Ok, so all this nonsense about group velocity and whatnot tickles inside of me like so much uncooked rice, and I have a little question. Say you set up a couple million little blocks across the Atlantic Ocean. Block 1 is set to pop up at 12:00, Block 2 at a time just the tiniest bit afterwards, and so on, so eventually what you have is a wave of blocks popping up, and let's say this 'wave' 'moves' faster than the speed of light. Follow? Now, put the blocks inside a perfect vacuum, slope their tops toward the next block, and put a bouncy ball filled with old love letters on top of Block 1. Press Start. All things being equal, isn't the little bouncy ball gonna move faster than the speed of light? And since we get to read the old love letters at the end, we're transmitting information, right? Now, that obviously doesn't solve the problem of information moving faster than light (as I'm relatively (no pun intended) sure it has to move of its own recognizance), but it's kinda fun, and the bouncy ball IS moving faster than light. Someone clear me up here.
(Oh. No friction, by the way. Let's assume everything's soaked in WD40 or whatever.)
Your points are good, but you're assuming that this is intended as the only line of defense (or offense, or whatever) against intruders, border hoppers, communist expatriates, what have you. I think it's more designed as a sort of basic protection. When you really think about it, and apply your logic to a lot of systems, most things are like this. Your ADT security system won't protect you against a determined burglar with technical knowledge. Bulletproof vests don't promise absolute protection from every round fired at you. Having your wife carry Mace when she walks around downtown NYC at night won't keep off a big group of really pissed off gang bangers.
Likewise, this system won't really do much good against a couple people with decent weapons and a working knowledge of how to blow the crap out of a metal box. But it WILL deter most people---just the thought that there's a demonic robot machine gun with 5.5mm rounds and only a pretense of a warning system between them and you gets the job done. And that's what it's intended as---a deterrent. Not a panacea. I agree with you, it's kind of useless against anybody who actually cares. Sometimes, though, all it takes is a few bursts of robotic machine gun fire to fall too short of you to convince you that you're not as interested in what's behind the fence as you thought you were.
That said, I'm waiting for Samsung to come out with a Linux-compatible version to buy my very own Demonic Robot Machine Gun.
Wouldn't the fastest waves ever photographed be...you know...light waves? And don't we photograph those every day? Correct me if I'm wrong, but light goes 100% the speed of light.
Dead serious, I know there's a difference here between my family photo album and the pretty graph thing FTFA, could someone explain to me why photographing LIGHT doesn't count here?
My history teacher told us that there are three keys to understanding American history:
1. Great Britain.
2. People are stupid.
3. Follow the money.
Great Britain doesn't apply here, of course, but the other two are universal...this article is news, but it isn't new. We should expect people to do things entirely for profit. And we should expect people to be blatantly two-faced. Plato or Aristotle or someone like that said that "Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being ruled by those who are stupider." Or something like that. Stupid people + money = corruption, but corruption != surprise.
You do see, actually. Congratulations! Now try to get it right.
Studying correlations will either prove or disprove the causation assumed. But only if you can be sure you've eliminated every single other possible cause and there is a repeatable, recorded, analyzed, and provable method for connected the causation to the data.
If you can prove it to me, I'll smile and nod and take your findings into consideration. If you're assuming that X causes Y because X happens sometimes when Y happens, then you're a moron.
I'm glad you're finally understanding this. Maybe we can move on to why the earth is round now.
No, I have thought it through. And it's not just my own personal position, it'safact. Causation can be proven, but not by reliance on correlation. If you took thirty kids (golden sample size) randomly, and conducted a controlled experiment holding every single independent variable except video game and TV usage constant, and every time you did the experiment the kids who watched/played more TV/games had a certain amount of decrease in their performance in school, then you could reasonably publish your findings and they would likely make their way into the realm of accepted scientific facts.
What you've just done is the single most common error in any correlational study. Let's go through some remedial Statistics here.
Correlation coefficient {r} = [1/(n-1)][summation of((x-(mean of x))/(st.dev.x))((y-(mean of y))/(st.dev.y))]
Do you see "cause" or "effect" or "connect the dots" in that equation? No? Well, there's a good reason. The sole function of a correlation study is to find a relationship. Not a causal relationship. A relationship. When X goes up, Y goes up too, on average. When Z decreases, H increases, on average. X does not cause Y to increase. Z does not cause H to increase.
A few years back there was a study on cavities and reading level. Huge headlines! Kids with higher reading levels have more cavities! Connect the dots, right? Higher reading levels means more time spent reading, which means they're sitting around, eating candy, getting cavities, right? Or maybe the brain releases a chemical when you read better that breaks down your teeth, right? There's no question that having a higher reading level CAUSES the cavities, right?
Turns out that kids with higher reading levels are older than the other kids. Turns out that as you get older, you have more cavities, on average, than you did when you were younger. Turns out that the study forgot to take age into account.
There is absolutely no way to prove that more time spent on video games causes lower grades. Correlation != causation.
Considering most moderators are liberal, I'd say they either (a) can't speak German for shit, (b) totally missed the fact that you were talking about Bush, or (c) don't care about this topic anymore.
Or maybe they're mad because you didn't use the present perfect of "gibt es," which made your joke kinda grammatically unsound.
Excuse the analysis. It's been a long day. Nice joke. *pats on back*
The idea of this isn't that nobody can ever see this information again. That would be absolutely impossible---I can write down, with pencil and paper (well, pen, because all of my pencils are broken) anything that I see or hear. Duh.
The idea of a non-traceable communication system is that, if the two people conversing don't want it to be seen again, it can't be. If I'm talking to Joe Smith about how we're going to steal ten trillion dollars from a couple hundred bank accounts around the world, I want to make sure that nobody can FIND or ACCESS the conversation we just had; for obvious reasons. If we talked about it on AIM, chances are some computer-savvy prosecutor could find logs of that chat hovering around cyberspace somewhere. If we talked over email, someone could find it hanging around in temp files, or SOMEthing.
This software doesn't aim to hide conversations from the people taking part in them. So unless you're worried about Big Brother sneaking up behind you and mashing the PRNTSCRN button every five seconds or so, screenshots are NOT an issue.
That being said, I still think it's a bit narrow in its uses. We'll see, though. We'll see.
Apparently this is a relatively new area of research, even Wikipedia's stub on blastemas is very terse.
Of course, Wikipedia stubs are the definitive indicator of a field of knowledge.
Moving on, though, I guess I'll have to mention how starfish do the whole regeneration thing. You know. And geckos, and other stuff like that. In fact, your own body can do it already---sorta kinda not really---in that a tumor or a wart is just a replication sequence gone awry. Interesting to see how this turns out. Can't imagine what the FDA will do with it if and when it's successful.
Google plans to extend the product search capabilities on its main Google.com search engine in the fourth quarter, in time for the holiday shopping season.
That seems like it would be important imformation to include in the summary, but, oh well. There it is. The "Why."
iParadigms respects the intellectual property of others, and we ask our users to do the same. If you believe that your work has been copied in a way that constitutes copyright infringement, please provide iParadigms' Copyright Agent the following information:
1. An electronic or physical signature of the person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the copyright interest;
2. A description of the copyrighted work that you claim has been infringed;
3. A description of where the material that you claim is infringing is located on the Site;
4. Your address, telephone number, and email address;
5. A statement by you that you have a good faith belief that the disputed use is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law;
6. A statement by you, made under penalty of perjury, that the above information in your Notice is accurate and that you are the copyright owner or authorized to act on the copyright owner's behalf.
Elsewhere in the terms, Turnitin.com states that it has unlimited rights to everything you do or say on the site EXCEPT for your submitted papers and your personal information.
Oh, and the above is copyrighted by iParadigms, 1998-2006, etc. etc. (^_^) Of course.
Along the lines of TCE (which I haven't played, but sounds fun, if I can tear myself from FFXI) is the Army's recruiting-tool-turned-awesome "America's Army" game (which I have played). I'm too lazy to link to it, but go to the Army website and poke around, you'll find it. I played it a while ago, before the new update "Overmatch" came out, and if it was fun before, it looks like it rocks now. Most of the people playing are free from "WoW syndrome" (read: free from being a fucktard in general towards anything that moves) and a good majority are actually soldiers. The game is built around the Army's actual training simulators, so it's realistic as hell. Anyway. Check it out, you won't be disappointed.
Reconsider using tree view controls. Trees are intended to organize data and make it easy to find, yet it's difficult to make data within a tree easily discoverable. Having hierarchically arranged data doesn't mean that you must use a tree view. Very often a list view is the better, simpler choice.
They really did this because of the copyright issues concerning tree views...good old Microsoft. Always watching their ass. (^_~)
The patches (one for PowerPC, one for Intel) address distinct buffer overflow vulnerabilities found during an internal audit in response to the claim that fuzzing the drivers resulted in an exploitable failure.
But captain! If we fire the neutron torpedo with enough forward torque to disengage the Klingons, we'll have overheated the hyperspace generator's switchlocking routine!
The F-14 features an adjustable sweep wing, two engines and can reach speeds above Mach 2 using powerful afterburners. The wing could be swept all the way back for flying at high speeds and forward to increase manoeuvrability in dogfights.
So yes, my foldy wings Micro Machine is indeed a Tomcat. (^_^)b
...only a small number (perhaps ten or twenty) are believed to still be in service due to a lack of spare parts and attrition.
Yeah, not having enough attrition is a big problem in the Tomcat business.
On a more serious subject, were these the ones with the foldy wings? Man, I have a Micro Machine that I'm somewhat sure is a Tomcat and the wings amaze me every time I play with it.
Er, you know. Every time when I used to play with it. Because...I'm too old for Micro Machines now...of...course...
Slashdot Mirror
Legit article is here.
(Oh. No friction, by the way. Let's assume everything's soaked in WD40 or whatever.)
Quick! Travel backwards and reverse what you've done so you can mod kdawson down!
Possibly my year.
Helpful little hint from the end of the video:
Yeah. It was that simple.
I'm just reminded of that proof from way-back-when that 2 = 1:
All this guy has done is provide another little fun "proof" that you can use to win bar bets. "Betcha I can divide by zero..."
Likewise, this system won't really do much good against a couple people with decent weapons and a working knowledge of how to blow the crap out of a metal box. But it WILL deter most people---just the thought that there's a demonic robot machine gun with 5.5mm rounds and only a pretense of a warning system between them and you gets the job done. And that's what it's intended as---a deterrent. Not a panacea. I agree with you, it's kind of useless against anybody who actually cares. Sometimes, though, all it takes is a few bursts of robotic machine gun fire to fall too short of you to convince you that you're not as interested in what's behind the fence as you thought you were.
That said, I'm waiting for Samsung to come out with a Linux-compatible version to buy my very own Demonic Robot Machine Gun.
Dead serious, I know there's a difference here between my family photo album and the pretty graph thing FTFA, could someone explain to me why photographing LIGHT doesn't count here?
My history teacher told us that there are three keys to understanding American history:
1. Great Britain.
2. People are stupid.
3. Follow the money.
Great Britain doesn't apply here, of course, but the other two are universal...this article is news, but it isn't new. We should expect people to do things entirely for profit. And we should expect people to be blatantly two-faced. Plato or Aristotle or someone like that said that "Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being ruled by those who are stupider." Or something like that. Stupid people + money = corruption, but corruption != surprise.
Because in Soviet Russia, the government writes your documents for you!
Studying correlations will either prove or disprove the causation assumed. But only if you can be sure you've eliminated every single other possible cause and there is a repeatable, recorded, analyzed, and provable method for connected the causation to the data.
If you can prove it to me, I'll smile and nod and take your findings into consideration. If you're assuming that X causes Y because X happens sometimes when Y happens, then you're a moron.
I'm glad you're finally understanding this. Maybe we can move on to why the earth is round now.
Trust me on this one.
What you've just done is the single most common error in any correlational study. Let's go through some remedial Statistics here.
Correlation coefficient {r} = [1/(n-1)][summation of((x-(mean of x))/(st.dev.x))((y-(mean of y))/(st.dev.y))]
Do you see "cause" or "effect" or "connect the dots" in that equation? No? Well, there's a good reason. The sole function of a correlation study is to find a relationship. Not a causal relationship. A relationship. When X goes up, Y goes up too, on average. When Z decreases, H increases, on average. X does not cause Y to increase. Z does not cause H to increase.
A few years back there was a study on cavities and reading level. Huge headlines! Kids with higher reading levels have more cavities! Connect the dots, right? Higher reading levels means more time spent reading, which means they're sitting around, eating candy, getting cavities, right? Or maybe the brain releases a chemical when you read better that breaks down your teeth, right? There's no question that having a higher reading level CAUSES the cavities, right?
Turns out that kids with higher reading levels are older than the other kids. Turns out that as you get older, you have more cavities, on average, than you did when you were younger. Turns out that the study forgot to take age into account.
There is absolutely no way to prove that more time spent on video games causes lower grades. Correlation != causation.
Considering most moderators are liberal, I'd say they either (a) can't speak German for shit, (b) totally missed the fact that you were talking about Bush, or (c) don't care about this topic anymore.
Or maybe they're mad because you didn't use the present perfect of "gibt es," which made your joke kinda grammatically unsound.
Excuse the analysis. It's been a long day. Nice joke. *pats on back*
The idea of a non-traceable communication system is that, if the two people conversing don't want it to be seen again, it can't be. If I'm talking to Joe Smith about how we're going to steal ten trillion dollars from a couple hundred bank accounts around the world, I want to make sure that nobody can FIND or ACCESS the conversation we just had; for obvious reasons. If we talked about it on AIM, chances are some computer-savvy prosecutor could find logs of that chat hovering around cyberspace somewhere. If we talked over email, someone could find it hanging around in temp files, or SOMEthing.
This software doesn't aim to hide conversations from the people taking part in them. So unless you're worried about Big Brother sneaking up behind you and mashing the PRNTSCRN button every five seconds or so, screenshots are NOT an issue.
That being said, I still think it's a bit narrow in its uses. We'll see, though. We'll see.
Of course, Wikipedia stubs are the definitive indicator of a field of knowledge.
Moving on, though, I guess I'll have to mention how starfish do the whole regeneration thing. You know. And geckos, and other stuff like that. In fact, your own body can do it already---sorta kinda not really---in that a tumor or a wart is just a replication sequence gone awry. Interesting to see how this turns out. Can't imagine what the FDA will do with it if and when it's successful.
(Yes, I know it's in the summary. Hence the title of the post. Sorry for the weird wording there.)
That seems like it would be important imformation to include in the summary, but, oh well. There it is. The "Why."
Merry Christmas.
Elsewhere in the terms, Turnitin.com states that it has unlimited rights to everything you do or say on the site EXCEPT for your submitted papers and your personal information.
Oh, and the above is copyrighted by iParadigms, 1998-2006, etc. etc. (^_^) Of course.
Along the lines of TCE (which I haven't played, but sounds fun, if I can tear myself from FFXI) is the Army's recruiting-tool-turned-awesome "America's Army" game (which I have played). I'm too lazy to link to it, but go to the Army website and poke around, you'll find it. I played it a while ago, before the new update "Overmatch" came out, and if it was fun before, it looks like it rocks now. Most of the people playing are free from "WoW syndrome" (read: free from being a fucktard in general towards anything that moves) and a good majority are actually soldiers. The game is built around the Army's actual training simulators, so it's realistic as hell. Anyway. Check it out, you won't be disappointed.
Psst...you took me too seriously. (^_^)
They really did this because of the copyright issues concerning tree views...good old Microsoft. Always watching their ass. (^_~)
But captain! If we fire the neutron torpedo with enough forward torque to disengage the Klingons, we'll have overheated the hyperspace generator's switchlocking routine!
So yes, my foldy wings Micro Machine is indeed a Tomcat. (^_^)b
Yeah, not having enough attrition is a big problem in the Tomcat business.
On a more serious subject, were these the ones with the foldy wings? Man, I have a Micro Machine that I'm somewhat sure is a Tomcat and the wings amaze me every time I play with it.
Er, you know. Every time when I used to play with it. Because...I'm too old for Micro Machines now...of...course...