Show me a construct in COBOL that wouldn't be much easier in something modern -- even Java, if we have to.
It is designed as a business language. I would say a couple of major points are that it uses decimal arithmetic to give the correct accounting answers, database manipulation in inherent in the language, and forms layout (think paychecks, tax forms, etc) is easy. Yes, you can do all of these via libraries in other languages, but they are rarely inherent parts of the language.
While I agree that the original post is "hogwash", there have been many architectures based on word sizes that were not a power of two. A few I recall are: PDP-8 (12 bit), Univac 1100 (36 bit), and the early CDC machines (60 bit). I know the CDC machines evolved into a 64-bit architecture. The PDP-8 architecture evolved into the PDP-11 (16-bit, I believe). I'm not sure if the Unisys 2200 retains the 36-bit architecture or not. In any case, one could write a C compiler for any of those architectures.
The story was very short on details. It looks like a promising discovery, but hard to tell from the brief article. Does anyone have a reference with more details?
I have different answers:
1. Yes, it is one or the other.
2. It can't.
3. It is infinite and to understand it just think of a really, really,..., really big number.
4. No and so the second part is irrelevent.
5. Because clocks only go one direction (clockwise) and because some bright person decided to label the dimensions starting with x and ran out of letters after using z.
6. Good question - I'll get back to you on that one.
7. M
8. The correct resolution is not to throw encyclopaedia's into random black holes.
9. I believe at our university that is PHY 642.
10. Since the use of the pronoun we includes me, the answer is no.
It seems that one effect of an expanding universe is that we underestimate the effect of gravity. For example, if one viewed the orbit of the earth from 'outside' of the universe it would appear as an elliptical spiral instead of an ellipse and that elliptical spiral would appear to expand over time. [As a simplified example, if we consider the center of the Sun as a stationary point and view a trace of the center of the Earth over the course of an arbit (i.e., a year) then the ellipse would not close. This is because the point in space corresponding to the (assumed stationary) center of the Sun and that of the center of the Earth at the beginning of the orbit will have moved away from each other slightly over the course of the year.] Because we consider the orbit to be an ellipse, our measurement of the gravitional force between the Sun and the Earth, in this case, is slightly too low. This would apply to any gravitionally coupled objects like the Sun (and other bodies in the Solar System) and a spacecraft.
As a question to the more physics and cosmology oriented slashdotters: This makes sense to me in a Newtonian view of gravity - is this effect already accounted for in an Einsteinian view of space and gravity? Is this a plausible explanation for the observed effect?
Note: There was an earlier, more tongue-in-cheek, post about the expansion of the universe which includes a reply stating that this would result in an increase in the observed effect. [The vague wording is intentional.] It is true that the expansion would lead to an increase in the measured velocity of the spacecraft, but it would not effect the measured deceleration. [Although a decrease in the rate of the expansion of the universe would.]
Slashdot Mirror
Another big Wack a Mole hammer. I can never win at Wack a Mole why does the Defense Department think they will be able to?
You can be sure they are busy developing new moles, too.
Show me a construct in COBOL that wouldn't be much easier in something modern -- even Java, if we have to.
It is designed as a business language. I would say a couple of major points are that it uses decimal arithmetic to give the correct accounting answers, database manipulation in inherent in the language, and forms layout (think paychecks, tax forms, etc) is easy. Yes, you can do all of these via libraries in other languages, but they are rarely inherent parts of the language.
While I agree that the original post is "hogwash", there have been many architectures based on word sizes that were not a power of two. A few I recall are: PDP-8 (12 bit), Univac 1100 (36 bit), and the early CDC machines (60 bit). I know the CDC machines evolved into a 64-bit architecture. The PDP-8 architecture evolved into the PDP-11 (16-bit, I believe). I'm not sure if the Unisys 2200 retains the 36-bit architecture or not. In any case, one could write a C compiler for any of those architectures.
The story was very short on details. It looks like a promising discovery, but hard to tell from the brief article. Does anyone have a reference with more details?
Bellcore is now Telcordia Technologies, Inc. and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Science Applications International Corporation. They still provide operational support systems for the regional Bell operating companies (RBOCS) and other telecommunications companties.
I have different answers: ..., really big number.
1. Yes, it is one or the other.
2. It can't.
3. It is infinite and to understand it just think of a really, really,
4. No and so the second part is irrelevent.
5. Because clocks only go one direction (clockwise) and because some bright person decided to label the dimensions starting with x and ran out of letters after using z.
6. Good question - I'll get back to you on that one.
7. M
8. The correct resolution is not to throw encyclopaedia's into random black holes.
9. I believe at our university that is PHY 642.
10. Since the use of the pronoun we includes me, the answer is no.
As a question to the more physics and cosmology oriented slashdotters: This makes sense to me in a Newtonian view of gravity - is this effect already accounted for in an Einsteinian view of space and gravity? Is this a plausible explanation for the observed effect?
Note: There was an earlier, more tongue-in-cheek, post about the expansion of the universe which includes a reply stating that this would result in an increase in the observed effect. [The vague wording is intentional.] It is true that the expansion would lead to an increase in the measured velocity of the spacecraft, but it would not effect the measured deceleration. [Although a decrease in the rate of the expansion of the universe would.]