It doesn't say that Fox is a news network that is being bullied.
I haven't read the other link, but I suspect I'll find something similar...
Computer Science is not limited to things that can execute inside a turing machine. A large body of computer science is made up of correctness proofs - which, strangely, weren't written by programs running on a universal turing machine, for one example... What is and what is not in the realm of Computer Science is not defined by what can run inside a turning machine. I also doubt that the turing machine will be the end of Computer Science.
I concur that the definitions of Computer Science and Computer Engineering are changing, but what bothers me is the lack of understanding of many foundations of computer science to be found in CS graduates. I've been interviewing a lot over the past couple of years. I mostly look for people who demonstrate good problem solving, intelligence, some knowledge of the subject, and the ability to enter into technical discussions. But it's disheartening when many graduates haven't done algorithms, data structures, analyzing run-times and space requirements. Our software has very short time frames, and we really expect candidates to be able to choose appropriate data structures and algorithms to fit those requirements. A good knowledge of the engineering side of things is important too, but without that foundation candidates are non-starters.
I'd also like candidates to be able to make a clear argument of why a particular algorithm solves the problem - not a rigorous proof, but the basic argument. That's pretty rare though...
You are absolutely right about maintainability. Code is written for two main purposes: 1. For a machine to execute or interpret 2. For a person to read
The programmer's intent should be plainly clear in every piece of code. Preferably without the need for comment. In cases where the code doesn't make its intent clear, a comment can be helpful - but preferably the code should be clear without it.
That is, without a doubt, more art than science.
I am disappointed, sometimes, by the lack of basic computer science in the industry - but I am CONSTANTLY disappointed by obfuscated code. Worst of all is where code and comments do not match... (and they're probably both wrong!)
Dark matter and dark energy bother me considerably. I don't think that the observations those thing were invernted, er... postulated, to explain falsify current theories. Well not completely, anyway. Firstly, when it was pointed out that a constant speed of light is inconsistent with Newton, we didn't throw the whole framework out. In fact almost all of it survives today. Moreover, it has take a huge effort and expense to conduct experiments that confirm the various differences in predictions of Einstein over Newton. The fact is that observations match incredibly closely with predictions, with a few exceptions. Admitedly that means that out theories are either wrong or incomplete, but they are still useful, and will survive the next big shakeup in physics at least as well as Newton survives general relativity.
The Schrodinger wave equation is completely deterministic. Only the "measurement" or "observation" introduces probabilities, and there is no consensus on what occurs during this process, or even whether any kind of process occurs. Plus, this is only our mathematical model - it doesn't help with the question of determinism. I also feel that the question of determinism is rather unhelpful when it comes to deciding questions of free will. So given a particular set up, we would always make the same choice... does that imply lack of free will? The set up would include, pressumably, the whole universe and its history. Anything less could produce a different outcome. Don't I have free will? Free will, to me, is more to do with having a conscious, being able to way choices against personal morals and understanding. Whether these things are emergent phenomena arisng from deterministic physical systems (such as neurons and synapses) means very little to me. Just my 2c...
Slashdot Mirror
Whoosh!
I was going to suggest M42 and M43. If you can see them they are beautiful. They are pretty dim though, so you need a clear night. Most importantly - go somewhere away from city lighting. If you can't arrange that, then stick to the bright things. There are many binary stars that make interesting viewing, especially when they are significantly different in color.
Venus, Jupiter, Saturn and Mars are very bright.
One thing to point out to the kids: the object slide out of view quickly, and this is due to the rotation of the Earth. It'll probably be the first time most of them will be able to experience that directly. Of course, that won't happen if your telescope tracks the objects!
The difficulty with most objects is how dim they are. The Andromeda galaxy is huge in the sky: you need little magnification, but it's incredibly dim so you need to collect a lot of light (a 4" won't do it).
M42 and M43 are much brighter, and comparatively easy to find.
Future generations will have genetically engineered polarized corneas for the purpose.
Linus wrote a kernel not a GUI.
Oh, and I think you meant "ease of use".
Other than that, great post!
I understood. And you are entirely correct.
Er, way to miss the point, mods...
That post is quite relevant, drawing a parallel with the Canadian health care system and pointing out how that kind of rule has unintended consequences.
But the ban is not intended to permanently eliminate ebook readers to level the playing field, it's simply to encourage e-book vendors to provide an accessible version. It's really quite different, and thus I disagree with the analogy.
But it was still on topic!
Nice idea, but unfortunately wrong.
Escape velocity from Earth is dependent on not only the mass of the Earth, but also our starting distance from it's "center of mass". Thus, if the same mass of the Earth were packed into a smaller volume, we'd be starting from closer and the required velocity would be higher. In the case of a black hole, there will be an event horizon. Anything within the event horizon cannot escape, regardless of velocity.
I wholeheartedly agree with you. We need less emotional lobbying and more informed discussion and decision making.
Ah yes, but u = v is a mathematical statement, and can be false. For example: Assume for the purpose of contradiction that: 1=2 ...
Also, often used in sums:
Division operator(n) = sum( [ n mod i = 0 ] ) over positive I
Actually, the problem is the amount of energy that it takes to accelerate matter beyond the speed of light. As you impart more energy to matter, and as it approaches the speed of light, less of the energy goes into speed and more of it goes to mass. You see this effect in particle accelerators. According to current understanding it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate matter to the speed of light.
Your analogy with sounds waves breaks down when you account for the fact that sound is waves in a medium, but light is not.
Incidently, paritcles going backwards in time are mathematically identicle to their antimatter counterpart going forward in time. Curious, eh?
Completely agree.
In addition, there is scientific evidence that some primates understand some concept of fairness.
To me, this indicates that we still underestimate the capacity of primates, and animals in general. It suggests to me that they could have morality.
I acknowledge that we anthropomorphize animals (amongst other things), but that doesn't mean that aminals in reality don't have human attributes.
PS we also consistently underestimate early humans. As evidence of art, music, dancing, care of the dead etc, was discovered we had to increase our estimation of early people and civilizations. That science does it to animals is hardly surprising.
The last boycott caused an 11% drop in "daily active users"
The total number of users is nothing in comparison to the number of users that are active.
11% is pretty big - big enough to grab the attention of Zynga.
Especially if that number is growing (and it looks like it is).
Terrorism has never shown any sign of being deterred by sentencing.
If it's true that no terrorist is deterred in any way by sentences, as appears to be the case, should there be no punishment for their crimes?
I wouldn't call the average American "highly-intelligent".
"Blobs" on the other hand...
Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin, Hypatia... I don't think any of them claimed to know why.
A factoring algorithm that gives the correct answer with 50% probability (in a short enough time) would be very useful.
Since you can check the answer with a single multiply, you keep trying until you have the correct answer.
This is one of a set of problems labeled "NP" - a characteristic is that you can verify an possible answer in polynomial time.
Any of these problems can be solved with a polynomial time algorithm that gives the correct answer 50% of the time.
Lol gets a +1 insightful??
Although, I admit, I did chuckle.
But insightful? Lol? No,
mod parent -1 gibberish...
I read the article linked to at The Guardian, and A) it's not the publication but a post on a blog, and B) it doesn't say what you seem to think it's saying.
It doesn't say that Fox is a news network that is being bullied.
I haven't read the other link, but I suspect I'll find something similar...
Computer Science is not limited to things that can execute inside a turing machine. A large body of computer science is made up of correctness proofs - which, strangely, weren't written by programs running on a universal turing machine, for one example...
What is and what is not in the realm of Computer Science is not defined by what can run inside a turning machine.
I also doubt that the turing machine will be the end of Computer Science.
I concur that the definitions of Computer Science and Computer Engineering are changing, but what bothers me is the lack of understanding of many foundations of computer science to be found in CS graduates.
I've been interviewing a lot over the past couple of years. I mostly look for people who demonstrate good problem solving, intelligence, some knowledge of the subject, and the ability to enter into technical discussions.
But it's disheartening when many graduates haven't done algorithms, data structures, analyzing run-times and space requirements.
Our software has very short time frames, and we really expect candidates to be able to choose appropriate data structures and algorithms to fit those requirements. A good knowledge of the engineering side of things is important too, but without that foundation candidates are non-starters.
I'd also like candidates to be able to make a clear argument of why a particular algorithm solves the problem - not a rigorous proof, but the basic argument. That's pretty rare though...
You are absolutely right about maintainability. Code is written for two main purposes:
1. For a machine to execute or interpret
2. For a person to read
The programmer's intent should be plainly clear in every piece of code. Preferably without the need for comment. In cases where the code doesn't make its intent clear, a comment can be helpful - but preferably the code should be clear without it.
That is, without a doubt, more art than science.
I am disappointed, sometimes, by the lack of basic computer science in the industry - but I am CONSTANTLY disappointed by obfuscated code. Worst of all is where code and comments do not match... (and they're probably both wrong!)
Integrity = Awesome.
Yes.
It's also a first for Microsoft.
Dark matter and dark energy bother me considerably.
I don't think that the observations those thing were invernted, er... postulated, to explain falsify current theories. Well not completely, anyway.
Firstly, when it was pointed out that a constant speed of light is inconsistent with Newton, we didn't throw the whole framework out. In fact almost all of it survives today. Moreover, it has take a huge effort and expense to conduct experiments that confirm the various differences in predictions of Einstein over Newton.
The fact is that observations match incredibly closely with predictions, with a few exceptions.
Admitedly that means that out theories are either wrong or incomplete, but they are still useful, and will survive the next big shakeup in physics at least as well as Newton survives general relativity.
The Schrodinger wave equation is completely deterministic.
Only the "measurement" or "observation" introduces probabilities, and there is no consensus on what occurs during this process, or even whether any kind of process occurs.
Plus, this is only our mathematical model - it doesn't help with the question of determinism.
I also feel that the question of determinism is rather unhelpful when it comes to deciding questions of free will. So given a particular set up, we would always make the same choice... does that imply lack of free will? The set up would include, pressumably, the whole universe and its history. Anything less could produce a different outcome. Don't I have free will?
Free will, to me, is more to do with having a conscious, being able to way choices against personal morals and understanding. Whether these things are emergent phenomena arisng from deterministic physical systems (such as neurons and synapses) means very little to me.
Just my 2c...