If the new scale is more precise than the old one, nothing has to be recalibrated. That's why they are trying to build a near perfect sphere of a near perfect crystal, so they can count the atoms very accurate and then compare the mass to the original kilogram standard in paris.
If they can do that with a precision higher (or at least as high) as the current kilogram calibration method, all old measurements remain perfectly valid, though the new measurements can be more precise.
Nowadays they take the kilogram out of the vault every 5 years (or something) and then compare it to national kilogram standards. These then again get compared to other kilograms, which then will be used to calibrate all the measurement devices.
The problem is, that a whole lot of units depend on the kilogram, so they also depend one the precision of the kilogram standard. But that kilogram standard is not precise, maybe it collects some dust, or loses some atoms over time, don't even think of touching it with your bare hands!
A kilogram standard based on natures constants that can be reproduced everywhere with different methods will be a great improvement! But to be widely accepted it has to be at least as precise as the current method and it has to be confirmed by at least two different measurement approaches. The atom counting approach is just one of a few competing efforts, but the most accurate so far.
Currently the kilogram is defined by the "lump in paris". As some the previous posters already pointed out this is a Bad Thing (tm).
Better would be to say the kilogram is the mass of n atoms of y. Problem is: how many atoms has one kg of y?
Actually you have to count them, and one good way to count it is to use a crystal with a well understood structure.
You simply grow a near perfect crystal, measure the size and you can calculate the number of atoms. That's what they build these silicon (=crystal) spheres for.
Now they just have to get the precision at least as good as the current definition (which means they have to be 10 times as precise), so noone will not notice the switch of the two definitions, and we don't need that "lump" in paris anymore.
Actually, client management should be a reason to switch to osx.
And if your company was wise enough to not do the vendor lockin to microsoft (just because everybody else does), most mission critical apps should already work fine on *nix and (and therefore on osx). M$ Office for instance is working fine on osx
So what might not be feasible for YOUR company, might perfectly be a really good idea for others.
I also switched off UAC, after having to confirm 5 times for just one file copy operation.
I tried to copy a program from my old windows installation to the new vista program files folder. So I opened one explorer with a connection to the old xp (\\ip\share) and dragged a folder to the program files folder on vista.
It was something like: (I'm writing this down from my memory, so it might not be 100% exact)
1. Confirmation "You are copying an executable file from an untrusted location, do you want to continue?" - continue of course, it's my old pc
2. Confirmation "You are copying into a secured system folder, do you want to continue?" - yeah, that's what I wanna do
3. Confirmation "You are not allowed to copy from an untrusted source into a secured system folder. Please copy the file to my documents for example and then move it to the destination folder" - continue not possible.
4. Confirmation "You are copying an executable file from an untrusted location, do you want to continue?" - this time it copies on my desktop
5. Confirmation "You are moving a file into a secured system folder, do you want to continue " - continue and the file is where i want it.
Re:Nine women cannot have one baby in one month
on
Why Software is Hard
·
· Score: 1
my comment was more satirical, but there is some truth in it. There are some problems that cannot be solved by x average developpers, whereas one skilled developper can do it in a day.
OTOH, you're right too, you should always try to divide problems in reusable parts and try to use existing libraries where possible. That does enable you to share workload to a team of developpers.
Nine women cannot have one baby in one month
on
Why Software is Hard
·
· Score: 5, Funny
and of course, we are the better programmers, so better fire those other 8.
You are 100% right, this is the real problem of orchestral music nowadays. The audience is simply dying away and most people cannot appreciate it anymore. (I'm not really an exception to that)
And now we can discuss the real subject: Is it a good idea to play game music, just to drag young people to the orchestra?
There might be some benefits in doing this sometimes, because if there are at least some people who start getting interested in orchestral music, that would be a good thing.
But in the long run, it won't help anybody.
I'm from a family with a long tradition in music and my mother is working for an orchestra. She says: If there is no interest in that kind of music, even in the modern variations, you can't go ahead and just play what the masses want. Orchestra's are for preserving a tradition thats builds on hundreds of years of musical history. You cannot throw that away, to preserve it.
In germany most good orchestras are publicly funded, but can barely survive with less and less money. But I think this is something worth preserving,.
Forgive my lack of explanation. The missing point here is, that I think that most game music played by an orchestra uses really well known composing patterns.
The games that do something new, or at least good, with an orchestra are really rare (as in, I've never heard it)
There are two reasons I collect video game music. Some of it is for nostalgic purposes, some of it is genuinely good.
Sorry, I didn't mean to say that all game music is junk. I really love some game music too, but almost all my favorites are electronic music and not played by an orchestra!
Most game music that uses an orchestra is just nothing compared to "real" classical music. So why listen to that when you can have the real deal?
I do not like classical music, because the atmosphere and the stories just don't fit into my life. But I have great respect for the art and complexity of this music.
Game music often just combines the worst of both worlds. Endless tragic moments which you can easily compose with an orchestra and the stupidity of mass compatible simple melodies.
So that's supposed to be popular? This will be over as soon as enough parents discovered that most of the music is just junk, despite of being played by an orchestra and as soon as the young discover that this isn't even the original.
Unless they are playing the classics, but hey, why is it called game music then? They could call it "advertising" music too, as most of the classics are in one or another commercial.
Vista still has all the games and applications people use, most not available on any version of OS X.
Well, I recently tried to play current games on vista. My experience: Most of the copy protected games do not work or require illegal patching to get them to work. And most of the games that do work have serious sound and graphic errors or require a lot of tricks and workarounds. And even more Confirmation dialogs.
At the end of the day though, I can do MORE stuff on Windows, and Vista will be no exception.
You cannot do MORE on windows, you just can use OTHER software. And even if you insist on using this or that application, that's way to optimistic. You would have to wait for drivers and patched versions of your favorite applications. It'll be more like the end of the year, if ever.
I once read a very interesting article about the free will (don't know the authors name) but she summarized a lot of good points on the subject. Don't mind if I do not use the correct terminology, I'm translating this from german.
First, there are quite good arguments that the free will cannot exist. Let's define some possible definitions of free will:
1. The absolute free will: It exists outside of the observable universe regardless of the human body. (think of soul).
2. The relative free will: Most of our decisions are made by the chemical interactions in the body, but they are influenced by quantum level noise which gives us a certain degree of freedom
3. The illusion of a free will: We do not have any free will, just the illusion of it
So what's the most possible interpretation?
I think I can safely rule out number 1 here (as we're all techies are we?). At some point the decision has to influence the real world, as an electrical signal in some nerves for example. If there is a connection to our observable universe, that connection itself is part of the observable universe and so forth. That type of free will would have to obey laws of nature and therefore cannot be free.
Number two is a bit more plausible, as there are pure random processes on quantum level. But, as we all know, time is relative. If you travel at different speeds (or in different gravity fields) your clock is faster or slower than the clock of others. That means, a decision which you have yet to make, is already in the past for someone else. In fact, we even have to reject the concept of dividing the time into past, now and the future. Because the "past" for me is the future for someone else. Just because he is at another speed or at another height. Maybe I'm several nanoseconds ahead of you, or behind. So if there is no "NOW" all our decisions are already made and we cannot influence them. - There is no free will
Number three, the free will is an illusion, looks like the most possible interpretation to me. But what does that mean for us?
Now my point: If I have all necessary information about a person and it's environment, I can safely predict its decisions. - The will of that person is NOT free
OTOH, I will never have the possibility to know enough about me to predict MY decisions. Because if I learn more about me, I would have to include that in my prediction and so forth. My brain cannot contain itself. - So MY will IS free
That's called the third person interpretation of the free will. Because my will will always be free for me, but from a third person view it is not free
Summary: Even though I know my will is not free, I will not be able to retrieve all the necessary information to predict my own decisions and therefore have to act like my will was free.
It's internal book keeping money. Funny money. No real cash changes hands like it does with between other advertisers and Google.
It could be real money though...
They open s safe on building a, put some dollars into a black leather case and two agent smith like personel walk to building b and transfer the money to the safe there.
Slashdot Mirror
I sure can understand yahoo writing such a story: Only compare your dick with smaller ones.
Jeez, you're so wrong.
Real slashdotters only read the frist post!
If the new scale is more precise than the old one, nothing has to be recalibrated. That's why they are trying to build a near perfect sphere of a near perfect crystal, so they can count the atoms very accurate and then compare the mass to the original kilogram standard in paris.
If they can do that with a precision higher (or at least as high) as the current kilogram calibration method, all old measurements remain perfectly valid, though the new measurements can be more precise.
Nowadays they take the kilogram out of the vault every 5 years (or something) and then compare it to national kilogram standards. These then again get compared to other kilograms, which then will be used to calibrate all the measurement devices.
The problem is, that a whole lot of units depend on the kilogram, so they also depend one the precision of the kilogram standard. But that kilogram standard is not precise, maybe it collects some dust, or loses some atoms over time, don't even think of touching it with your bare hands!
A kilogram standard based on natures constants that can be reproduced everywhere with different methods will be a great improvement! But to be widely accepted it has to be at least as precise as the current method and it has to be confirmed by at least two different measurement approaches. The atom counting approach is just one of a few competing efforts, but the most accurate so far.
Currently the kilogram is defined by the "lump in paris". As some the previous posters already pointed out this is a Bad Thing (tm).
Better would be to say the kilogram is the mass of n atoms of y. Problem is: how many atoms has one kg of y?
Actually you have to count them, and one good way to count it is to use a crystal with a well understood structure.
You simply grow a near perfect crystal, measure the size and you can calculate the number of atoms. That's what they build these silicon (=crystal) spheres for.
Now they just have to get the precision at least as good as the current definition (which means they have to be 10 times as precise), so noone will not notice the switch of the two definitions, and we don't need that "lump" in paris anymore.
Switching to osx just to do the apple lock in is not wise either. I was referring to software that can run on more than one os.
Actually, client management should be a reason to switch to osx.
And if your company was wise enough to not do the vendor lockin to microsoft (just because everybody else does), most mission critical apps should already work fine on *nix and (and therefore on osx). M$ Office for instance is working fine on osx
So what might not be feasible for YOUR company, might perfectly be a really good idea for others.
Just give the product to me, I'll distribute it in europe :)
I also switched off UAC, after having to confirm 5 times for just one file copy operation.
I tried to copy a program from my old windows installation to the new vista program files folder. So I opened one explorer with a connection to the old xp (\\ip\share) and dragged a folder to the program files folder on vista.
It was something like: (I'm writing this down from my memory, so it might not be 100% exact)
1. Confirmation "You are copying an executable file from an untrusted location, do you want to continue?" - continue of course, it's my old pc
2. Confirmation "You are copying into a secured system folder, do you want to continue?" - yeah, that's what I wanna do
3. Confirmation "You are not allowed to copy from an untrusted source into a secured system folder. Please copy the file to my documents for example and then move it to the destination folder" - continue not possible.
4. Confirmation "You are copying an executable file from an untrusted location, do you want to continue?" - this time it copies on my desktop
5. Confirmation "You are moving a file into a secured system folder, do you want to continue " - continue and the file is where i want it.
my comment was more satirical, but there is some truth in it. There are some problems that cannot be solved by x average developpers, whereas one skilled developper can do it in a day.
OTOH, you're right too, you should always try to divide problems in reusable parts and try to use existing libraries where possible. That does enable you to share workload to a team of developpers.
and of course, we are the better programmers, so better fire those other 8.
You're right, title should read "7 Ways people will identify you as a spammer"
It runs on water, that means Free Energy(tm)
or ... maybe not.
She'll come home early if you do this :)
You are 100% right, this is the real problem of orchestral music nowadays. The audience is simply dying away and most people cannot appreciate it anymore. (I'm not really an exception to that)
And now we can discuss the real subject: Is it a good idea to play game music, just to drag young people to the orchestra?
There might be some benefits in doing this sometimes, because if there are at least some people who start getting interested in orchestral music, that would be a good thing.
But in the long run, it won't help anybody.
I'm from a family with a long tradition in music and my mother is working for an orchestra. She says: If there is no interest in that kind of music, even in the modern variations, you can't go ahead and just play what the masses want. Orchestra's are for preserving a tradition thats builds on hundreds of years of musical history. You cannot throw that away, to preserve it.
In germany most good orchestras are publicly funded, but can barely survive with less and less money. But I think this is something worth preserving, .
What the hell are you talking about?
Forgive my lack of explanation. The missing point here is, that I think that most game music played by an orchestra uses really well known composing patterns.
The games that do something new, or at least good, with an orchestra are really rare (as in, I've never heard it)
There are two reasons I collect video game music. Some of it is for nostalgic purposes, some of it is genuinely good.
Sorry, I didn't mean to say that all game music is junk. I really love some game music too, but almost all my favorites are electronic music and not played by an orchestra!
Most game music that uses an orchestra is just nothing compared to "real" classical music. So why listen to that when you can have the real deal?
I do not like classical music, because the atmosphere and the stories just don't fit into my life. But I have great respect for the art and complexity of this music.
Game music often just combines the worst of both worlds. Endless tragic moments which you can easily compose with an orchestra and the stupidity of mass compatible simple melodies.
So that's supposed to be popular? This will be over as soon as enough parents discovered that most of the music is just junk, despite of being played by an orchestra and as soon as the young discover that this isn't even the original.
Unless they are playing the classics, but hey, why is it called game music then? They could call it "advertising" music too, as most of the classics are in one or another commercial.
So once again, someone who thought he has solved the chicken and egg problem was wrong!
Vista still has all the games and applications people use, most not available on any version of OS X.
Well, I recently tried to play current games on vista. My experience: Most of the copy protected games do not work or require illegal patching to get them to work. And most of the games that do work have serious sound and graphic errors or require a lot of tricks and workarounds. And even more Confirmation dialogs.
At the end of the day though, I can do MORE stuff on Windows, and Vista will be no exception.
You cannot do MORE on windows, you just can use OTHER software. And even if you insist on using this or that application, that's way to optimistic. You would have to wait for drivers and patched versions of your favorite applications. It'll be more like the end of the year, if ever.
I once read a very interesting article about the free will (don't know the authors name) but she summarized a lot of good points on the subject. Don't mind if I do not use the correct terminology, I'm translating this from german.
First, there are quite good arguments that the free will cannot exist. Let's define some possible definitions of free will:
1. The absolute free will: It exists outside of the observable universe regardless of the human body. (think of soul).
2. The relative free will: Most of our decisions are made by the chemical interactions in the body, but they are influenced by quantum level noise which gives us a certain degree of freedom
3. The illusion of a free will: We do not have any free will, just the illusion of it
So what's the most possible interpretation?
I think I can safely rule out number 1 here (as we're all techies are we?). At some point the decision has to influence the real world, as an electrical signal in some nerves for example. If there is a connection to our observable universe, that connection itself is part of the observable universe and so forth. That type of free will would have to obey laws of nature and therefore cannot be free.
Number two is a bit more plausible, as there are pure random processes on quantum level. But, as we all know, time is relative. If you travel at different speeds (or in different gravity fields) your clock is faster or slower than the clock of others. That means, a decision which you have yet to make, is already in the past for someone else. In fact, we even have to reject the concept of dividing the time into past, now and the future. Because the "past" for me is the future for someone else. Just because he is at another speed or at another height. Maybe I'm several nanoseconds ahead of you, or behind. So if there is no "NOW" all our decisions are already made and we cannot influence them. - There is no free will
Number three, the free will is an illusion, looks like the most possible interpretation to me. But what does that mean for us?
Now my point: If I have all necessary information about a person and it's environment, I can safely predict its decisions. - The will of that person is NOT free
OTOH, I will never have the possibility to know enough about me to predict MY decisions. Because if I learn more about me, I would have to include that in my prediction and so forth. My brain cannot contain itself. - So MY will IS free
That's called the third person interpretation of the free will. Because my will will always be free for me, but from a third person view it is not free
Summary: Even though I know my will is not free, I will not be able to retrieve all the necessary information to predict my own decisions and therefore have to act like my will was free.
I generally find that people with real experience in the computer vision field have their comments relegated to a 1 status.
Except of course you complain about the moderators. I guess the average slashdotter wants to "be different".
Is still the movie where the hacker had to break into a box using a simple login window while getting a blowjob.
He was used to crack 2048 Bit encryptions but jumped over his own shadow by cracking a 4096 bit key.
Is still the movie where the hacker hat to break into a box using a simple login window while getting a blowjob
He wasn't used to cracking 2048 Bit encryptions but jumped over his own shadow by cracking a 4096 bit one.
It may be weird to you or I, but Hollywood does it that way because that's how your "average joe" sees it.
It's the other way around, the "average joe" sees it that way because of the movies.
It's internal book keeping money. Funny money. No real cash changes hands like it does with between other advertisers and Google.
It could be real money though...
They open s safe on building a, put some dollars into a black leather case and two agent smith like personel walk to building b and transfer the money to the safe there.
We will never know...