Me: "Oh no you haven't"
I take it El Reg is now planning a panto for next year?
509 posts • joined 9 Aug 2007
I take it El Reg is now planning a panto for next year?
... one thing that strikes me is that it might not be clear when the counter starts. A researcher might start off with a nagging suspicion, run a few trials, getting more sure over a period of weeks or months, until eventually setting up the test that nails the problem. Does the three days run from "nailed it!", or from "I'm 90% sure" a week before, or what? What would a hostile prosecution case like to claim, and how might that differ from the researcher's view?
Yeah - it's a sort of peril-sensitive cloud layer...
And isn't NASA still still flying a Canberra or three?
Sometimes it's hard to tell: are we really supposed to believe that sheep can form solitons?
Continuous urban fabric: 0.13%
Discontinuous urban fabric: 5.33%
- which is broadly in agreement with your "by most definitions" statement.
It's worth looking at the examples, e.g. the Leeds one (or peruse table A1.1). Also, note that England is 7.85% discontinuous urban fabric (3rd most common use), over twice that of Wales & NI (both 6th), and 4 times that of Scotland (9th).
As a rough estimate: since you can hear voice OK for typical string properties and tension, and human hearing goes up to 10 kHz or so, perhaps you might (rather optimistically) hope for a bandwidth of several kHz.
... at least, that's how my brain chose to read it...
Some people might consider getting a vagrant to build your VMs an outsourcing step too far.
Surely although .local might (now) be 'reserved' *by* Bonjour/avahi/mDNS, that is not the purpose for which .local was originally defined.
It's fine. The mines both do and do not explode when you step on them. All you have to do is clear the whole field while ending up with with a non-zero probability of surviving.
Hmm, I wonder if you could make this work..?
qBitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Quantum Cash System
A decentralized online quantum cash system, called qBitcoin, is given. We design the system which has great benefits of quantization in the following sense. Firstly, quantum teleportation technology is used for coin transaction, which prevents from the owner of the coin keeping the original coin data even after sending the coin to another. This was a main problem in a classical circuit and a blockchain was introduced to solve this issue. In qBitcoin, the double-spending problem never happens and its security is guaranteed theoretically by virtue of quantum information theory. Making a block is time consuming and the system of qBitcoin is based on a quantum chain, instead of blocks. Therefore a payment can be completed much faster than Bitcoin. Moreover we employ quantum digital signature so that it naturally inherits properties of peer-to-peer (P2P) cash system as originally proposed in Bitcoin.
... but it won't really be the Future until we have Robot Robots for company.
I think the reason your post was so widely read in a negative way was because of the wording. Now you've deleted it I can't be as specific as I'd like about your wording - but I'd noticed at the time that how it read (what it implied) differed markedly from a studiously neutral interpretation of the actual words. As a result, I can offer this commentary:
First, you mentioned "phlogiston", which (however reasonable it may have seemed at its historical time) is now pretty much regarded as an exemplar of infamously wrong hypotheses, and that infamy then transferred itself (unfairly) to axions because you seemed to clearly be comparing (not contrasting) the two. Second, you mentioned experiments in a way which also emphasized the comparison, but again, the somewhat toxic reputation of the phlostigon hypothesis dominated; and so that transfer of reputation *seemed* to be your point. Lastly, axions have a status as possible objects existing within wider mathematically based theory, whereas phlostigon didn't, and this difference rather undermined your (apparent) argument.
I think maybe quite a lot of science involves a hypothesis, followed by experimental tests, which quite possibly give a negative result.
I don't think that's necessary. For an agreement covering a domain V, a non-disclosure agreement only needs to specify a (an impermeable) boundary surface $S = \partial V$. Since the boundary of a boundary is zero, the second non-disclosure agreement suffices to let nothing out. I suppose the only loophole might be if your domain has a non-trivial topology... 
 And think yourself lucky that I haven't tried any jokes about there being p-forms to fill in .
"I have on my mobile, a snapchat image of an agreement to..."
It may be that what you think you paid for, and what you /actually/ paid for differs. There's an interesting discussion from 2014 lurking here -
What, like the Silmarillion?
And there's also all the Unfinshed/LostTales bits of rescued Tolkien that could be used...
(attributed to Flanders and !Bong, naturally)
A (PhD) graduate student isn't an employee, they're a student. They should expect to defer on matters of spending to the responsible academic and/or PI of the relevant research grant (although often in the UK, as I understand it, the studentship has built-in travel money, but the student still needs the spending to be signed off - they have to ask). Even postdocs have to ask for an ok for spending from the PI.
The supervisor in this case may have been all kinds of terrible, since there are indeed terrible supervisors out there. But nothing you've said, except for your loaded descriptions, supports that. This travel story you present also sounds rather like a jaundiced view of a not unremarkable situation - supervisor with limited budget decides not to spend the last of the (their) travel money on a graduate student.
 Although they may /also/ be an employee of the institution, if e.g. they do paid teaching work, they're not (IME) an employee /because/ they are a graduate student (which is not to say they have no rights).
Hmm. While this might make the PhD project unpublishable, I don't see why the PhD couldn't perhaps have still been awarded - a PhD project is intended to demonstrate the ability/capacity to do independent research, and there is no indication from your (admittedly rather brief) story that that wasn't true.
 Even then, two people will rarely do things in exactly the same way, with the same set of side investigation results, emphasis, etc - so even if not the intended ground breaker, I'd be suprised if /nothing/ was publishable (although that would depend on what sort of research - the situation could well be game-over if it was a mathematics proof, but not if an array of experimental/simulation results).
Wiki says she got a BSc in maths then became a tax manager at Deloitte & Touche and then KPMG.
So while she has indeed got a maths degree, it's a little unclear whether you might really want to call her a scientist or an engineer. David Davis also went immediately into business after his BSc, via a Masters in Business.
I make no comment on whether (or not) you or anyone else might want them (or anyone else) running the country.
What you are missing is that for more information, you read the research paper (which is freely available online, and linked in the article).
The earth already /is/ a huge magnet.
Wave models are more computationally expensive than particle/ray tracing.
I'm not sure NZ can claim a "proper written constitution" either, based on this url:
Excerpt: "the New Zealand constitution was located in 45 acts of Parliament (including six very old English acts), 12 international treaties, nine areas of common law, eight constitutional conventions, three and a half executive orders, one prerogative instrument, one legislative instrument and half a judicial instrument."
Hmm. The "English" haven't got Scotland, the United Kingdom has.
I think you are very likely over-generalizing on the basis of your particular experience.
I'd put it the other way around - a black hole is some interesting gravitational effects - notably an event horizon - usually generated by a large super-dense mass
The (known/accepted) laws of physics work just fine past the horizon, but don't work near the central singularity because it's (errr) too singular; and we don't know how to modify or replace those laws in such extreme situations.
In fact, if you pick the right coordinates (i.e. Kruskal–Szekeres) you can see that nothing very interesting happens to the spacetime metric at the event horizon, even if the horizon looks somewhat remarkable from further away.
at its speed of atmospheric entry, I think it would just burn up regardless.
ah, zoomed in inside the hexagon, then.
... and not the north pole, because that's where the Allen keys fit.
... don't forget that Cassini will start pining for the fjords later today.
A full scale nuclear war would put enough particulates in the atmosphere to create a devastating nuclear winter, and even a small nuclear war would be bad enough . Does that count as "climate changing"?
If only there were thousands of specialized scientists, all over the world, studying the multifarious aspects of climate and how we might be affecting it. Dammit, where are they all? And why do they never get around to publishing any results, or organizing the production of some sort of summary that we might understand?
Even if their results were not conclusive enough for everyone, they could, I suppose, make some sort of prediction that we could use as a guideline. Maybe we could crowdfund some support to help out?
What's the energy content of a "standard" English breakfast? :-)
... are probably just a theoretical physicist, where setting c=1 is entirely legitimate and frequently the most convenient thing to do.
This is distinct from various preliminary "back of the envelope" scrawlings where you might also have 1=c=hbar=pi=e=2=-1 :-)
Indeed so. But when all sides are respectful and professional, it is likely to make for a terribly dull "on call" column. So it's (also) what happens when one side or the other cracks that counts - in on-call, and in real life.
File Transfer Transferring Protocol? First To The Post? Er...
"Student Web Pages:
Please note that materials published in the links below are provided by the individuals listed and are not official documents of University of Hartford. The University of Hartford is not responsible for the contents of these pages. "
... and rather well presented, also.
Strictly, voltages are (differences) measured *between* things, not on them. The relevant electrical property on the cup would have been a charge (measured in Coulombs). (Edit: hmm, I suppose you might e.g. also measure the electrical field near the cup surface, but that's volts/meter...)
Do we need a Reg unit of charge? On the basis of the comments here, we could either go with the cup thing, or something about nylon dresses.
The Day the Dinosaurs Died:
Your sentence is the wrong way around. The data is (would be) that 1% of the population have been tested and came back positive, which means that ... <insert deduction about infection rates here>
Let this be a lesson to all you humans out there - if you try to read up on any of the rules for your next activity of choice, no matter how well you perform, we will be able to claim that the rules-reading means you are not "Intelligent" but just "Learning".
ah - they are three-state pigeons - on Ground, on Wire, Elsewhere/Car.
Theatregoers passing by on the ground cause pigeons to transition between Ground and Wire
IT bloke looking at wire causes them to transition from Wire to Elsewhere/Car
IT bloke no-longer looking at wire means they return from Elsewhere/Car to sit on Wire
Presumably if left alone long enough, the pigeons will undergo a spontaneous return to their Ground state; the Wire state being only metastable.
Do you really need that many copies of the stack?
nb: languages may differ in their implementation
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018