So that's where neighbor's missing supply of crack went!
Sounds a bit odd to me -- where I go to school, many of the course plans are layered, so you have to take a lot of pre-requisites... I don't know if he got them waived via AP credit or what, but even in my last two semesters (I graduate in May, hurrah) I'm still knee-deep in 400 level classes that I have to take before I can take other 400 level classes.
Also, I think he missed the college experience. College doesn't teach you as much book-wise as it does real-life-wise: living on your own, those 3 a.m. conversations about philisophy with your friends, boobies... I'm taking 18 credit hours and working only 24 hours a week and I still have trouble finding time for fun... this kid is either a robot or has no social life (I don't "party" or drink, so I'm already "unsocial" to some people).
It's not the top of the line Intel chips that win -- it's the newst chips: the Core 2 Duo covers the middle and upper range of chips ($183 up to $999). The Core 2 Duo architecture uses two cores (obviously) and shares the L2 cache (revolutionary, usually each core has a seperate L2). Combine that with Intel's advantage of advanced 65 nm tech (AMD still relies on 90 nm) and the new chips are impressive (especially for someone, like me, who had no faith in Intel).
The cheapest of these chips (the E6300) is $183. That's not super-cheap, but it's pretty inexpensive for a brand new chip architecture, and prices will only get lower. For that kind of money in an AMD, you're looking at probably a dual core 3800+ or 4200+ -- both awesome chips... but they are heavily outperformed by the Core 2 Duo.
That being said, the current AMD offering has some great chips in the low price range (just over $100 for a single-core 3800+). I'm waiting for AMD's response to the Core 2 Duo before I invest in a "next gen" chip.
I know it's not physically spinning, I was just questioning how they measured it since you measure the electric field to determine the "spin"... and they were suppossedly spinning it with an electrical field... so I was just wondering how they knew that they were actually spinning it, not just saying "when we apply an electric field, it spins"... because if they tried to measure the electric field from the electron, the electric field they were using to spin it would be picked up so they would say "see, it works". In the article it states at the bottom how the accomplished it -- "Their approach was to lock up a second electron in another quantum dot alongside the first one and to use it to read out the spin direction of the first electron."
One of the guys was at a cake store when they arrested him...maybe he was planning on buying cake (especially soy-based cake), letting it sit out longer than it's supposed to, eating it, then terrorizing the passengers with his horrible gas. There's an infinite amount of ways for the terrorists to get you if they want to get you.
I know they can measure the field easily... but after reading most of the full article, I wasn't sure how they would measure it while still controlling the rotation (since they were spinning the electron using magnetic fields). Then I finished reading the whole article (after posting of course) and got my answer: "Their approach was to lock up a second electron in another quantum dot alongside the first one and to use it to read out the spin direction of the first electron."
So they can control the spin of a single electron? That's pretty neat, definitely sounds like they're making progress on a quantum level of getting closer to the reality of a quantum computer. I'd like to know how they know the electron is spinning -- I'm not questioning their work, I just can't think of a reasonable way to measure how you were controlling the spin.
Hopefully we won't see this applied to spinner rims anytime soon (actually, we wouldn't be able to see it at all, so who cares?!).
I remember an article where a grandmother had bought her grandson GTA: San Andreas -- she was expressing outrage about the hot coffee mod... yes grandmother, you should be mad... at yourself. The game features some other content you'd probably enjoy (you could've read the back of the box or even just looked at the pictures on it, hell, just ask the store clerk): drive-bys, carjackings, burglary, arson, killing prostitutes, gang warfare, and beating people over the head with a big purple dildo!... oh, even if you didn't look at the game content, grandma, the game is still rated 18+.
Education is hard, but it's the most effective way to stop trivial lawsuits and "the corruption of children".
I applaud you as a parent -- I have seen first-hand too many parents walk into a video game stores dragging 9-10 year olds and saying "okay, pick a game", the youngster snaps up the nearest "cool" game, and the parent buys it without another word. Most video game chains have adhered to the ESRB ratings pretty strictly (I look pretty young so I always get carded). Thank you for being a responsible parent.
Also sir, I would like to take this time to ask for the opportunity to court your video-game-playing daughter.
This proves my theory all along -- video games give me super-human powers! I must only use my powers for good... now, to find criminals using the dangerous properties of ice water to molest the populus... and show them just how well I can tolerate their weapon of choice!
I'm willing to stand up for my nation and brave (simulated) space travel for the sake of mankind!...as long as the rest of the crew are pretty ladies with nice personalities.
Tornado, terrorist event, any incident like that -- the kid should STILL be under the care of an adult. The adult is responsible for contacting the parent. Those emergency kid-phones are nice (I support them), but they don't replace adult responsiblity. I could give a kid a handgun (training him how to use it properly and safely or course, just like SHOULD be done with a cell phone) and that would make him/her safer (cell phones can't protect a kid from kidnappers or pedophiles), but that doesn't mean every kid should have a handgun. I have seen an overly abundant amount of kids with cell phones (not for emergencies, but for constantly talking with their friends. Does a 10 year old need a sidekick, or would the money spent on it be better spent on furthering his/her education? I have just seen too many parents replace parenting with technology (because they're "too busy").
I did come down a little harsh on parents, but it's only because I've seen so many give up parenting duties to technology. Technology is great for helping with parenting duties, but it's no replacement for it. I also think I misrepresented my position -- I like the idea of the pre-programmed phones for kids, they're perfect for emergencies (and with the couple numbers programmed in, can even be set up to dial a friend of two) and good for peace of mind.
I think my position was mistaken -- I am against cell phones for kids, but don't disrespect the pre-programmed phones. The pre-programmed phones have a built-in emergency button that automatically calls 911. Combine that with the 4 or so numbers offered for things like "mommy I lost you in the store" (I've been there, my mom would tell me to go get milk and when I'd come back she'd be 10 aisles down) and are just the right amount of numbers so you can even have 1 or 2 friends stored on it.
I am intrigued by the recent "kid phones" with only 4 or so buttons, one for each pre-programmed number... but still -- who the hell leaves their 8 year old in a situation where they would need to call someone in an emergency but wouldn't have landline access?! I'm 21, I bought my first cell phone a year ago because I was moving to a new place and all of my roommates there had cell phones (so no one wanted to pay for a landline).
8 year olds should NEVER be put in a situation where they would need a cell phone. Leave the house, walk 100 feet to the bus stop, learn things at school, ride the bus home, and walk 100 feet to the house. There's 100 feet that the kid would have to walk to a landline... and that's only if the parent is "too busy" to meet their child at the bus stop. I'm all for children being safe, but I hardly think a cell phone is going to help -- I think some parents just feel guilty about being shitty parents and try to use cell phones as an attempt at parenting. Hey parents, cell phones don't protect your kids, they just make you feel better about sucking at life. I could go on and on about how 8 year olds don't need cell phones (personally, I don't think anyone under 16 needs a cell phone -- until they're 16, they should always be in a place with landline access or with someone else who has a cell phone and they should be informing their parents where they are [if I left one friend's house to go to another, I was expected to inform my parents]).
I think they could be more of a danger to children then any possible good they could do. For one thing, as the article touches on -- researchers are still unsure of possible damage resulting from cell phone radiation (I think they're no more harmful than the thousands of other radio waves pounding us). It's already been proven that drivers on cell phones are worse than normal (one study found they were as bad at reacting as someone who had a BAC of the legal limit) -- do we really need to throw small, hard-to-see children in the mix of "things not paying attention"? Children running in front of cars, being easier prey to kidnappers (I wouldn't notice someone walking up behind me if I was on the phone), and hell -- even just falling down (we've all seen kids fall down and scrape their knees on the sidewalk, now imagine if they weren't even paying attention to walking and couldn't use their hands as quickly to catch themselves: we're talking bloody noses instead of scraped knees). Cell phones aren't for kids.
I had been thinking about the DS for a while, but decided I should save my money (I'm a poor student, working and paying my way through college so I can't afford to spend money on fun). When I looked into the homebrew stuff and found all the other things I could use the DS for, it made me rethink buying it....now I'm just waiting for some new colors to come out (come on Nintendo, it's just plastic, you already have those colors in Japan!) and I will probably order one.
Because it's a Nintendo DS -- it has awesome games. You don't buy it so it can be your PDA, you buy it for playing games....but once you have it, "Hey, look, I can also use it as a PDA... and a web browser, and to play LucasArts adventure games and...".
I'm aware of that -- I was joking. I had already typed up beadtiality and needed a good creature to go with it. I figured penguins would be good, since they're from the south pole... but decided that might offend some Linux users... so I went with the next logical "oh cold" themed creature -- polar bears. Yes, I also know that Iceland is actually green (and Greenland is icey).
Think about it -- there were what... 60 football players, 20 basketball players, 50 wrestlers, etc... multiply that by the number of schools... that's a lot! They couldn't ALL become professional sports stars....so when they "grew up" they had to turn into something. Low-intelligence bullies turn into great low-intelligence bossy fundamentalists.
...but first I need to perfect a comment submission system that doesn't allow butchered sentences... like: "I'm creating a robots". Go technology, yeah!
Evolution will only be around for so long. I'm creating a robots that can swim faster than the fastest fish, climb trees faster than squirrels, outrun cheetahs, out... tortoise tortoises, and burn all the trees down with a sweet flamethrower. These robots are set to not deviate from their original blueprints (they only replicate a new one when an older one breaks) and they original blueprints are stored on N+100,000,000,000 redundancy systems that use globe-spanning clustering in case of disaster. It'd take an act of god to mess that up -- technology rules!
Slashdot Mirror
So that's where neighbor's missing supply of crack went!
Sounds a bit odd to me -- where I go to school, many of the course plans are layered, so you have to take a lot of pre-requisites... I don't know if he got them waived via AP credit or what, but even in my last two semesters (I graduate in May, hurrah) I'm still knee-deep in 400 level classes that I have to take before I can take other 400 level classes.
Also, I think he missed the college experience. College doesn't teach you as much book-wise as it does real-life-wise: living on your own, those 3 a.m. conversations about philisophy with your friends, boobies... I'm taking 18 credit hours and working only 24 hours a week and I still have trouble finding time for fun... this kid is either a robot or has no social life (I don't "party" or drink, so I'm already "unsocial" to some people).
What happened to the good old days... when crimes against the entire country were dealt with as "treason" and the bastards were hanged?
It's not the top of the line Intel chips that win -- it's the newst chips: the Core 2 Duo covers the middle and upper range of chips ($183 up to $999). The Core 2 Duo architecture uses two cores (obviously) and shares the L2 cache (revolutionary, usually each core has a seperate L2). Combine that with Intel's advantage of advanced 65 nm tech (AMD still relies on 90 nm) and the new chips are impressive (especially for someone, like me, who had no faith in Intel).
The cheapest of these chips (the E6300) is $183. That's not super-cheap, but it's pretty inexpensive for a brand new chip architecture, and prices will only get lower. For that kind of money in an AMD, you're looking at probably a dual core 3800+ or 4200+ -- both awesome chips... but they are heavily outperformed by the Core 2 Duo.
That being said, the current AMD offering has some great chips in the low price range (just over $100 for a single-core 3800+). I'm waiting for AMD's response to the Core 2 Duo before I invest in a "next gen" chip.
I know it's not physically spinning, I was just questioning how they measured it since you measure the electric field to determine the "spin"... and they were suppossedly spinning it with an electrical field... so I was just wondering how they knew that they were actually spinning it, not just saying "when we apply an electric field, it spins"... because if they tried to measure the electric field from the electron, the electric field they were using to spin it would be picked up so they would say "see, it works". In the article it states at the bottom how the accomplished it -- "Their approach was to lock up a second electron in another quantum dot alongside the first one and to use it to read out the spin direction of the first electron."
It's pretty neat stuff.
One of the guys was at a cake store when they arrested him ...maybe he was planning on buying cake (especially soy-based cake), letting it sit out longer than it's supposed to, eating it, then terrorizing the passengers with his horrible gas. There's an infinite amount of ways for the terrorists to get you if they want to get you.
I know they can measure the field easily... but after reading most of the full article, I wasn't sure how they would measure it while still controlling the rotation (since they were spinning the electron using magnetic fields). Then I finished reading the whole article (after posting of course) and got my answer: "Their approach was to lock up a second electron in another quantum dot alongside the first one and to use it to read out the spin direction of the first electron."
So they can control the spin of a single electron? That's pretty neat, definitely sounds like they're making progress on a quantum level of getting closer to the reality of a quantum computer. I'd like to know how they know the electron is spinning -- I'm not questioning their work, I just can't think of a reasonable way to measure how you were controlling the spin.
Hopefully we won't see this applied to spinner rims anytime soon (actually, we wouldn't be able to see it at all, so who cares?!).
I remember an article where a grandmother had bought her grandson GTA: San Andreas -- she was expressing outrage about the hot coffee mod... yes grandmother, you should be mad... at yourself. The game features some other content you'd probably enjoy (you could've read the back of the box or even just looked at the pictures on it, hell, just ask the store clerk): drive-bys, carjackings, burglary, arson, killing prostitutes, gang warfare, and beating people over the head with a big purple dildo!... oh, even if you didn't look at the game content, grandma, the game is still rated 18+.
Education is hard, but it's the most effective way to stop trivial lawsuits and "the corruption of children".
I applaud you as a parent -- I have seen first-hand too many parents walk into a video game stores dragging 9-10 year olds and saying "okay, pick a game", the youngster snaps up the nearest "cool" game, and the parent buys it without another word. Most video game chains have adhered to the ESRB ratings pretty strictly (I look pretty young so I always get carded). Thank you for being a responsible parent.
Also sir, I would like to take this time to ask for the opportunity to court your video-game-playing daughter.
Are you doing anything Friday? Want to play some video games?
This proves my theory all along -- video games give me super-human powers! I must only use my powers for good... now, to find criminals using the dangerous properties of ice water to molest the populus... and show them just how well I can tolerate their weapon of choice!
I'm willing to stand up for my nation and brave (simulated) space travel for the sake of mankind! ...as long as the rest of the crew are pretty ladies with nice personalities.
Tornado, terrorist event, any incident like that -- the kid should STILL be under the care of an adult. The adult is responsible for contacting the parent. Those emergency kid-phones are nice (I support them), but they don't replace adult responsiblity. I could give a kid a handgun (training him how to use it properly and safely or course, just like SHOULD be done with a cell phone) and that would make him/her safer (cell phones can't protect a kid from kidnappers or pedophiles), but that doesn't mean every kid should have a handgun. I have seen an overly abundant amount of kids with cell phones (not for emergencies, but for constantly talking with their friends. Does a 10 year old need a sidekick, or would the money spent on it be better spent on furthering his/her education? I have just seen too many parents replace parenting with technology (because they're "too busy").
I did come down a little harsh on parents, but it's only because I've seen so many give up parenting duties to technology. Technology is great for helping with parenting duties, but it's no replacement for it. I also think I misrepresented my position -- I like the idea of the pre-programmed phones for kids, they're perfect for emergencies (and with the couple numbers programmed in, can even be set up to dial a friend of two) and good for peace of mind.
I think my position was mistaken -- I am against cell phones for kids, but don't disrespect the pre-programmed phones. The pre-programmed phones have a built-in emergency button that automatically calls 911. Combine that with the 4 or so numbers offered for things like "mommy I lost you in the store" (I've been there, my mom would tell me to go get milk and when I'd come back she'd be 10 aisles down) and are just the right amount of numbers so you can even have 1 or 2 friends stored on it.
I am intrigued by the recent "kid phones" with only 4 or so buttons, one for each pre-programmed number... but still -- who the hell leaves their 8 year old in a situation where they would need to call someone in an emergency but wouldn't have landline access?! I'm 21, I bought my first cell phone a year ago because I was moving to a new place and all of my roommates there had cell phones (so no one wanted to pay for a landline).
8 year olds should NEVER be put in a situation where they would need a cell phone. Leave the house, walk 100 feet to the bus stop, learn things at school, ride the bus home, and walk 100 feet to the house. There's 100 feet that the kid would have to walk to a landline... and that's only if the parent is "too busy" to meet their child at the bus stop. I'm all for children being safe, but I hardly think a cell phone is going to help -- I think some parents just feel guilty about being shitty parents and try to use cell phones as an attempt at parenting. Hey parents, cell phones don't protect your kids, they just make you feel better about sucking at life. I could go on and on about how 8 year olds don't need cell phones (personally, I don't think anyone under 16 needs a cell phone -- until they're 16, they should always be in a place with landline access or with someone else who has a cell phone and they should be informing their parents where they are [if I left one friend's house to go to another, I was expected to inform my parents]).
I think they could be more of a danger to children then any possible good they could do. For one thing, as the article touches on -- researchers are still unsure of possible damage resulting from cell phone radiation (I think they're no more harmful than the thousands of other radio waves pounding us). It's already been proven that drivers on cell phones are worse than normal (one study found they were as bad at reacting as someone who had a BAC of the legal limit) -- do we really need to throw small, hard-to-see children in the mix of "things not paying attention"? Children running in front of cars, being easier prey to kidnappers (I wouldn't notice someone walking up behind me if I was on the phone), and hell -- even just falling down (we've all seen kids fall down and scrape their knees on the sidewalk, now imagine if they weren't even paying attention to walking and couldn't use their hands as quickly to catch themselves: we're talking bloody noses instead of scraped knees). Cell phones aren't for kids.
I had been thinking about the DS for a while, but decided I should save my money (I'm a poor student, working and paying my way through college so I can't afford to spend money on fun). When I looked into the homebrew stuff and found all the other things I could use the DS for, it made me rethink buying it. ...now I'm just waiting for some new colors to come out (come on Nintendo, it's just plastic, you already have those colors in Japan!) and I will probably order one.
Because it's a Nintendo DS -- it has awesome games. You don't buy it so it can be your PDA, you buy it for playing games. ...but once you have it, "Hey, look, I can also use it as a PDA... and a web browser, and to play LucasArts adventure games and...".
I'm aware of that -- I was joking. I had already typed up beadtiality and needed a good creature to go with it. I figured penguins would be good, since they're from the south pole... but decided that might offend some Linux users... so I went with the next logical "oh cold" themed creature -- polar bears. Yes, I also know that Iceland is actually green (and Greenland is icey).
Think about it -- there were what... 60 football players, 20 basketball players, 50 wrestlers, etc... multiply that by the number of schools... that's a lot! They couldn't ALL become professional sports stars. ...so when they "grew up" they had to turn into something. Low-intelligence bullies turn into great low-intelligence bossy fundamentalists.
AOL's new slogan: "Whoopsie-doodles!"
...but first I need to perfect a comment submission system that doesn't allow butchered sentences... like: "I'm creating a robots". Go technology, yeah!
Evolution will only be around for so long. I'm creating a robots that can swim faster than the fastest fish, climb trees faster than squirrels, outrun cheetahs, out... tortoise tortoises, and burn all the trees down with a sweet flamethrower. These robots are set to not deviate from their original blueprints (they only replicate a new one when an older one breaks) and they original blueprints are stored on N+100,000,000,000 redundancy systems that use globe-spanning clustering in case of disaster. It'd take an act of god to mess that up -- technology rules!
These colors don't run! Not even from facts!
Also, they will look at their hillbilly parents and hopefully go "I've definitely evolved since my parents".