Re: What devious weapon requires a tank full of gravity?
If you think that's bad, wait til it points its Entorpy Ray at you :-)
309 posts • joined 9 Aug 2007
If you think that's bad, wait til it points its Entorpy Ray at you :-)
Nah. If he'd been bored, he'd have tried it using an abacus :-)
Read the article: they take into account estimated compliance rates.
See fig.2, with 95% confidence limits indicated.
... and just think of those offices/workspaces with some radio station playing in the background...
.... a fictional film that used Avondale spiders from New Zealand, I could add. Although Australian spiders may be more deadly, apparently they lack the "star appeal" of large, sociable spiders from the other side of the Tasman.
How about this: "Anyone who can be found using the method of Lagrange multipliers". Women who have had children are a case in point: they might be an Extremum.
Well, as I said, it's commonly observed in most western democracies. But I agree it isn't the only possible distinction - it might be the dominant split in Scottish politics turns out to be more along a pro- and anti- UK line, or whatever other distinction makes sense to the Scottish electorate.
Perhaps there'll be a Scottish Tea Party vs Scottish Not-Had-Your-Tea Party distinction :-)
Alternatively, the reaction may be instead a split in the SNP into left and right leaning parties; both "nationalist" to some nontrivial degree, but otherwise mimicing the left/right split of most western countries. Or maybe the Scottish Conservative party will part company from the UK Conservative party, call themselves the "New Scottiish Progressives" or somesuch, start wearing kilts and Saltires, and so present a Scottish version of the centre-right, whatever that might turn out to be.
It may be generally agreed that the Scots are more left leaning than the rest of the UK, but I'd be surprised if the current level of SNP electoral success is sustained over the long term over the whole of Scotland.
Isn't that /all/ we get to do in any case? There's no box for Party-X, only for named candidates (who can even switch parties at will if they choose to do so). So while many might think that they are "voting for a party", actually they are really voting for the candidate endorsed by that party during the election.
Not as early as '28,but also the Oramics Machine is worth a mention...
here's the arXiv version :-)
Since these typically generate a bit of debate here on the Reg, the interested reader might also look at this recent paper:
Orbital angular momentum modes do not increase the channel capacity in communication links
Mauritz Andersson, Eilert Berglind and Gunnar Björk
The orbital momentum of optical or radio waves can be used as a degree of freedom to transmit information. However, mainly for technical reasons, this degree of freedom has not been widely used in communication channels. The question is if this degree of freedom opens up a new, hitherto unused 'communication window'supporting 'an infinite number of channels in a given, fixed bandwidth' in free space communication as has been claimed? We answer this question in the negative by showing that on the fundamental level, the mode density, and thus room for mode multiplexing, is the same for this degree of freedom as for sets of modes lacking angular momentum. In addition we show that modes with angular momentum are unsuitable for broadcasting applications due to excessive crosstalk or a poor signal-to-noise ratio.
If it'll run Debian you can probably get other linux distros to run on it just fine.
And Haskell can (might) help you learn physics :-)
This would also be handy for hiding from Shelks; I'm pretty sure we could hang on down there until Tumithak turns up to free us from the domination of Venus.
I think you mostly get Tetrahedra from Mercury. Underground cities are not required to deal with them, you just have to wait until it rains :-)
Good point. Perhaps they mean that they'll continue to try to re-establish contact, but instead of trying to save it in the event of successful communication (as they had been), they'll instead try to manage the crash trajectory (hydrobraking, not lithobraking?)
Well, perhaps they wanted to distinguish it from other types of spin, such as that of an electron :-)
These are different things.
If you look at mathematics papers, for example, they will do things like state a theorem, then give a proof - no story or analogy required. Physics papers - theoretical ones - might well start with a premise, the basic model (e.g. Maxwell's equations) and then proceed through a derivation with rearrangements and approximations along the way as motivated by the authors and their aims. You can consider this the "story" of why the result (e.g. on ultrafast optical pulse propagation) is valid and/or useful. In contrast, an "analogy" of something as specific as a scientific paper is simplified (almost) beyond recognition and might involve talking about tennis balls instead of protons, or the like.
It may be the "storytelling" in the article referred to analogies - indeed I rather suspect it did. But here is also the possibility of having a true technical narrative which /doesn't/ compromise in the way that analogy does.
Well, the trick really is to combine them. As you point out, storytelling which isn't backed up by solid analysis is likely to be waffle (hence probably misleading), but then a solid analysis which everyone (else) finds impossible to understand is not going to help progress either.
I refer the honourable gentlebeing to the sentence in the article which reads:
"They say the need to secure embedded systems without modifying code is critical for sectors such as healthcare which cannot due to risk or regulation easily patch zombie machinery."
Presumably, fixing it in software /and then re-using the device/ isn't easy if each change requires the thing to be re-certified (in a regulatory system which probably isn't set up for it).
Quote from the article: "Differences in stegosauruses' armour plating may have had distinctly sexual origins, the University of Bristol's Evan Thomas Saitta suggests"
Note the two words "MAY", "SUGGESTS". Neither of those two words supports your contention that Saitta thinks the idea "MUST be the truth"
I think you've just invented the fossil fuel industry :-)
Still holding out for the complete set, eh? :-)
Me too ... especially since I was playing it's scrabble-clone game on it only last night. I've even got the (its) Opie environment running on my laptop, but am having trouble getting it to recognise the mouse when run directly in a framebuffer when non root (in a virtual one on X is fine). My aim is to turn my yoga into a giant Zaurus :-)
But it is if you are aimed at the Sun...
I forgot to say - the videos show exactly the "the network of force chains buried in the beads" referred to in the article - there are annoyingly tinysnapshots on the journal article's abstract page (url below), but they appear to be too tiny to see much.
There are videos, which are very nice - but without access to the journal you're probably stuck.
The group's website is http://behringer.phy.duke.edu/ ... it has some vids but not those for this article as far as I can see. There are some other articles of theirs on arXiv - see e.g.
"Or is this pretty basic schoolboy physics?"
Yes, you are missing something: mainly that your schoolboy demo didn't involve a careful experimental design and setup, comprehensive results/image taking, and proper analysis of the results. And that your "thick liquid" is under no compulsion to behave like the granular materials tested here.
Why on earth do you think a rewrite of a press release and a simple analogy aimed at the wider public constitutes the entirely of this research work? Let alone what will make up the content of the PRL?
Why not visit http://journals.aps.org/prl/ and look at a couple of the articles there that are open access, and test your schoolboy physics against those? It might give you an idea of the level of technical detail this kind of press-release science jornalism leaves out . And don't forget, since PRL has a page limit, the writeup there is often somewhat abbreviated.
Don't forget to admire each and every one of the 680 pics from the Cruise-2 phase - very exciting! :-)
wait ... there's a /helium/ bomb now as well..!?
... to me, that sounds rather like the basis for quite a popular game!
But I do hope someone hasn't thought of it first :-)
From what I recall, it didn't seem to be vindictive. Just that (IIRC) if your record wasn't on care.data, it wouldn't (couldn't) be auto-checked for matches against risk criteria, and hence you wouldn't get flagged up as being a suitable candidate for screening.
Frankly, the only .phd domain thingy I might want is in a subdomain of the institution that awarded me the damn thing; even if just as an email redirection. Then you all could work out for yourselves whether or not you thought my phd might be worth anything. But Google? What have they got to do with it?
Consequently, I expect every university to sign up for institution.phd in short order.
Fun little Vb projects? What might they be? Most importantly, does your definition of fun, whether involving Vb or not, match up with the definitions of fun applicable to (currently) non IT-literate kids? I'm pretty sure "Vb projects" wont be on their list ... but perhaps a project - in Vb or not Vb - involving flashing lights might. Or, as the article stated, projects involving sensors.
My guess is that although making things change/move on a screen can be seen as (kid) fun, making a real light really flash, or measuring the temperature of the parental cup of tea is more likely to be seen as (kid) fun. Or possibly making the bloody thing beep intermittently, or play a really annoying tune, in the middle of the night.
Are there any educationalists, child psychologists, or even perhaps -horrors- specialist teachers, around who might give us an informed opinion? dConnor and aOlowsksi are all very well as columnists, but it'd be interesting to get some less idiosyncratic input from people who actually work with children, or study child behaviour. Perhaps there might even be some supporting evidence provided to back up the reasoning?
... we have, but from a rather more negative point of view.
Can we stage a Dom=C vs Andy_O deathmatch please? :-)
Two bullets or three? :-)
Let me just strongly endorse the fourth paragraph above, namely "Similarly, if someone finds a physical model which mimics many of the facets of quantum mechanics, that doesn't mean that it can be used to predict or prove how things work in the quantum world."
hah - I once tried that out in a physics tutorial, getting the students to work through the numbers, estimate currents, power requirements, etc. Only for earth, mind, it'd obviously be much "easier" for the smaller Mars.
"First, assume a spherical Mars... " :-)
Although really I have a lot to do today & tomorrow ... I might just declare a sci-had until I get this calculation finished up...
I like this new "ganghad" coinage. Is it meant to be a sort of gang-on-a-jihad portmanteau?
If you turn down the light intensity so that the rate of photons passing through is manageable, you can take a movie of the screen where the interference pattern will be seen. Each new photon that arrives makes a dot, and only after very many dots (photons) are registered do you see the interference fringes appear with their nice intensity gradients from dark to light. Those "dots", are often regarded as evidence of the particle-like nature of light (although strictly they only demonstrate the "countable" or energy-packet nature of photons, and the localization of whatever the dtos are - whether ccd or photosensitive molecule.)
Since light is massless, it can never be localised in the way (eg) an electron can. Consequently, it is never "particle-like" in the sense most people would mean. Light is (IMO) better described as a "countable wave" ... although you are allowed to count the photons (light excitations) in really quite exotic ways - hence light can not only be in (ordinarily countable) number states, but also coherent states, squeezed states, or might be bunched or antibunched ... or be in any kind of superposition or mixture or those.
I also did a bit of hand assembled code for my zx81 ... but, for the life of me, I cannot remember what for. "Fun", I suppose :-)
... wasn't that the Game of Thrones guy?
(nope, Wordstar apparently... might be what you were thinking of though)
Or, after being famous for some time, they are very much more likely to be /reported/ after remarking on areas outside their scientific expertise; not to mention being more likely to be /asked/ for their opinion by reporters/passers-by in the first place.
while we're on the on the subject, this in an interesting read:
"Environmental consequences of nuclear war", Physics Today, December 2008 (& note the updated predictions/knowledge of enviro impact therein)
thank you kindly, good sir.