More crashes => insurance premiums go up => rent goes up => less business.
No actually, the car in front was going ~102 km/h - I was going 100, they slowed down (very rapidly) to 90. Since they had just moved into my lane, there wasn't really enough room between us for safety.
It was in the contract - you speed, you pay a fine.
1) They dont want to get their car damaged.
2) They dont want to go through the hassle of looking through records, and notifying the police of who the culprit was, when the police pick up on the speeding.
The culprits here thought that they would not get caught, so ignored the warning. Lo and behold, they get caught, and then whinge. The method by which they find you speeding does not matter - you were BREAKING THE LAW, and being otherwise dangerous.
It is just like here in.au, where you are legally allowed to publish where speed cameras are, and they can't be hidden - so people will get plenty of warning and slow down before the radar (indeed, this nearly caused me an accident, when the car in front of me slammed on their brake, and I could have gone hurlding through their rear end if I was not being careful).
So, why are we protecting the crims? I would have aplauded this company - trying to save their cars from getting stolen, and possibly saving lives at the same time!
Re:Audiophiles are *worse* than drug addicts
on
Insanely Audiophile
·
· Score: 1
Nice troll.
Informative though?
Of course, if it is not - have you ever been robbed 3 times by an audiofile trying to get a bit of quick cash by selling your camera and other stuff for probably 20 bucks?
Your not one of these people who like to turn up their system as loud as it will go, and dont even notice that the distortion is killing both the cones and your ears, are you?
God, I hate those fools who do that in an enclosed room.
I would so much rather appreciate music than put up with the crap they listen to.
There's a process called "interferometry." It is the combining of
several smaller telescopes along the exact curvature of a larger one
to produce a similar effect to the larger one. Anyone seen Contact?
The VLA(where Jodie Foster heard that signal), or Very Large Array, is
a series of radio telescopes layed out over almost a mile (I think) in
a big peace sign. They can gather the same kind of information that a
single, unimaginably more expensive telescope could.
Interferometry is very neat - I always thought the VLA was bigger
than that though - ATNF is 6km
long (in the east west dirn - the north south thack is new and not
used yet - awaiting reciever upgrades)
Problem is, you do actually lose information - all those gaps in
baselines, say if there is no basline between 2 scopes with distance x
metres, then you are missing a peice of infomation in the fourrier
plane - and you have to deconvolve to fix this up - which no one knows
whether really works - and under what circumstances it breaks down. It
also introduces quite bad side effects for some images - I am dealing
with a source now that beams in with a difference flux once imaged,
compared to before the fourrier transform - not good.
Incedentally, on Contact, that alien sound sounds awfully like our
helium cryogen pumps:)
The reason we don't have these large arrays of optical telescopes has
to do with the nature of light. Radio waves have such a large
wavelength that aligning several telescopes along the exact parabolic
curve of a simulated large reflector is not difficult (radio waves can
be anywhere from several inches to several hundred feet long).
The scopes arem't arranged in a parabola - a delay is introduced
by a very fast and large computer:), to offset the geometric
delay. Here at Usyd, we have a 1 km
array in optical which sort of works (not very sensetive yet though -
awaiting new detectors and people)
An optical telescope array presents a much more difficult
problem. Light in the visible spectrum has very small wavelengths
(less than an inch). Thus, aligning even two telescopes along the
proper parabolic curve for interferometry is extraordinarily difficult
on earth.
An inch?!! Less than micrometer! And a micrometer is fairly easy to
adjust for - just the sensetivity is very low - you need to collects
photons in real time and try to correct for the atmosphere. We dont
have the luxury of 22 metre dishes - our siderealstats are only 20 cm
wide each.
The first one is the NGST, or Next Generation Space Telescope. This
will have a large solar shield (basically, a large sheet of mylar to
reflect heat away from the mirrors). It will have several octagonal
mirror surfaces, and will unfold to be about 8 meters across (Hubble
is less than 3). It will also have various infrared and microwave
cameras built in, so dangerous "upgrade" missions won't be required
nearly as much.
It's going to L2, which means it will never be serviceable - have to
get it right the first time. But if it does work, it is in a stable
point, so it will last forever (for small values of "ever").
All in all, though, there is so much left to learn from deep space, it
almost makes you cry. I find the whole endeavor rather exciting.
Hell yeah! I personally am watching out for the Square Km Array , and
somewhat hoping it ends up out here in.au, 'cause it will be coming
online just about the right time for me to do science on it:).
And this guy is marked as "0 flamebait", when the parent is "5 insightful". Geez, I hope it is that the moderators are joking today, because it is sure as hell kinda funny.
The yanks will fall some day - look who will be laughing then....
What about when it is 3:00 in the afternoon, you telnet home and turn on the air con so the room is sufficienly cool when you get home - saves 6 hours of electricity?
I would love what that was to do to my electricity bill.
I dont know about it being a lot of research effort - I think I could do it with a relay and thermistor connected to my parallel port.
>>First of all there is the galaxy; it needs to be very very specific in both size, age, and type.
>Bullshit. Just because our galaxy has a certain configuration doesn't mean that's the only configuration that can support life. Do you honestly think that life can only occur in the uncharted backwaters of the unfasionable end of the western spiral arm of a particular type of galaxy?
Well, it certainly aint going to form in the middle of 47 Tucanane - you need time for life to form between stellar collisions - something you get plenty of in the unfasionable end of the western spiral arm of a particular type of galaxy.
>>The star has to be exacly the right size nad exactly the right point in its life
>Bullshit. Our sun is about 4.5 billion years old. Life has existed on Earth for better than 3 billion years of that. So the sun has been at "exactly the right point in its life" for 2/3 of its life. Uhmm, right. As for size, the only thing that matters is the luminous intensity at the planet's surface. A larger or brighter star simply requires a larger orbit, thicker atmosphere, or more temperature-tolerant life.
Well, actually, the sun will be too hot in 1 billion years for anything to survive, and I dont really know how hot it was 1 billion years ago, but I hazard a guess that something as complex as humans could not have existed 1 billion years ago.
>>The planet has to be composed of exactly the right material...
>Bullshit. Earth is mostly iron and nickel. The crust is mostly silicon, aluminum, and oxygen. Only one of these elements is important for the basics of life. To produce Earth-like life, the planet needs certain amounts of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, etc. at the surface. These do not have to be the primary constituents of the planet.
Those compound you mentioned are pretty restrictive enough - it seems Earth is the only planet in our solar system that has the correct ratios for these, anyway - suggesting their possible rarity.
>>...be the right size...
>Bullshit. Earth-like life requires a certain minumum size, to hold an atmosphere. There is really no definite upper limit on size, though. Life, especially simple life like bacteria, would have absolutely no trouble evolving on a planet 10 times as massive as Earth.
I find climbing up stairs hard enough these days - I sure wouldn't want to be 10 times heavier! A factor of two is not much of a range in astronomy - Mars would have a bit of trouble keeping an atmosphere for any length of time.
>>and be at exactly the right distance from the sun
>Bullshit. Again, Earth-like life requires the surface temperature to be within a certain range, but it's hardly exact. The primary requirements are that water be a liquid and proteins hold together against thermal disruption. Known life on Earth exists in temperatures over a range of better than 350 Kelvins. Even if you needed a
They do? I thought it was about -60 to +100 C - then again, I've been wrong before. You're not confusing farenheit with Kelvin, are you?
>smaller temperature range, you have 3 variables to adjust. Sun brightness, orbit distance, and atmosphereic reflectiveness. It's not too hard to find a combination of those that will produce the right temperature.
And greenhouse gasses - but this is dynamical - a kind of positive feedback. The earth's surface would be on average -15 C if it was not for greenhouse gasses - and you know how fragile that it.
>>There has to be a moon at exactly the right distance and exactly the right size
>Bullshit. Whose ass did you pull this statement out of? Do you honestly expect me to believe that chemical reactions on Earth's surface are dependant on the luminosity and gravitational pull of the Moon?! At least the other arguments sounded credible before you thought about them. This one's just ridiculous.
Cant comment on this one - not a marine biologist - but surely, the tides form some useful purpose, right?
Actually, eveyone around here seemes to use PAW (Physics analysis workstation), http://wwwinfo.cern.ch/asd/cernlib/version.html
Pretty neat for graphing, but the language is a kind of macro kind or fortran language which just *sucks*! Works for linux, unix etc, and tar.gz file is only 50MBs or so, if I remember correctly.
As for your comment about source code - yeah we generally are all for openness - remember the WWW? And Science is generally (except for medicine, where they like to patent genes, for fscks sake) all about sharing knowledge:)
Ok, common question, doesn't seem to be many answers yet.
Why is it stopping soon? Because it is being replaced, and as we delay stopping it, the longer it takes to set the new proton anti proton collider up.
Then why is it still going? Because we want to find the particle as quickly as possible. We have hints that we have found it, as the collider was running greater than maximum power, but we need more events to be sure. Sure, we can leave it to Fermilab to possibly find it (I dont know the power of any of the colliders), but is it not better to find it as early as possible? If we find it now, maybe we can better optimise the new collider?
BTW - for those who keep saying the physicists just want to keep their job as long as possible, all of them are staying on to work on and for the new collider.
And this is for science's sake, just a nobel prize would be neat - it is not like in medicine, however, where the nobel prize is the be-all and end-all of life as we know it.
Discalimer, I have not much information on this subject - IANAPPY (I am not a particle physicist yet)
>One of the problems with LED's is they draw a lot of power. Ever wonder why wristwatches use LCD instead of LED? It's the power draw. Let's do a little convoluted math:
He he. Convoluted mathematics - I think of Hamiltonian dynamics, not 5th grade arithmetic.
First, LCD's need a backlight in laptops - hence the high current draw. LED's are quite efficient, somethign like 10%?
> 20ma X 3.5 volts = 70mw per LED
These LEDs are tiny - do you think somehitng 1/4 mm across can draw 20mA, and not burn up? BTW - 3.5 volts is only for blue, red is 1.6 volts (remember, voltage required = E = h\nu = hc/\lambda)
While you can make the GUI itself as usable as you want, you certainly can't make the system as a whole easy to use unless the underlying non-GUI architecture is clean, consistent, tight, and well-organized. Typical end-users need more than a pretty symbolic graphic interface slapped over top of a chaotic, complex system; they need a system that is simple and well-organized in every place it is exposed, including the filesystem hierarchy and the ability to install and configure hardware and applications.
In 3rd year computer science, we still have a of of people that have never heard of a command line, and dont know what an xterm is. They have managed to keep the same.fvwmrc file given to them in 1st year, with the standard editor, and compilation tools, and got on with their life. Needless to say, these people aren't going too greatly, because they have not got the curiosity to hack, etc, and it quite suprises me that these people have managed to get into 3rd year, but hell, its not like sydney uni has a great CS department with decent students. </rant>
For instance, I might want to create a distribution that has only 3 major root-level directories:/apps,/docs, and/system. But I can't do this now without hacking around on source code and rewriting every single app and utility and daemon I include in my system--and that's preposterous.
I know its just an example, but in this case, it could lead to the forking of distirbutions in a bad way. Consistency is good, and there is a reason why there is the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard.
>Would this then account for the internal forces in an atom keeping the positrons together? Last I heard we still weren't sure what was causing it, but if the force of gravity increases dramatically at very small distances from the source...? (IANATP - I Am Not A Theoretical Physicist)
Do you mean protons within the nucleus? That is the strong force, carried by the 'gluons', which have been around for quite some time now, cant exactly remember how long though. The nuclear binding can then be nicely explained, and gravitation is certainly not the cause of that.
>Ehm, excuse me but doesn't the phrase "comparing apples to oranges" come to mind here? I mean how the hell can you compare two forces with completely causes? It is just as absurd as saying that 1 gram is more than 1 coulomb. Gravity is related to mass, and electromagnetic forces on charge. How can someone compare the mass of the earth with the charge in the atoms in a magnet? They are totally different things
Gravitation coupling constant = 2piKM^2/hc = 5.3*10^-38. electromagnetic = e^2/2hc = alpha = 1/137 weak = G_F8piM^2c/h^3 = 1.02 * 10^-5 (even though weak and electro are the same thing) strong = alpha_s =~ 1
Hence gravitation is extremely weak Also, they are all charges, just difference kinds of charges, gravitation is carried by the graviton, and is the gravitational charge, strong is the colour charge, weak is the weak charge, and electro is the electric charge -- they are all analagous.
>Dimensions do not have a size. Objects have sizes in a set of dimensions.
Since I am only a 3rd year uni student, I cant comment much on on this, but I know the article is correct however.
Offtopic, but.... Remember in high school, you were picked on for being inteligent? People feel threatened by anyone, or anything more inteligent than themselves. I'm sure that carries over, and they really don't want to feel stupid around a *computer*, do they? I pity poor society...
yep - there are certain stepper motor controllers rated at 1.2 amps (i dont know how they do this - they are only 14 pin dip packages). DO NOT short these out - they may/say/ they are over-temp, short-circuit, over voltage blah blah blah protected, but I made one glow red for about 20 seconds (It must have been dissipating at least 10 watts in that little package), before I managed to find out that the magic smoke had all been lost. All I did was short one of the output pins to ground. It made a mess of my artwork too - char grilled.
-- TimC http://www.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/~tconnors
Shift to the Left; Shift to the Right Pop up; Push down Byte! Byte! Byte!!!
You also happen to want it to be *correct*. It would be easy for a programmer to try and fix a bug, and inadvertantly introduce another bug, simply because he doesn't have the mathematical knowledge that the maple programmers have. You can rely on the fact that the maple programmers know what they are doing, and since there is a centralised place (i'll admit, linus is good at doing this for the kernal), you know who is rensponisble for making or breaking the code.
Remember that these packages are being used to prove or disprove theories, you dont want mistakes.
Well, a lot of people (myself included) say that the TP7 IDE is a kickass tool. Never used GNU pascal, but I'm guessing the debugger in TP7 (and delphi - delphi 3's "features" are quite nifty) is better than gdb, or whatever gets used with GNU pascal. User friendly can be a good word at times, something *nix is yet to discover. A nice IDE would be a welcome feature, if this merger happens.
Most laws today seem to be passed on lobbying dollars and the ignorance of elected officials.
Sounds like a certain Liberal government in Australia, that managed to pass that law about internet censorship a few months ago, because they wanted the equally non educated vote of a Brian Haradine.
The amergaddon people are now saying that it will be a slow death - technology will kill us within a few years, not a sudden fiery death on 1/1/100. Notice they said that on the 1/1/2000 paper, not before. I always did chuckle when their newsletters asked for renewal submissions for after the new year.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems they have a patent on combining data from their various sites, into a larger database.
Gee, never thought the network + some disks could be a patentable combination!
TimC --
Off to patent..... the knights who said "Ni"!
More crashes => insurance premiums go up => rent goes up => less business.
No actually, the car in front was going ~102 km/h - I was going 100, they slowed down (very rapidly) to 90. Since they had just moved into my lane, there wasn't really enough room between us for safety.
It was in the contract - you speed, you pay a fine.
.au, where you are legally allowed to publish where speed cameras are, and they can't be hidden - so people will get plenty of warning and slow down before the radar (indeed, this nearly caused me an accident, when the car in front of me slammed on their brake, and I could have gone hurlding through their rear end if I was not being careful).
1) They dont want to get their car damaged.
2) They dont want to go through the hassle of looking through records, and notifying the police of who the culprit was, when the police pick up on the speeding.
The culprits here thought that they would not get caught, so ignored the warning. Lo and behold, they get caught, and then whinge. The method by which they find you speeding does not matter - you were BREAKING THE LAW, and being otherwise dangerous.
It is just like here in
So, why are we protecting the crims? I would have aplauded this company - trying to save their cars from getting stolen, and possibly saving lives at the same time!
Nice troll.
Informative though?
Of course, if it is not - have you ever been robbed 3 times by an audiofile trying to get a bit of quick cash by selling your camera and other stuff for probably 20 bucks?
Your not one of these people who like to turn up their system as loud as it will go, and dont even notice that the distortion is killing both the cones and your ears, are you?
God, I hate those fools who do that in an enclosed room.
I would so much rather appreciate music than put up with the crap they listen to.
Interferometry is very neat - I always thought the VLA was bigger than that though - ATNF is 6km long (in the east west dirn - the north south thack is new and not used yet - awaiting reciever upgrades) :)
Problem is, you do actually lose information - all those gaps in baselines, say if there is no basline between 2 scopes with distance x metres, then you are missing a peice of infomation in the fourrier plane - and you have to deconvolve to fix this up - which no one knows whether really works - and under what circumstances it breaks down. It also introduces quite bad side effects for some images - I am dealing with a source now that beams in with a difference flux once imaged, compared to before the fourrier transform - not good.
Incedentally, on Contact, that alien sound sounds awfully like our helium cryogen pumps
The reason we don't have these large arrays of optical telescopes has to do with the nature of light. Radio waves have such a large wavelength that aligning several telescopes along the exact parabolic curve of a simulated large reflector is not difficult (radio waves can be anywhere from several inches to several hundred feet long).
The scopes arem't arranged in a parabola - a delay is introduced by a very fast and large computer :), to offset the geometric
delay. Here at Usyd, we have a 1 km
array in optical which sort of works (not very sensetive yet though -
awaiting new detectors and people)
An optical telescope array presents a much more difficult problem. Light in the visible spectrum has very small wavelengths (less than an inch). Thus, aligning even two telescopes along the proper parabolic curve for interferometry is extraordinarily difficult on earth.
An inch?!! Less than micrometer! And a micrometer is fairly easy to adjust for - just the sensetivity is very low - you need to collects photons in real time and try to correct for the atmosphere. We dont have the luxury of 22 metre dishes - our siderealstats are only 20 cm wide each.
The first one is the NGST, or Next Generation Space Telescope. This will have a large solar shield (basically, a large sheet of mylar to reflect heat away from the mirrors). It will have several octagonal mirror surfaces, and will unfold to be about 8 meters across (Hubble is less than 3). It will also have various infrared and microwave cameras built in, so dangerous "upgrade" missions won't be required nearly as much.
It's going to L2, which means it will never be serviceable - have to get it right the first time. But if it does work, it is in a stable point, so it will last forever (for small values of "ever").
All in all, though, there is so much left to learn from deep space, it almost makes you cry. I find the whole endeavor rather exciting.
Hell yeah! I personally am watching out for the Square Km Array , and somewhat hoping it ends up out here in .au, 'cause it will be coming
online just about the right time for me to do science on it :).
We had several linux boxen in CS, which were rebooted after 319 days for a kernel upgrade - you know that big step between 2.0.x and 2.4?
:)
And they had an almost constant load average of 2 because they were fileservers. Nice beasts, they was
And this guy is marked as "0 flamebait", when the parent is "5 insightful". Geez, I hope it is that the moderators are joking today, because it is sure as hell kinda funny.
The yanks will fall some day - look who will be laughing then....
What about when it is 3:00 in the afternoon, you telnet home and turn on the air con so the room is sufficienly cool when you get home - saves 6 hours of electricity?
I would love what that was to do to my electricity bill.
I dont know about it being a lot of research effort - I think I could do it with a relay and thermistor connected to my parallel port.
TimC -- Oooh, Look! Shiny thing!
>>First of all there is the galaxy; it needs to be very very specific in both size, age, and type.
>Bullshit. Just because our galaxy has a certain configuration doesn't mean that's the only configuration that can support life. Do you honestly think that life can only occur in the uncharted backwaters of the unfasionable end of the western spiral arm of a particular type of galaxy?
Well, it certainly aint going to form in the middle of 47 Tucanane - you need time for life to form between stellar collisions - something you get plenty of in the unfasionable end of the western spiral arm of a particular type of galaxy.
>>The star has to be exacly the right size nad exactly the right point in its life
>Bullshit. Our sun is about 4.5 billion years old. Life has existed on Earth for better than 3 billion years of that. So the sun has been at "exactly the right point in its life" for 2/3 of its life. Uhmm, right. As for size, the only thing that matters is the luminous intensity at the planet's surface. A larger or brighter star simply requires a larger orbit, thicker atmosphere, or more temperature-tolerant life.
Well, actually, the sun will be too hot in 1 billion years for anything to survive, and I dont really know how hot it was 1 billion years ago, but I hazard a guess that something as complex as humans could not have existed 1 billion years ago.
>>The planet has to be composed of exactly the right material...
>Bullshit. Earth is mostly iron and nickel. The crust is mostly silicon, aluminum, and oxygen. Only one of these elements is important for the basics of life. To produce Earth-like life, the planet needs certain amounts of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, etc. at the surface. These do not have to be the primary constituents of the planet.
Those compound you mentioned are pretty restrictive enough - it seems Earth is the only planet in our solar system that has the correct ratios for these, anyway - suggesting their possible rarity.
>>...be the right size...
>Bullshit. Earth-like life requires a certain minumum size, to hold an atmosphere. There is really no definite upper limit on size, though. Life, especially simple life like bacteria, would have absolutely no trouble evolving on a planet 10 times as massive as Earth.
I find climbing up stairs hard enough these days - I sure wouldn't want to be 10 times heavier! A factor of two is not much of a range in astronomy - Mars would have a bit of trouble keeping an atmosphere for any length of time.
>>and be at exactly the right distance from the sun
>Bullshit. Again, Earth-like life requires the surface temperature to be within a certain range, but it's hardly exact. The primary requirements are that water be a liquid and proteins hold together against thermal disruption. Known life on Earth exists in temperatures over a range of better than 350 Kelvins. Even if you needed a
They do? I thought it was about -60 to +100 C - then again, I've been wrong before. You're not confusing farenheit with Kelvin, are you?
>smaller temperature range, you have 3 variables to adjust. Sun brightness, orbit distance, and atmosphereic reflectiveness. It's not too hard to find a combination of those that will produce the right temperature.
And greenhouse gasses - but this is dynamical - a kind of positive feedback. The earth's surface would be on average -15 C if it was not for greenhouse gasses - and you know how fragile that it.
>>There has to be a moon at exactly the right distance and exactly the right size
>Bullshit. Whose ass did you pull this statement out of? Do you honestly expect me to believe that chemical reactions on Earth's surface are dependant on the luminosity and gravitational pull of the Moon?! At least the other arguments sounded credible before you thought about them. This one's just ridiculous.
Cant comment on this one - not a marine biologist - but surely, the tides form some useful purpose, right?
Actually, eveyone around here seemes to use PAW (Physics analysis workstation), http://wwwinfo.cern.ch/asd/cernlib/version.html
:)
Pretty neat for graphing, but the language is a kind of macro kind or fortran language which just *sucks*! Works for linux, unix etc, and tar.gz file is only 50MBs or so, if I remember correctly.
As for your comment about source code - yeah we generally are all for openness - remember the WWW? And Science is generally (except for medicine, where they like to patent genes, for fscks sake) all about sharing knowledge
I didn't actually know that - what about the selection rules? Where does the charge and spin go, etc?
Ok, common question, doesn't seem to be many answers yet.
Why is it stopping soon? Because it is being replaced, and as we delay stopping it, the longer it takes to set the new proton anti proton collider up.
Then why is it still going? Because we want to find the particle as quickly as possible. We have hints that we have found it, as the collider was running greater than maximum power, but we need more events to be sure. Sure, we can leave it to Fermilab to possibly find it (I dont know the power of any of the colliders), but is it not better to find it as early as possible? If we find it now, maybe we can better optimise the new collider?
BTW - for those who keep saying the physicists just want to keep their job as long as possible, all of them are staying on to work on and for the new collider.
And this is for science's sake, just a nobel prize would be neat - it is not like in medicine, however, where the nobel prize is the be-all and end-all of life as we know it.
Discalimer, I have not much information on this subject - IANAPPY (I am not a particle physicist yet)
>One of the problems with LED's is they draw a lot of power. Ever wonder why wristwatches use LCD instead of LED? It's the power draw. Let's do a little convoluted math:
He he. Convoluted mathematics - I think of Hamiltonian dynamics, not 5th grade arithmetic.
First, LCD's need a backlight in laptops - hence the high current draw. LED's are quite efficient, somethign like 10%?
> 20ma X 3.5 volts = 70mw per LED
These LEDs are tiny - do you think somehitng 1/4 mm across can draw 20mA, and not burn up? BTW - 3.5 volts is only for blue, red is 1.6 volts (remember, voltage required = E = h\nu = hc/\lambda)
In 3rd year computer science, we still have a of of people that have never heard of a command line, and dont know what an xterm is. They have managed to keep the same
For instance, I might want to create a distribution that has only 3 major root-level directories: /apps, /docs, and /system. But I can't do this now without hacking around on source code and rewriting every single app and utility and daemon I include in my system--and that's preposterous.
I know its just an example, but in this case, it could lead to the forking of distirbutions in a bad way. Consistency is good, and there is a reason why there is the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard.
>Would this then account for the internal forces in an atom keeping the positrons together? Last I heard we still weren't sure what was causing it, but if the force of gravity increases dramatically at very small distances from the source...? (IANATP - I Am Not A Theoretical Physicist)
Do you mean protons within the nucleus? That is the strong force, carried by the 'gluons', which have been around for quite some time now, cant exactly remember how long though.
The nuclear binding can then be nicely explained, and gravitation is certainly not the cause of that.
>Ehm, excuse me but doesn't the phrase "comparing apples to oranges" come to mind here? I mean how the hell can you compare two forces with completely causes? It is just as absurd as saying that 1 gram is more than 1 coulomb. Gravity is related to mass, and electromagnetic forces on charge. How can someone compare the mass of the earth with the charge in the atoms in a magnet? They are totally different things
Gravitation coupling constant = 2piKM^2/hc = 5.3*10^-38.
electromagnetic = e^2/2hc = alpha = 1/137
weak = G_F8piM^2c/h^3 = 1.02 * 10^-5 (even though weak and electro are the same thing)
strong = alpha_s =~ 1
Hence gravitation is extremely weak
Also, they are all charges, just difference kinds of charges, gravitation is carried by the graviton, and is the gravitational charge, strong is the colour charge, weak is the weak charge, and electro is the electric charge -- they are all analagous.
>Dimensions do not have a size. Objects have sizes in a set of dimensions.
Since I am only a 3rd year uni student, I cant comment much on on this, but I know the article is correct however.
Probably why I dont like watching the said items.
From the SMP-HOWTO docs:
Intel claims ownership of the APIC SMP scheme, and no companies are currently licensing the scheme from them.
Both cyrix and AMD support non-proprietry OpenPIC SMP, but no motherboards use it yet.
RSN?
Offtopic, but....
Remember in high school, you were picked on for being inteligent? People feel threatened by anyone, or anything more inteligent than themselves. I'm sure that carries over, and they really don't want to feel stupid around a *computer*, do they? I pity poor society...
yep - there are certain stepper motor controllers rated at 1.2 amps (i dont know how they do this - they are only 14 pin dip packages). DO NOT short these out - they may /say/ they are over-temp, short-circuit, over voltage blah blah blah protected, but I made one glow red for about 20 seconds (It must have been dissipating at least 10 watts in that little package), before I managed to find out that the magic smoke had all been lost. All I did was short one of the output pins to ground.
It made a mess of my artwork too - char grilled.
--
TimC
http://www.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/~tconnors
Shift to the Left;
Shift to the Right
Pop up; Push down
Byte! Byte! Byte!!!
But there is coke.com and coke.ch - or should, as said before, we just ditch those TLD's, and go straight for www.coke?
No! There is a reason for TLD's!
Education is the answer, the problem being there being far too many stupid people on the net who cant figure out the meaning of the last 3 characters.
You also happen to want it to be *correct*.
It would be easy for a programmer to try and fix a bug, and inadvertantly introduce another bug, simply because he doesn't have the mathematical knowledge that the maple programmers have. You can rely on the fact that the maple programmers know what they are doing, and since there is a centralised place (i'll admit, linus is good at doing this for the kernal), you know who is rensponisble for making or breaking the code.
Remember that these packages are being used to prove or disprove theories, you dont want mistakes.
Well, a lot of people (myself included) say that the TP7 IDE is a kickass tool. Never used GNU pascal, but I'm guessing the debugger in TP7 (and delphi - delphi 3's "features" are quite nifty) is better than gdb, or whatever gets used with GNU pascal. User friendly can be a good word at times, something *nix is yet to discover.
A nice IDE would be a welcome feature, if this merger happens.
Most laws today seem to be passed on lobbying dollars and the ignorance of elected officials.
Sounds like a certain Liberal government in Australia, that managed to pass that law about internet censorship a few months ago, because they wanted the equally non educated vote of a Brian Haradine.
The amergaddon people are now saying that it will be a slow death - technology will kill us within a few years, not a sudden fiery death on 1/1/100. Notice they said that on the 1/1/2000 paper, not before.
I always did chuckle when their newsletters asked for renewal submissions for after the new year.
Keep bringing on the beer, I say!