Remember that this is Canada, and not the USA. Estonia ruled that Internet was a basic human right, and so if someone is unfairly instituting a price on it without justification, then that's price gouging.
If Canada rules that Cellular service is an essential requirement do life in this day and age, then it could be price gouging.
Wrigley Field? You do realize I'm a girl right? and that any sort of sports metaphor would likely be outside of the bounds of my personal experience...
That being said, I still don't really get the joke...:(
<pedant>Actually, gases are a fluid, as are liquids. Gases are not liquids.</pedant>
DOH!:( I guess that's why you're supposed to code review everything. You're right, s/the liquid/the fluid/.
And thanks for the information that density of water changes with temperature... I guess that's why we switched to using mercury for thermometers, less variance of density.
And I know about the weird hydrogens separating and introducing a less dense mass. I think it's pretty beneficial to our world that Ice floats... if it didn't, wow... we'd have weird problems to deal with...
Although I believe you are correct in that when the metric system was created, the gram was the base unit of mass, based on the mass of water.
That's what I intended to say... that back when the metric system was created. I mean, I talked about how the meter was some simple factor of an earthen geometry... they obviously don't define it that way anymore!
And yes, now they use as the reference mass the kilogram... otherwise they wouldn't have the "true kilogram artifact" which is apparently losing weight.
When has the topic of a comment ever contained information that was meaningful or important? Or come to think of it, which article has ever done that as well?
(Yes, if I could retract comments, I would have retracted this one...)
They don't really define the kilogram, but rather the gram itself. The gram was setup to be the mass of one cubic centimeter of water at STP. The meter was original defined such that the diameter or radius of the earth at GMT would be a simple power of ten of the meter. Of course, their measurements were even less accurate than the ancient greeks, so the meter was defined poorly as to the intent of the purpose.
Later the meter was refactored to be a specific value of the speed of light, (namely, we can no longer measure the speed of light any better, but rather can only better determine the meter. As the inch is defined as 2.54cm, the idea that one could measure the speed of light in feet any better is also incorrect.)
Over time, all of the base units have been rederived from the original derivations to the modern day derivations, except the kilogram. I don't exactly know why...
The calculation space is O(log N), so it grows even less than linear. You would have to double the bit size just to double the processing time to crack it. That fits fairly neatly into your "it doesn't meet intractable standards."
Fortunately, symetric keys are still fine, Quantum Computers can calculation square roots faster, but this only halves the execution time, which is easily accounted for by double the key size. Even with a Quantum Computer cracking AES 512, or 2048 is intractable.
Oh, also, I think your sig is supposed to be "is áit led' chroí", the "led'" being short for "is áit le do chroí"... I'm not sure what "les'" would be short for... plus, the use of the possessive "do" in the first sentence would then align better with the "do" possessive of the second sentence. But who knows, you may know a dialect where "les'" is appropriate. But with S and D so close to the keyboard, I find a typo to be more likely.
Oh, and no, I didn't even know what language it was in when I first saw it. First I had to figure out that it was Irish, then I had to learn a bit about Irish before I could even understand it. *laugh* It was kind of weird not being able to find "chroi" in the dictionary, then I realized that like Welsh, Irish is a Celtic language that would have initial mutation, so I went looking for that information, and found "croí"... I was much less confused at that point. *laugh*
So anyway, if all this matter is turning into energy, why didn't it just do that initially rather than go through this labourious process of creating stars, galaxies, nebulae, etc?
Why did it go through the big bang? Why did it go through the inflation phase? Why was it doing the totally crazy physics doesn't mean a thing thing in the first infintesimal section of time?
Functionally, the universe will spend significantly more time after the universe goes into heat death than before. We're just a blip on the radar. The real answer to why is it going the labourius proccess, is that it's not a labourious process... it just looks like that to us, because we're on a different timescale than the universe.
You would think so, but in general, if the guy isn't an intellect himself, then they get very nervous and feel self-conscious around a girl who seems to be much smarter than them.
But I'm still looking, and I guess it's true what they say "Where your heart desires to be, your legs will follow." *wink*
That's exactly the case I was thinking of, and why I so suddenly changed my stance.:) I was thinking about a circle on a sphere (my typical non-euclidian geometric surface also) and I was like, but the distance around the circle would be different from what I would expect, as the radius is potentially longer than the circle itself.
With the example and clear detail that you gave, I can totally see what you're talking about, as I was already on that page. Thinking about it now, imagine a sphere of radius N. Select an arbitrary point on the surface, and construct a circle of radius 3N on the surface. It's pretty easy to see that the circumfrence would be a small fraction of the radius of the circle. Of course, once you grow a circle to radius 1/2 pi N, then there exists a second circle that scribes the same path, yet has a radius smaller than 1/2 pi N...
Actually, for any circle of radius M on the surface of a sphere of radius N there exists another circle centered around a point one radian distance away in any arbitrary direction from the center point of the first circle with a radius of (N-M)... interesting... but it makes sense as the circumfrence of a circle is likely a form of radius times pi times a trancendental function of the radial arch length of the circle. Thus, any circle on a spherical surface would have two solutions..... and they say girls can't do math:P pffff to that I say
Non-euclidian geometry typically does not vary the definition of "circle" and "line". Rather, they define the ability of a triangle to have a total internal angular value of 180 (Euclidian), less than 180, or more than 180 (non-Euclidian).
Certainly, one could define a circle as something different, however,....................
Actually, I'm going to think about this a little more first.:)
All I said was that the vocabulary of a language is massively influenced by the surroundings it is born in. I just bet Californian English has more words for shades of pink than I can imagine. Which Californian Russians probably import en masse as is, when they walk into a car pimping shop.
This is again, the same sort of tautological statement that Boas was trying to speak to when he mentioned that Eskimos have a number of words for snow. Now here's the thing though, the Inuit language (Eskimos are Inuit) is an agglutinative / polysynthetic language. This means that they construct words from root morphemes, and then tacking on a bunch of morphemes to that word.
As unlikely as it seems Eskimos have a near infinite number of words for Skyscraper...
Also, it's unlikely that Finnish has more words for snow than English. As a non-native speaker of English you likely have not come across the various different words for snow-like precipitation, from sleet to slush, to grauple.
There are two principal fallacies in this myth. The first is that Eskimo languages have more words for snow than English does, when they may have a few more or a few less, depending on which Eskimo language. As in English, these words are related to each other: for example, blizzards and flurries are two different types of snow, but they are both recognized as 'snow' in the general sense. Speakers of Eskimo languages categorize different types of snow in a similar manner to English speakers. The second fallacy comes from a misconception of what are to be considered "words". As in other polysynthetic languages, the use of derivational suffixes and noun-incorporation results in terms or language codes that may include various descriptive nuances, whether describing snow or any other concept. Because Eskimo languages are polysynthetic, they describe concepts in compound terms or 'words' of unlimited length.
Indeed. For it is a geographical constraint. The various regions of the world have wildly differing color palettes in their landscapes. Reading accounts of artists from Europe's greyish north traveling for their first time south of the Alps, be it southern France, Italy or Algeria, you will inevitably find ravings about an "explosion of light and color". The Russian language will obviously have more distinctions for blue, grey, green and purple colors than the yellows and pastel shades of Mediterranean landscapes, because those are the colors their poets need to describe their surroundings - poets being the obvious professionals in this domain: Who else would get persistently stuck groping for a good, sonorous word to describe the color of the telephone pole across the road?
Ridiculous comment... as absurd as the myth about Eskimos having a hojillion words for snow...
Raise a Russian speaker in the US, and they will still be able to better remember distinctions between blue from cyan, as this is simply a feature of the categorization of language.
Raise a kid speaking Shogunate Japanese, and he will describe the ocean as "aoi", and a field of grass as "aoi". (Modern Japanese has "stolen" the words "orange" and "green" from English, giving rise to the modern Japanese words "oranji" and "guriin".)
I think the best example is to take a person who has had no exposure to vehicular engines, say most females (except those that were taught about engines from their father) point to the various parts of the engine and ask them to remember the differences between two cars. The likelihood that they could compare two engines and distinguish a carburetor from a fuel-injection system is unlikely. (Yes, even though I'm a girl, my father *DID* teach me something about cars.)
The problem isn't that the people don't SEE what's there, they see all the parts, and they distinguish all the parts visually the same as anyone who knows car engines... the difference is that they don't know the words to remember and establish a level of abstraction beyond "this is what it looked like". They can't tell the difference between a V4, and a 4-cylinder boxter engine because they don't have the language to categorize the two as different. (Ok, this one is Gran Turismo.)
The important distinction between this and the Sapir-Worf hypothesis is not that language limits the ways of thinking, but rather restricts a persons ability to abstract from one level to the next and thus understand in greater detail the levels above and below that level of distinction.
Namely, Russian speakers can't distinguish anymore colors of blue than English speakers can, than Japanese speakers can... (as evidenced by Japanese conveniently borrowing the words "orange" and "green" when such a distinction became necessary in the modern age.) The difference is that if you ask them to recall what color an object was, the level of abstraction in storing the idea in a compressed format called language causes a collapse of categories, but not a variation of experience.
Hint: Pi is a constant, the ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumfrence is not necessarily so.
If you're using a mathematical definition from Geometry, it is. A circle is defined as the set of points all equidistant from a center point. Under such a condition, it is mathematically provable that the ratio of the circle's diameter to its circumfrence is a constant with the value Pi.
Approximations of these circles are the best that we can do in real life... but that's really why we have the acronym: "NTS" Not To Scale. You're working with the pure math, not with the error levels and confidence levels that are covered in higher orders of math in Engineering, and otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, they speak Estonian...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia
Remember that this is Canada, and not the USA. Estonia ruled that Internet was a basic human right, and so if someone is unfairly instituting a price on it without justification, then that's price gouging.
If Canada rules that Cellular service is an essential requirement do life in this day and age, then it could be price gouging.
That movie is about as coherent as Jack Thompson...
HAHAHAHAHA... Love it!
Using Google....
:(
Wrigley Field? You do realize I'm a girl right? and that any sort of sports metaphor would likely be outside of the bounds of my personal experience...
That being said, I still don't really get the joke...
I live at:
1234 5th St.
Hell, Michigan, 67890-1234
So, I figure, if you want to come to the party, you can go to hell... (God... that pun was BAAAAAAD!)
My sense of humor is in proper working order... I suggest you examine your sarcasm unit... apparently it's failing for sufficiently small values of S.
YAY! Party at my place everyone! Champange for all! :)
DOH!
And thanks for the information that density of water changes with temperature... I guess that's why we switched to using mercury for thermometers, less variance of density.
And I know about the weird hydrogens separating and introducing a less dense mass. I think it's pretty beneficial to our world that Ice floats... if it didn't, wow... we'd have weird problems to deal with...
That's what I intended to say... that back when the metric system was created. I mean, I talked about how the meter was some simple factor of an earthen geometry... they obviously don't define it that way anymore!
And yes, now they use as the reference mass the kilogram... otherwise they wouldn't have the "true kilogram artifact" which is apparently losing weight.
BAH! What a stupid idea...
When has the topic of a comment ever contained information that was meaningful or important? Or come to think of it, which article has ever done that as well?
(Yes, if I could retract comments, I would have retracted this one...)
Hm... you know, I have just such a feline that could use some of your help this weekend...
Hey, some subset of about 50% of humans enjoy very much searching for dicks, and it's accepted as completely natural.
Of course, it's only naturally that you as a slashdot reader would ignore that women actually exist.
The density of liquid water is essentially invariant relative to temperature. (Given minor fluxuations of entropic internal force.)
Gases are the liquid with varying density.
That being said, it's STP (standard temperature and pressure, or "Schiffkuhlschrank" ("refrigerator on a ship")).
They don't really define the kilogram, but rather the gram itself. The gram was setup to be the mass of one cubic centimeter of water at STP. The meter was original defined such that the diameter or radius of the earth at GMT would be a simple power of ten of the meter. Of course, their measurements were even less accurate than the ancient greeks, so the meter was defined poorly as to the intent of the purpose.
Later the meter was refactored to be a specific value of the speed of light, (namely, we can no longer measure the speed of light any better, but rather can only better determine the meter. As the inch is defined as 2.54cm, the idea that one could measure the speed of light in feet any better is also incorrect.)
Over time, all of the base units have been rederived from the original derivations to the modern day derivations, except the kilogram. I don't exactly know why...
This is called sublimation. And it's the first thing that I thought of myself as well.
The calculation space is O(log N), so it grows even less than linear. You would have to double the bit size just to double the processing time to crack it. That fits fairly neatly into your "it doesn't meet intractable standards."
Fortunately, symetric keys are still fine, Quantum Computers can calculation square roots faster, but this only halves the execution time, which is easily accounted for by double the key size. Even with a Quantum Computer cracking AES 512, or 2048 is intractable.
Oh, also, I think your sig is supposed to be "is áit led' chroí", the "led'" being short for "is áit le do chroí"... I'm not sure what "les'" would be short for... plus, the use of the possessive "do" in the first sentence would then align better with the "do" possessive of the second sentence. But who knows, you may know a dialect where "les'" is appropriate. But with S and D so close to the keyboard, I find a typo to be more likely.
Oh, and no, I didn't even know what language it was in when I first saw it. First I had to figure out that it was Irish, then I had to learn a bit about Irish before I could even understand it. *laugh* It was kind of weird not being able to find "chroi" in the dictionary, then I realized that like Welsh, Irish is a Celtic language that would have initial mutation, so I went looking for that information, and found "croí"... I was much less confused at that point. *laugh*
Why did it go through the big bang? Why did it go through the inflation phase? Why was it doing the totally crazy physics doesn't mean a thing thing in the first infintesimal section of time?
Functionally, the universe will spend significantly more time after the universe goes into heat death than before. We're just a blip on the radar. The real answer to why is it going the labourius proccess, is that it's not a labourious process... it just looks like that to us, because we're on a different timescale than the universe.
You would think so, but in general, if the guy isn't an intellect himself, then they get very nervous and feel self-conscious around a girl who seems to be much smarter than them.
But I'm still looking, and I guess it's true what they say "Where your heart desires to be, your legs will follow." *wink*
That's exactly the case I was thinking of, and why I so suddenly changed my stance. :) I was thinking about a circle on a sphere (my typical non-euclidian geometric surface also) and I was like, but the distance around the circle would be different from what I would expect, as the radius is potentially longer than the circle itself.
.... and they say girls can't do math :P pffff to that I say
With the example and clear detail that you gave, I can totally see what you're talking about, as I was already on that page. Thinking about it now, imagine a sphere of radius N. Select an arbitrary point on the surface, and construct a circle of radius 3N on the surface. It's pretty easy to see that the circumfrence would be a small fraction of the radius of the circle. Of course, once you grow a circle to radius 1/2 pi N, then there exists a second circle that scribes the same path, yet has a radius smaller than 1/2 pi N...
Actually, for any circle of radius M on the surface of a sphere of radius N there exists another circle centered around a point one radian distance away in any arbitrary direction from the center point of the first circle with a radius of (N-M)... interesting... but it makes sense as the circumfrence of a circle is likely a form of radius times pi times a trancendental function of the radial arch length of the circle. Thus, any circle on a spherical surface would have two solutions.
Non-euclidian geometry typically does not vary the definition of "circle" and "line". Rather, they define the ability of a triangle to have a total internal angular value of 180 (Euclidian), less than 180, or more than 180 (non-Euclidian).
....................
:)
Certainly, one could define a circle as something different, however,
Actually, I'm going to think about this a little more first.
This is again, the same sort of tautological statement that Boas was trying to speak to when he mentioned that Eskimos have a number of words for snow. Now here's the thing though, the Inuit language (Eskimos are Inuit) is an agglutinative / polysynthetic language. This means that they construct words from root morphemes, and then tacking on a bunch of morphemes to that word.
As unlikely as it seems Eskimos have a near infinite number of words for Skyscraper...
Also, it's unlikely that Finnish has more words for snow than English. As a non-native speaker of English you likely have not come across the various different words for snow-like precipitation, from sleet to slush, to grauple.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_words_for_sno
Choice quote:
Ridiculous comment... as absurd as the myth about Eskimos having a hojillion words for snow...
Raise a Russian speaker in the US, and they will still be able to better remember distinctions between blue from cyan, as this is simply a feature of the categorization of language.
Raise a kid speaking Shogunate Japanese, and he will describe the ocean as "aoi", and a field of grass as "aoi". (Modern Japanese has "stolen" the words "orange" and "green" from English, giving rise to the modern Japanese words "oranji" and "guriin".)
I think the best example is to take a person who has had no exposure to vehicular engines, say most females (except those that were taught about engines from their father) point to the various parts of the engine and ask them to remember the differences between two cars. The likelihood that they could compare two engines and distinguish a carburetor from a fuel-injection system is unlikely. (Yes, even though I'm a girl, my father *DID* teach me something about cars.)
The problem isn't that the people don't SEE what's there, they see all the parts, and they distinguish all the parts visually the same as anyone who knows car engines... the difference is that they don't know the words to remember and establish a level of abstraction beyond "this is what it looked like". They can't tell the difference between a V4, and a 4-cylinder boxter engine because they don't have the language to categorize the two as different. (Ok, this one is Gran Turismo.)
The important distinction between this and the Sapir-Worf hypothesis is not that language limits the ways of thinking, but rather restricts a persons ability to abstract from one level to the next and thus understand in greater detail the levels above and below that level of distinction.
Namely, Russian speakers can't distinguish anymore colors of blue than English speakers can, than Japanese speakers can... (as evidenced by Japanese conveniently borrowing the words "orange" and "green" when such a distinction became necessary in the modern age.) The difference is that if you ask them to recall what color an object was, the level of abstraction in storing the idea in a compressed format called language causes a collapse of categories, but not a variation of experience.
Hint: Pi is a constant, the ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumfrence is not necessarily so.
If you're using a mathematical definition from Geometry, it is. A circle is defined as the set of points all equidistant from a center point. Under such a condition, it is mathematically provable that the ratio of the circle's diameter to its circumfrence is a constant with the value Pi.
Approximations of these circles are the best that we can do in real life... but that's really why we have the acronym: "NTS" Not To Scale. You're working with the pure math, not with the error levels and confidence levels that are covered in higher orders of math in Engineering, and otherwise.