Therefore, assuming no air-resistance, a 1hp rocket engine could lift 76 kilograms at one meter per second (3.6 km/hr).
Horsepower is merely a useful term to use because it's large, and it's more commonly used that kWatts. Although really, watts make more sense. I believe Europeans use kWatts to describe engines as well.
First: Yeah, a war with China would probably suck for our economy. But in a war of attrition, it's a 11 trillion GDP (U.S.) versus a 8.5 trillion GDP (China).
Second: It's hard to tell really. On one hand, yeah, China has a shit load of infantry. On the other hand, their navy is a joke, and they're flying planes that are way obsolete. In a war we could easily hit their coast and get their big cities, Beijing, Shanghai, etc. From there we could bomb like stupid -- it is our specialty after all.
In a nuke war: I'm not aware of any chinese anti-missile technologies, furthurmore, dropping nukes on big cities is really, really, really bad buisness. I doubt anybody would side with China if they did that, and no matter what you think of their armed forces, the World vs. China is a very clear battle.
Third: 50/50 chance Russia would side with China. Siding with china would mean going against the EU, which would be a bitch for Russia.
Fourth: Doubt it. India is very close to us (recent patriot missiles for example) and gets a lot of money from U.S. buissness. The recent msft investment? Gone. Plus they would probably help us just to save their own ass.
Fifth: At the moment China has yet to invent any great technology in recent years. If we were to block them off they would have to learn to get creative really f---ing fast. Their ability to do so is arguable.
read before you link, lest you look like an idiot:
conventional long form: Federative Republic of Brazil
conventional short form: Brazil
local long form: Republica Federativa do Brasil
local short form: Brasil
1) I wouldn't download files even from someone I know. 2) If I know someone, I think I could recognize them. I wonder if any studies have been made on the use of IM to identify people. You know how we all write differently and speak differently....
What sort of moron downloads anything through AIM anyway? And who chats with random users they've never heard of before? I only chat with people I've actually met in real life, and know quite well -- otherwise I wouldn't want to chat with them.
Email is better for file exchange anyway (since you have a backup), and I hope that by now people realize they shouldn't download random shit in their email.
Still, that's a pretty cool use of AI. Not only can it talk to you, it can have a goal to persuade you. It would be fun to chat with one of these just for the hell of it.
But from an OOP standpoint, it's impossible to create a datastructure that "knows" you're using the [] operator twice. So if you overload the [] operator in an array structure, to get multi-dimensional arrays, you have to nest single dimensions arrays, which is almost always inefficient because the rows (or columns, depending on whether you're row major, or column major) are lying around the RAM (depending on where they were allocated) , rather than a continous chunk like with C.
In other words, you can't do something like this in C++:
class SmartArray { public: SmartArray(int height, int width);
Punchcards were invented by a German-American (don't know his name, google it) for... census purposes. Thats what the US used them for, along with all the other "civlized" countries in the world. Including, get this, Germany. Fucking revelation. A friend of the inventor licensed all the patents and created a company called Dehomag to build the shit. IBM then bought Dehomag.
Enter WW2. The friend turns out to be a Nazi supporter. In 1941 the Nazis start running Dehomag. In January 20, 1942, the Nazis decide to kill all the Jews.
So what exactly was IBM supposed to do? Shut down Dehomag? Not-fucking-possible. They fire everybody: the Nazis get them to work for them (I'll be damned if I can guess how), the buildings and machines stay and can be used. The only way to have closed Dehomag so that the Nazis couldn't use them would be to destroy _everything_. There was a) no clear reason why, and b) nobody who would: the SS are all around. Oh, and your CEO really loves them.
With that I meant restricting which license version you use (straight-forward, I think) and doing weird stuff like handling what happens if your program generates code based on somebody else's input: their input is theirs, but the output? Particularly if the output contains a large part of the program's code, this becomes a really tricky issue.
Lecture 1: OSS. What is it, where is it, and why is it. Lecture 2: Types of licenses, when to use which. Lecture 3: How to modify the licenses to allow for various common changes Lecture 4: Writing documentation: intro to man-pages (how to write them), doxygen, and latex Lecture 5: Writing readable code: commenting, dependencies, and the merits of white-space Lecture 6: How to use OSS in CSS (closed-source software), when it may/may not be done. Lecture 7: How to use versioning systems: CVS, SVN, etc. Lecture 8: -+
9: +-- Communication Skills: technical writing (not the bullshit they teach you in english 101)
10: -+ Lecture 11: Survey of existing projects: why they succedded or failed Lecture 12: ditto
That should cover it. I'm guessing a one/two credit course.
0) I understand what you meant, but there is a constant amount of energy in the world: we can't produce it or destroy it.
1) The only truly practical reason to upgrade electronics -- ever -- is if the old electronics were broken or incompatible. I have two 6 year old cell-phones: they work, and I don't use them.
2) Oil isn't really getting more expensive, fuel is: we in the U.S. are finally getting prices that are somewhat closer to European, but still considerably cheaper. Your bullshit about coal has been referenced else where, so I'll ignore it.
3) Yeah? You don't like your computer giving off heat? Why don't you cut the heater you have on, and dress up properly? You'll save a shitload more power that way. (and you'll stay awake). While you're at it: try to keep your shit in, it comes out at body temperature and wastes power.
3.5) Throw some words around, "reversible computing", "quantum computing", hell, toss in "nanotech bio-molecular multiphase self-manufacturing processors" just for kicks. We will always need more power: lets figure out how to get more, not how to conserve it; it will be more useful in the long run anyway.
4) I have a bike, so I won't argue this: I'd feel safer if everyone drove around in smart cars. Or better yet: Centaur Concepts.
5) Most people actually need the power: image editting and movie making are becoming popular with cheap, small, good-quality cameras. Games need it too. Hell, Vista will need it. I'm using a 5 year old 1.7ghz P4 running Ubuntu.
Thanks for taking the time to make such an eloquent post.
I understand, and am sick of, the usage of "social evolution" to justify greed; particularly when it makes no sense in such young and small communities as in cities or villages where there clearly has been no time for evolution. I personally believe that the wealthy got that way either through inheritance, luck, or hard work/knowledge. The first two being hard to control, the last one a result of rearing.
In light of this, what I was trying to offer was a more widespread sort of "evolution", saying that Africans are different from Asians from Europeans from Native Americans from Native Latin Americans.
Obviously there are genetic differences, if only because of the differences in appearance, and I think it would be naive to assume that the differences are "only skin deep". What I was trying to suggest is that because Europeans are different from Asians it is only natural that one group is better than the other based on the "who could wipe the other one out" way of thought.
If we assume that we can roughly classify people as European, African, Asian, etc. based on how they look, then it is clear that most groups have a lot of overlap, but a lot more inter-breeding. That is, there are a lot more nearly "pure" Europeans then there are "barely" Europeans. Because of this, one would generally think that whatever evolution Europeans have made in their journey from black-skinned to white-skinned people would have stayed pretty much in the European pool. Similarly for Asians, Africans, etc.
I understand that evolution is slow -- very slow. After all, a change in skin color is simply a matter of releasing more pigment, although there are some structural changes as well (Asians are somewhat shorter and have more "squinty" eyes than Europeans or Africans). On the other hand, it wouldn't take many changes to form a more lethal society: simply an increase in muscle growth could be potentially significant. Imagine, a tribe of Europeans, lets call them "tribe X" has a disposition to muscle growth: they're thus faster, more powerful, harder to kill... and hungrier. Because of they can kill animals easier/forage larger fields (irrigation hasn't been invented yet, however) and reproduce to become a larger population. They mingle with other tribes: maybe, any gene mixing would be too slow compared to their need for more food and their dominance over neighboring tribes. You can see how this goes. If Tribe X is lucky, no disasters will happen (eruption killing half the population, that sort of thing), and they will keep spreading, until they start hitting other evolved tribes: smarter, more powerful, better located with food, etc.
As such regions of people will improve in their ways. At some point trade will be invented and the peoples will mingle more, although this is too recent to be of much effect.
So because of this, I think its reasonable to say that different groups of people are... different. Whether they are better, and how much, is hard to tell in modern society where we mingle so much and are so very much reliant on other people, and we surely shouldn't be pro-active about decimating other peoples.
As I read this again, I realize I can come across as racial -- particularly since I talk about skin color. I only use skin color as an example of evolution, in modern society skin color is of no relevance.
Let me finish by saying that I have very little knowledge of genetics or biology, so a lot of what I think or say is probably bollocks.
To play devil's advocate -- and this isn't something I really believe -- how is this not darwinism at work?
Suppose that for some reason a large (or small) portion of the African population decided to leave the continent a really long time ago, lets suppose this was because of some genetic/innate desire to explore.
They made "civilizations" that became more "sophisticated" from desire or need. And apparently, when it comes down to sticks and stones, the more "civilized" nations can kill the "less civilized" nations. I have no stance on whether the "less civilized" African "tribes" are better/worse, but they are dominated by our "civlizations". Hence, because of Evolution/Darwinism, we're "better" than they are -- or at least a more evolved species.
Finally, (and this is the part thats controversial, and I haven't thought about enough to have a stance on) why should we help (or at least pretend to, which is what we're really doing) these "less civilizes" nations? Because they couldn't (well, their grand-grand-grand-grand*-pappies couldn't) evolve, they are "inferior." And we would prevent nature from doing its thing, and potentially "dumb down" the human race. After all, its best if we leave Nature to do its thing, without disturbing it with CO2 emitions, flood barries, introducing species to new areas, killing of species, etc..
I suppose this is a good argument for the Creationism supporters, who believe that "all men are made equal", and hence Evolution can not work -- although the "all men are made equal" argument is idiotic if you think about how some people are unfortunate enough to be born with physical or mental handicaps.
Slashdot Mirror
1 HP = 747 Watts = 747 (1 Joule per Second)
Therefore, assuming no air-resistance, a 1hp rocket engine could lift 76 kilograms at one meter per second (3.6 km/hr).
Horsepower is merely a useful term to use because it's large, and it's more commonly used that kWatts. Although really, watts make more sense. I believe Europeans use kWatts to describe engines as well.
1kW = ~1.4hp.
First: Yeah, a war with China would probably suck for our economy. But in a war of attrition, it's a 11 trillion GDP (U.S.) versus a 8.5 trillion GDP (China).
Second: It's hard to tell really. On one hand, yeah, China has a shit load of infantry. On the other hand, their navy is a joke, and they're flying planes that are way obsolete. In a war we could easily hit their coast and get their big cities, Beijing, Shanghai, etc. From there we could bomb like stupid -- it is our specialty after all.
In a nuke war: I'm not aware of any chinese anti-missile technologies, furthurmore, dropping nukes on big cities is really, really, really bad buisness. I doubt anybody would side with China if they did that, and no matter what you think of their armed forces, the World vs. China is a very clear battle.
Third: 50/50 chance Russia would side with China. Siding with china would mean going against the EU, which would be a bitch for Russia.
Fourth: Doubt it. India is very close to us (recent patriot missiles for example) and gets a lot of money from U.S. buissness. The recent msft investment? Gone. Plus they would probably help us just to save their own ass.
Fifth: At the moment China has yet to invent any great technology in recent years. If we were to block them off they would have to learn to get creative really f---ing fast. Their ability to do so is arguable.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ br.html#Govt
read before you link, lest you look like an idiot:
conventional long form: Federative Republic of Brazil
conventional short form: Brazil
local long form: Republica Federativa do Brasil
local short form: Brasil
1) I wouldn't download files even from someone I know.
2) If I know someone, I think I could recognize them. I wonder if any studies have been made on the use of IM to identify people. You know how we all write differently and speak differently....
Flamebait? Wow.
What sort of moron downloads anything through AIM anyway? And who chats with random users they've never heard of before? I only chat with people I've actually met in real life, and know quite well -- otherwise I wouldn't want to chat with them.
Email is better for file exchange anyway (since you have a backup), and I hope that by now people realize they shouldn't download random shit in their email.
Still, that's a pretty cool use of AI. Not only can it talk to you, it can have a goal to persuade you. It would be fun to chat with one of these just for the hell of it.
Dude... this is someone who builds their own LCD projector. What wife?
That's the whole point of the complaint. Inconsistentcy between [] and ().
Yes, they are.
// ...
But from an OOP standpoint, it's impossible to create a datastructure that "knows" you're using the [] operator twice. So if you overload the [] operator in an array structure, to get multi-dimensional arrays, you have to nest single dimensions arrays, which is almost always inefficient because the rows (or columns, depending on whether you're row major, or column major) are lying around the RAM (depending on where they were allocated) , rather than a continous chunk like with C.
In other words, you can't do something like this in C++:
class SmartArray {
public:
SmartArray(int height, int width);
int operator(const int &x, const int &y) const;
};
...
SmartArray a(5, 5);
a[12, 13];
Most internships are paid. Although with the current demand, I doubt a community college student would even get looked at for an internship.
My trick with passwords is combining them.
I have 5 different 8 character passwords I use for various places. They're all quite secure: non-word, upper and lower case, numbers, and symbols.
If I need a really secure one, I concatenate them. Easy to remember, reasonably secure.
What? Are you telling me that the OS I've been developing won't run on Windows, Linux, and OS X?
Whad` up wit` dat, fool?
Dude, you don't know shit do you?
Punchcards were invented by a German-American (don't know his name, google it) for... census purposes. Thats what the US used them for, along with all the other "civlized" countries in the world. Including, get this, Germany. Fucking revelation. A friend of the inventor licensed all the patents and created a company called Dehomag to build the shit. IBM then bought Dehomag.
Enter WW2. The friend turns out to be a Nazi supporter. In 1941 the Nazis start running Dehomag. In January 20, 1942, the Nazis decide to kill all the Jews.
So what exactly was IBM supposed to do? Shut down Dehomag? Not-fucking-possible. They fire everybody: the Nazis get them to work for them (I'll be damned if I can guess how), the buildings and machines stay and can be used. The only way to have closed Dehomag so that the Nazis couldn't use them would be to destroy _everything_. There was a) no clear reason why, and b) nobody who would: the SS are all around. Oh, and your CEO really loves them.
Get a clue.
The movies from the iTunes Store have no ADs. Read the fscking article!
With that I meant restricting which license version you use (straight-forward, I think) and doing weird stuff like handling what happens if your program generates code based on somebody else's input: their input is theirs, but the output? Particularly if the output contains a large part of the program's code, this becomes a really tricky issue.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those that understand binary, and those that don't.
Guess which one you are.
Lecture 1: OSS. What is it, where is it, and why is it.
Lecture 2: Types of licenses, when to use which.
Lecture 3: How to modify the licenses to allow for various common changes
Lecture 4: Writing documentation: intro to man-pages (how to write them), doxygen, and latex
Lecture 5: Writing readable code: commenting, dependencies, and the merits of white-space
Lecture 6: How to use OSS in CSS (closed-source software), when it may/may not be done.
Lecture 7: How to use versioning systems: CVS, SVN, etc.
Lecture 8: -+
9: +-- Communication Skills: technical writing (not the bullshit they teach you in english 101)
10: -+
Lecture 11: Survey of existing projects: why they succedded or failed
Lecture 12: ditto
That should cover it. I'm guessing a one/two credit course.
0) I understand what you meant, but there is a constant amount of energy in the world: we can't produce it or destroy it.
1) The only truly practical reason to upgrade electronics -- ever -- is if the old electronics were broken or incompatible. I have two 6 year old cell-phones: they work, and I don't use them.
2) Oil isn't really getting more expensive, fuel is: we in the U.S. are finally getting prices that are somewhat closer to European, but still considerably cheaper. Your bullshit about coal has been referenced else where, so I'll ignore it.
3) Yeah? You don't like your computer giving off heat? Why don't you cut the heater you have on, and dress up properly? You'll save a shitload more power that way. (and you'll stay awake). While you're at it: try to keep your shit in, it comes out at body temperature and wastes power.
3.5) Throw some words around, "reversible computing", "quantum computing", hell, toss in "nanotech bio-molecular multiphase self-manufacturing processors" just for kicks. We will always need more power: lets figure out how to get more, not how to conserve it; it will be more useful in the long run anyway.
4) I have a bike, so I won't argue this: I'd feel safer if everyone drove around in smart cars. Or better yet: Centaur Concepts.
5) Most people actually need the power: image editting and movie making are becoming popular with cheap, small, good-quality cameras. Games need it too. Hell, Vista will need it. I'm using a 5 year old 1.7ghz P4 running Ubuntu.
Likewise with dogs, although mine uses the stuffed one as a sex toy.
The best Comcast will give you is 8mbps download, 768kbps upload.
A T1 line is around 200 monthly, a DC-3 is about 2000. OC-3 runs at $7000+.
Mod parent funny!
Only on slashdot is sarcasm insightful.
Right. I agree entriely.
Thanks for taking the time to make such an eloquent post.
I understand, and am sick of, the usage of "social evolution" to justify greed; particularly when it makes no sense in such young and small communities as in cities or villages where there clearly has been no time for evolution. I personally believe that the wealthy got that way either through inheritance, luck, or hard work/knowledge. The first two being hard to control, the last one a result of rearing.
In light of this, what I was trying to offer was a more widespread sort of "evolution", saying that Africans are different from Asians from Europeans from Native Americans from Native Latin Americans.
Obviously there are genetic differences, if only because of the differences in appearance, and I think it would be naive to assume that the differences are "only skin deep". What I was trying to suggest is that because Europeans are different from Asians it is only natural that one group is better than the other based on the "who could wipe the other one out" way of thought.
If we assume that we can roughly classify people as European, African, Asian, etc. based on how they look, then it is clear that most groups have a lot of overlap, but a lot more inter-breeding. That is, there are a lot more nearly "pure" Europeans then there are "barely" Europeans. Because of this, one would generally think that whatever evolution Europeans have made in their journey from black-skinned to white-skinned people would have stayed pretty much in the European pool. Similarly for Asians, Africans, etc.
I understand that evolution is slow -- very slow. After all, a change in skin color is simply a matter of releasing more pigment, although there are some structural changes as well (Asians are somewhat shorter and have more "squinty" eyes than Europeans or Africans). On the other hand, it wouldn't take many changes to form a more lethal society: simply an increase in muscle growth could be potentially significant. Imagine, a tribe of Europeans, lets call them "tribe X" has a disposition to muscle growth: they're thus faster, more powerful, harder to kill... and hungrier. Because of they can kill animals easier/forage larger fields (irrigation hasn't been invented yet, however) and reproduce to become a larger population. They mingle with other tribes: maybe, any gene mixing would be too slow compared to their need for more food and their dominance over neighboring tribes. You can see how this goes. If Tribe X is lucky, no disasters will happen (eruption killing half the population, that sort of thing), and they will keep spreading, until they start hitting other evolved tribes: smarter, more powerful, better located with food, etc.
As such regions of people will improve in their ways. At some point trade will be invented and the peoples will mingle more, although this is too recent to be of much effect.
So because of this, I think its reasonable to say that different groups of people are... different. Whether they are better, and how much, is hard to tell in modern society where we mingle so much and are so very much reliant on other people, and we surely shouldn't be pro-active about decimating other peoples.
As I read this again, I realize I can come across as racial -- particularly since I talk about skin color. I only use skin color as an example of evolution, in modern society skin color is of no relevance.
Let me finish by saying that I have very little knowledge of genetics or biology, so a lot of what I think or say is probably bollocks.
To play devil's advocate -- and this isn't something I really believe -- how is this not darwinism at work?
Suppose that for some reason a large (or small) portion of the African population decided to leave the continent a really long time ago, lets suppose this was because of some genetic/innate desire to explore.
They made "civilizations" that became more "sophisticated" from desire or need. And apparently, when it comes down to sticks and stones, the more "civilized" nations can kill the "less civilized" nations. I have no stance on whether the "less civilized" African "tribes" are better/worse, but they are dominated by our "civlizations". Hence, because of Evolution/Darwinism, we're "better" than they are -- or at least a more evolved species.
Finally, (and this is the part thats controversial, and I haven't thought about enough to have a stance on) why should we help (or at least pretend to, which is what we're really doing) these "less civilizes" nations? Because they couldn't (well, their grand-grand-grand-grand*-pappies couldn't) evolve, they are "inferior." And we would prevent nature from doing its thing, and potentially "dumb down" the human race. After all, its best if we leave Nature to do its thing, without disturbing it with CO2 emitions, flood barries, introducing species to new areas, killing of species, etc..
I suppose this is a good argument for the Creationism supporters, who believe that "all men are made equal", and hence Evolution can not work -- although the "all men are made equal" argument is idiotic if you think about how some people are unfortunate enough to be born with physical or mental handicaps.
Same place we keep the blue whales.
We do have captive blue whales, right?
For the Nth time already: Matlab can't do symbolic computations. The package interfaces to Maple, which does the actual work.