One of the cool implications becomes clear if you realize this means our galaxy is the 4th galaxy in a line with these three. To someone standing on a planet in that backmost galaxy, 11B Ly away:
* The one that's the "foreground galaxy" to us would be the inner ring.
* The one that's the "first ring" to us would be the foreground galaxy for them and...
* The Milky Way would appear as the outer ring!
Actually, that's not the case. I'll give you a hint. The reason is because of something the guy these rings are named after, figured out. These galaxies aren't aligned. They just look that way from our perspective. From the other direction, it's extremely unlikely these 4 galaxies ever aligned, as odd as that sounds.
Well, fair enough, but I'm not sure it will do them any good.
From what I understand about drug addiction and attempts to kick the habit, you won't just "lose interest", you'll be going through living hell for quite a while - your body is looking for something you're not giving it, it's going to be pretty mad at you. This is why people relapse - they remember the shiny happy times, ignore that bad bits about those times and it all looks so much better than what they're in at the moment, so they go back to their drug.
But that's precisely how it works. If the drug no longer satisfies that need, then the person won't have the impulse/desire to use the drug anymore.
Let's look at alcoholism as an easier example. Alcoholics drink for the high. But if drinking alcohol no longer got you high; if the effects were the equivalent of drinking water, the alcoholic will likely stop drinking alcohol, unless they like to pay a lot for water and have a desire to pee a lot.
Really, I wish they could come up with something like this for alcoholics. A very large percentage (somewhere close to 90%) of alcoholics die as drunks (not having gotten sober). A large majority of the ones that try to quit don't stay sober. If they could get a shot that would stop alcohol from ever getting them drunk again, I suspect it would make things easier for them. They'd never have to worry about relapse again.
This is basically a repackaged White Box 914 PC Bot which is priced at over $5000... Unless Heathkit can get the price to a reasonable range, it's probably going to be out of the price range of most hobbiests. Still, a very cool gadget. Wish I had a lot more disposable income...
I would suspect, to a large degree, this has less to do with really believing in IP than simply hating the RIAA and MPAA. This is a situation the RIAA and MPAA have brought entirely on themselves in the way that they've treated people (a great many of them, their customers), since the moment Napster got sued. They made haste in suing, root-kitting CDs, suing more and suing more and so on and so on. They've done nothing but treat their entire customer-base as adversaries and thieves. Why would anyone give a rat's ass about them after that kind of treatment? People will make justifications (rationalizations) for why they think copying a CD or DVD is okay. But I think that in many cases, that's probably just to cover over the fact that their real reason is probably just hate for the RIAA and MPAA. And to me, that's as valid an excuse as any. Show me any business that makes a habit of suing its customers that can succeed for very long? (With the exception of "necessary" industries. (Insurance?))
Well geez, Chuck Norris suing somebody pretty much destroys the tough guy image. I've read the online "facts" before and I'm pretty sure there aren't any that approach, "When Chuck Norris gets mad, he sues."
Aren't US Banks and financial institutions legally obligated to protect your private information such as the terms of your mortgage and the details of your bank and investment accounts?
IANAL, but I've seen a bunch on TV. There's a Citation to Discover Assets that someone mentioned, but I believe these are limited to creditors. Basically, it works like this: Creditor says you owe them money. Creditor takes you to court to basically get legal enforcement of you paying them back. If you lose and are judged to owe the money, they can petition for a citation to discover assets. The key being, you lost before they get it. So I doubt that's what was used in this case. But then, to finish up my example, if they get the citation, you are subpoenaed to appear in court with certain documentation and state, under oath, what your assets are.
So, again, I doubt a Citation to Discover Assets is how this was done. More likely, as someone else mentioned, they probably got the info from one of the many companies that will offer it for a fee. These companies collect mostly publicly available financial information from various sources and put it together in reports that they sell. How this lead to his college funds and other things that one wouldn't expect to be public, I don't know. Perhaps this information is available publicly somehow.
That's like taking your car to get it repaired and being pissed off when you get arrested because the mechanic notices the 5 kilos of coke in your back seat. I mean, come on. The guy is an idiot and a criminal and he should go to prison.
You wanna break the law and not get caught? Use some brain cells. Sorry, if I take my computer to get it repaired (and I have), I yank the hard drives. ALWAYS. I have no expectation of privacy when I drop my computer off with a tech. I do it largely because I have client data on my computer and I would be liable if I took it in for repairs and someone stole the data. It's just common sense, and if a criminal can't amass enough common sense to do the same, well, they deserve to be arrested, tried, and convicted.
I got one of these and, honestly, it only puts out about 180 kilowatts out of the box. I managed to overclock it to 250 kilowatts, however. I just finished the case mod. I'm using plexiglass so you can see what's going on inside. It also weighs a lot less without all the lead, which was pretty unattractive. But now Toshiba is saying I voided my warranty and won't give me tech support. I just want to find out why my dog started glowing in the dark...
Why not choose one proof and show that in Wikipedia. Maybe the shortest or the one that will server the widest audience. Save the rest for one of the Wikibooks on mathematics. A good choice might be The Book of Mathematical Proofs
Some people seem confused by what the article is saying. It's not a matter of the speed of response. It's that, (at least in the second experiment) given a briefer view of the numbers, the chimps were able to recall the order of the numbers more accurately than people. A view lasting 7/10 of a second, people and chimps did about the same, but when you cut the viewing time to 4/10 or 2/10, the chimp's accuracy didn't go down, while the humans' accuracy dropped significantly.
As for why this kind of makes sense, if I were to hypothesize on it, I'd say it's probably because we ARE more intelligent that we don't perform as well with the briefer views. There's a good deal of abstract thought going on in how we deal with the numbers and different people deal with them differently. It's this ability of more and deeper abstract thought that's displacing our ability to simply see the whole thing as a single picture, but a collection of items.
On the other hand, I suspect the chimps are simply seeing a picture and recreating that picture with the tools provided. The picture holds no real meaning to them. There's no indication that the chimps understand what the digits mean. They wouldn't know 3 apples from 4 apples in terms of the digits. But human subjects, on the other hand, assign meaning to those numbers. Patterns might grab our attention. If in the digits, for example, I saw 68 in the series, it might bring to mind the year of my birth and that might distract my attention from memorizing the other digits in the number. A chimp, on the other hand, won't see the digits "02" and think, "Hey, that was the year of my birth."
And that's not to say animals don't know the concept of numbers. They do, or at least some do. There have certainly been studies to show that dogs can count up to about 5 or so (maybe it was higher) with quite a bit of accuracy, and not as something their taught, but simply intuitively... But I digress. I think the results make a lot of sense. Even though my description is probably not specifically what's going on, I wouldn't be surprised if it were something along those lines. Sure, it may make us less efficient at some simple tasks, but what's more valuable? Being able to accurately remember the order of the digits or to know what they mean?
That must have been a hell of an explosion. It was in his shirt pocket and not only broke ribs, but broke his spine as well! His internal organs were probably demolished.
I never realized how powerful battery explosions could be until college when I was doing computer repair part-time. I saw an old IBM XT with a memory add-on card that had a watch battery in it for the clock. The watch battery had exploded, damaging the memory card and the card next to it pretty severely. Have you ever tried to break a computer card? Those things are tough, and this was just a little watch battery.
Look, I don't know if the guy actually broke any laws. It sounds like he might have, but maybe not. On the other hand, intentionally trying to fuck with the police after they arrested him is plain stupid. It doesn't buy you anything except bad will. It's not like the people interrogating him are the ones that made the decision to arrest him. You get pulled in by the police, if you're really not guilty, the only smart thing to do is cooperate. Creating that kind of bad will and then complaining that you might not get your computer equipment back for years, well what do you expect? Shit on people and expect them to shit on you back.
This should be helpful to whoever (and surely someone will) wants to build an emulator. This is a PDF of the processor manual from 1985. The processor features sounds awfully advanced for 1985. Pipelining (they call it overlapping instruction execution), instruction caching, memory protection... Sweet! I want one...
I'll be honest, I'm not an expert in mouse physiology, but it doesn't seem like a stretch to suggest that evolution has provided certain animals with reactions to certain smells that might trigger an adrenaline rush. It wouldn't have to be a terribly complex biochemical pathway to get from smell to adrenaline, I would image. After all, for humans, the only stimulus needed to cause an adrenaline rush is pain. I would imagine this too happens at a pretty low-level, biologically. And yet we also learn behavior that triggers adrenaline rushes. I would imagine a heightened sense of smell would make smell-related triggers would be advantageous in evolution.
Actually, you can notify Wikipedia of copyright violations. They're usually pretty good about following up. As for how to know which came first, one way is with The Wayback Machine.
I had some stuff copied off of a web page and made into a wikipedia article. I reported it as soon as I became aware of it and within a few days, the page was replaced. I don't know if they're always that responsive. It probably depends on who monitors the pages in question.
So, if I'm following you correctly, you want the medical researchers to stockpile all the research projects that have "heavy computing demands" until Intel comes out with their 128-core CPU?
No, you're not following me correctly. My point is, nobody is going to run a program that's going to take decades to run. Instead, they're going to run some scaled down version that approximates a solution or there going to find some other method to solve the problem. When the computing power is available to run it in a reasonable period of time. Since computer speeds increase exponentially, the math to calculate when the best time to try to run the software, is pretty straight-forward. If you say processing speeds double every 2 years (not exact, but not too far off) and you have a program that will take 160 years to run, then if you wait 4 years, it'll only take 40 years for it to run. Another 4 years and it will only take 10 years to run it. So after only 8 year of waiting, you're looking at about 18 years total vs. the original 160 years. So the point is, it sometimes pays to wait. You could start running the program 8 years earlier and get a head start, but with the doubling of speeds every 2 years, that only accounts small fraction of the total computation. That's my point.
"The researchers estimate that this analysis would take conventional computer systems 162 years to complete." They're always saying, "We've knocked decades off of our work by using the right tool for the job." That's like me saying I knocked decades off of the calculations to run an energy minimization on a hexane molecule by running it on my Core 2 Duo instead of my Atari 800.
I mean, let's face it. They weren't going to let the friggin' program run for 162 years. The problem became solveable when the hardware became available. Hell, within 5 years, that "conventional computer system" will be able to solve it in a fraction of that 162 years and 5 years later, a fraction of that. So what do you do? You wait until the hardware meets up with ability to solve the problem. They haven't saved decades. They probably haven't even saved a decade. Within a decade they'd probably be able to run it in a few days on a conventional computer.
Most university researchers probably don't have a problem. Most of the major journals I can get through the university library, even online access from home via the university library.
They don't get everything, but they get a pretty large chunk of what's out there. I've rarely had problems finding stuff I need.
I suspect most companies doing research can afford access to these as well. While not cheap, by any means, it's certainly within the reach of most moderate sized companies.
Astronomers have discovered a record-breaking fifth planet around the nearby star 55 Cancri, making it the only star aside from the sun known to have five planets.
Not to nitpick, but just so people don't go away thinking there are only 5 planets in our solar system, the sun in fact, has 8 planets currently.
This is the ultimate nerd project... The only way it could be more of a do-it-yourself project would be building it with all analog parts. I'm very impressed. The guy appears to have been really meticulous. Everything appears to be pretty well documented... I've only gone through about 1/4 of the stuff he has available. It's a lot of material. I definitely wouldn't have the patience to do a project like this...
Slashdot Mirror
For instance, many younger workers expect to get an office immediately or be paid at a rate higher than entry level.
Hell, I expect to be put in charge! I'm just out of college! I know EVERYTHING!!!
One of the cool implications becomes clear if you realize this means our galaxy is the 4th galaxy in a line with these three. To someone standing on a planet in that backmost galaxy, 11B Ly away:
...
* The one that's the "foreground galaxy" to us would be the inner ring.
* The one that's the "first ring" to us would be the foreground galaxy for them and
* The Milky Way would appear as the outer ring!
Actually, that's not the case. I'll give you a hint. The reason is because of something the guy these rings are named after, figured out. These galaxies aren't aligned. They just look that way from our perspective. From the other direction, it's extremely unlikely these 4 galaxies ever aligned, as odd as that sounds.
if you're browsing by IP now anyway you're doing it wrong.
Imposter! Real hackers always browse by IP!
Well, fair enough, but I'm not sure it will do them any good.
From what I understand about drug addiction and attempts to kick the habit, you won't just "lose interest", you'll be going through living hell for quite a while - your body is looking for something you're not giving it, it's going to be pretty mad at you. This is why people relapse - they remember the shiny happy times, ignore that bad bits about those times and it all looks so much better than what they're in at the moment, so they go back to their drug.
But that's precisely how it works. If the drug no longer satisfies that need, then the person won't have the impulse/desire to use the drug anymore.
Let's look at alcoholism as an easier example. Alcoholics drink for the high. But if drinking alcohol no longer got you high; if the effects were the equivalent of drinking water, the alcoholic will likely stop drinking alcohol, unless they like to pay a lot for water and have a desire to pee a lot.
Really, I wish they could come up with something like this for alcoholics. A very large percentage (somewhere close to 90%) of alcoholics die as drunks (not having gotten sober). A large majority of the ones that try to quit don't stay sober. If they could get a shot that would stop alcohol from ever getting them drunk again, I suspect it would make things easier for them. They'd never have to worry about relapse again.
This is basically a repackaged White Box 914 PC Bot which is priced at over $5000... Unless Heathkit can get the price to a reasonable range, it's probably going to be out of the price range of most hobbiests. Still, a very cool gadget. Wish I had a lot more disposable income...
I would suspect, to a large degree, this has less to do with really believing in IP than simply hating the RIAA and MPAA. This is a situation the RIAA and MPAA have brought entirely on themselves in the way that they've treated people (a great many of them, their customers), since the moment Napster got sued. They made haste in suing, root-kitting CDs, suing more and suing more and so on and so on. They've done nothing but treat their entire customer-base as adversaries and thieves. Why would anyone give a rat's ass about them after that kind of treatment? People will make justifications (rationalizations) for why they think copying a CD or DVD is okay. But I think that in many cases, that's probably just to cover over the fact that their real reason is probably just hate for the RIAA and MPAA. And to me, that's as valid an excuse as any. Show me any business that makes a habit of suing its customers that can succeed for very long? (With the exception of "necessary" industries. (Insurance?))
Obviously the poster hasn't seen Monica Bellucci in Malèna!
Well geez, Chuck Norris suing somebody pretty much destroys the tough guy image. I've read the online "facts" before and I'm pretty sure there aren't any that approach, "When Chuck Norris gets mad, he sues."
Aren't US Banks and financial institutions legally obligated to protect your private information such as the terms of your mortgage and the details of your bank and investment accounts?
IANAL, but I've seen a bunch on TV. There's a Citation to Discover Assets that someone mentioned, but I believe these are limited to creditors. Basically, it works like this: Creditor says you owe them money. Creditor takes you to court to basically get legal enforcement of you paying them back. If you lose and are judged to owe the money, they can petition for a citation to discover assets. The key being, you lost before they get it. So I doubt that's what was used in this case. But then, to finish up my example, if they get the citation, you are subpoenaed to appear in court with certain documentation and state, under oath, what your assets are.
So, again, I doubt a Citation to Discover Assets is how this was done. More likely, as someone else mentioned, they probably got the info from one of the many companies that will offer it for a fee. These companies collect mostly publicly available financial information from various sources and put it together in reports that they sell. How this lead to his college funds and other things that one wouldn't expect to be public, I don't know. Perhaps this information is available publicly somehow.
That's like taking your car to get it repaired and being pissed off when you get arrested because the mechanic notices the 5 kilos of coke in your back seat. I mean, come on. The guy is an idiot and a criminal and he should go to prison.
You wanna break the law and not get caught? Use some brain cells. Sorry, if I take my computer to get it repaired (and I have), I yank the hard drives. ALWAYS. I have no expectation of privacy when I drop my computer off with a tech. I do it largely because I have client data on my computer and I would be liable if I took it in for repairs and someone stole the data. It's just common sense, and if a criminal can't amass enough common sense to do the same, well, they deserve to be arrested, tried, and convicted.
I got one of these and, honestly, it only puts out about 180 kilowatts out of the box. I managed to overclock it to 250 kilowatts, however. I just finished the case mod. I'm using plexiglass so you can see what's going on inside. It also weighs a lot less without all the lead, which was pretty unattractive. But now Toshiba is saying I voided my warranty and won't give me tech support. I just want to find out why my dog started glowing in the dark...
> Maybe the shortest or the one that will server the widest audience
How do you decide between these two?
That's the beauty of the internet. It doesn't matter. Flip a friggin' coin. Just add a link to the Wikibook with the rest of them.
Why not choose one proof and show that in Wikipedia. Maybe the shortest or the one that will server the widest audience. Save the rest for one of the Wikibooks on mathematics. A good choice might be The Book of Mathematical Proofs
Some people seem confused by what the article is saying. It's not a matter of the speed of response. It's that, (at least in the second experiment) given a briefer view of the numbers, the chimps were able to recall the order of the numbers more accurately than people. A view lasting 7/10 of a second, people and chimps did about the same, but when you cut the viewing time to 4/10 or 2/10, the chimp's accuracy didn't go down, while the humans' accuracy dropped significantly.
As for why this kind of makes sense, if I were to hypothesize on it, I'd say it's probably because we ARE more intelligent that we don't perform as well with the briefer views. There's a good deal of abstract thought going on in how we deal with the numbers and different people deal with them differently. It's this ability of more and deeper abstract thought that's displacing our ability to simply see the whole thing as a single picture, but a collection of items.
On the other hand, I suspect the chimps are simply seeing a picture and recreating that picture with the tools provided. The picture holds no real meaning to them. There's no indication that the chimps understand what the digits mean. They wouldn't know 3 apples from 4 apples in terms of the digits. But human subjects, on the other hand, assign meaning to those numbers. Patterns might grab our attention. If in the digits, for example, I saw 68 in the series, it might bring to mind the year of my birth and that might distract my attention from memorizing the other digits in the number. A chimp, on the other hand, won't see the digits "02" and think, "Hey, that was the year of my birth."
And that's not to say animals don't know the concept of numbers. They do, or at least some do. There have certainly been studies to show that dogs can count up to about 5 or so (maybe it was higher) with quite a bit of accuracy, and not as something their taught, but simply intuitively... But I digress. I think the results make a lot of sense. Even though my description is probably not specifically what's going on, I wouldn't be surprised if it were something along those lines. Sure, it may make us less efficient at some simple tasks, but what's more valuable? Being able to accurately remember the order of the digits or to know what they mean?
That must have been a hell of an explosion. It was in his shirt pocket and not only broke ribs, but broke his spine as well! His internal organs were probably demolished.
I never realized how powerful battery explosions could be until college when I was doing computer repair part-time. I saw an old IBM XT with a memory add-on card that had a watch battery in it for the clock. The watch battery had exploded, damaging the memory card and the card next to it pretty severely. Have you ever tried to break a computer card? Those things are tough, and this was just a little watch battery.
Look, I don't know if the guy actually broke any laws. It sounds like he might have, but maybe not. On the other hand, intentionally trying to fuck with the police after they arrested him is plain stupid. It doesn't buy you anything except bad will. It's not like the people interrogating him are the ones that made the decision to arrest him. You get pulled in by the police, if you're really not guilty, the only smart thing to do is cooperate. Creating that kind of bad will and then complaining that you might not get your computer equipment back for years, well what do you expect? Shit on people and expect them to shit on you back.
This should be helpful to whoever (and surely someone will) wants to build an emulator. This is a PDF of the processor manual from 1985. The processor features sounds awfully advanced for 1985. Pipelining (they call it overlapping instruction execution), instruction caching, memory protection... Sweet! I want one...
I'll be honest, I'm not an expert in mouse physiology, but it doesn't seem like a stretch to suggest that evolution has provided certain animals with reactions to certain smells that might trigger an adrenaline rush. It wouldn't have to be a terribly complex biochemical pathway to get from smell to adrenaline, I would image. After all, for humans, the only stimulus needed to cause an adrenaline rush is pain. I would imagine this too happens at a pretty low-level, biologically. And yet we also learn behavior that triggers adrenaline rushes. I would imagine a heightened sense of smell would make smell-related triggers would be advantageous in evolution.
Actually, you can notify Wikipedia of copyright violations. They're usually pretty good about following up. As for how to know which came first, one way is with The Wayback Machine.
I had some stuff copied off of a web page and made into a wikipedia article. I reported it as soon as I became aware of it and within a few days, the page was replaced. I don't know if they're always that responsive. It probably depends on who monitors the pages in question.
How do I get my products advertised as articles on Slashdot? I imagine that could be pretty lucrative. Who do I pay?
So, if I'm following you correctly, you want the medical researchers to stockpile all the research projects that have "heavy computing demands" until Intel comes out with their 128-core CPU?
No, you're not following me correctly. My point is, nobody is going to run a program that's going to take decades to run. Instead, they're going to run some scaled down version that approximates a solution or there going to find some other method to solve the problem. When the computing power is available to run it in a reasonable period of time. Since computer speeds increase exponentially, the math to calculate when the best time to try to run the software, is pretty straight-forward. If you say processing speeds double every 2 years (not exact, but not too far off) and you have a program that will take 160 years to run, then if you wait 4 years, it'll only take 40 years for it to run. Another 4 years and it will only take 10 years to run it. So after only 8 year of waiting, you're looking at about 18 years total vs. the original 160 years. So the point is, it sometimes pays to wait. You could start running the program 8 years earlier and get a head start, but with the doubling of speeds every 2 years, that only accounts small fraction of the total computation. That's my point.
"The researchers estimate that this analysis would take conventional computer systems 162 years to complete."
They're always saying, "We've knocked decades off of our work by using the right tool for the job." That's like me saying I knocked decades off of the calculations to run an energy minimization on a hexane molecule by running it on my Core 2 Duo instead of my Atari 800.
I mean, let's face it. They weren't going to let the friggin' program run for 162 years. The problem became solveable when the hardware became available. Hell, within 5 years, that "conventional computer system" will be able to solve it in a fraction of that 162 years and 5 years later, a fraction of that. So what do you do? You wait until the hardware meets up with ability to solve the problem. They haven't saved decades. They probably haven't even saved a decade. Within a decade they'd probably be able to run it in a few days on a conventional computer.
Most university researchers probably don't have a problem. Most of the major journals I can get through the university library, even online access from home via the university library.
They don't get everything, but they get a pretty large chunk of what's out there. I've rarely had problems finding stuff I need.
I suspect most companies doing research can afford access to these as well. While not cheap, by any means, it's certainly within the reach of most moderate sized companies.
Astronomers have discovered a record-breaking fifth planet around the nearby star 55 Cancri, making it the only star aside from the sun known to have five planets.
Not to nitpick, but just so people don't go away thinking there are only 5 planets in our solar system, the sun in fact, has 8 planets currently.
This is the ultimate nerd project... The only way it could be more of a do-it-yourself project would be building it with all analog parts. I'm very impressed. The guy appears to have been really meticulous. Everything appears to be pretty well documented... I've only gone through about 1/4 of the stuff he has available. It's a lot of material. I definitely wouldn't have the patience to do a project like this...