how long is the internet's attention span, sociological answer please.
over 9000Trotskygrad wrote:
how long is the internet's attention span, sociological answer please.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
nanosecondspresidentsheep wrote:
over 9000Trotskygrad wrote:
how long is the internet's attention span, sociological answer please.
Sounds like "1+1=3 , for sufficiently large values of 1", or in other words, piddle around with enough small pieces and rounding errors become a significant portion of the end results.dayarath wrote:
WTF
how does this even work?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … Tarski.pngmy face: WATThe Banach–Tarski paradox is a theorem in set theoretic geometry which states that a solid ball in 3-dimensional space can be split into a finite number of non-overlapping pieces, which can then be put back together in a different way to yield two identical copies of the original ball. The reassembly process involves only moving the pieces around and rotating them, without changing their shape.
I hear one can go to "pound me in the ass prison" for such things
I can see how 1.4999999999...+1.499999999... could equal 3, how you'd apply this to spheres though seems confusingrdx-fx wrote:
Sounds like "1+1=3 , for sufficiently large values of 1", or in other words, piddle around with enough small pieces and rounding errors become a significant portion of the end results.dayarath wrote:
WTF
how does this even work?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … Tarski.pngmy face: WATThe Banach–Tarski paradox is a theorem in set theoretic geometry which states that a solid ball in 3-dimensional space can be split into a finite number of non-overlapping pieces, which can then be put back together in a different way to yield two identical copies of the original ball. The reassembly process involves only moving the pieces around and rotating them, without changing their shape.
I hear one can go to "pound me in the ass prison" for such things
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
More like 0.5 rounds to 1.presidentsheep wrote:
I can see how 1.4999999999...+1.499999999... could equal 3, how you'd apply this to spheres though seems confusingrdx-fx wrote:
Sounds like "1+1=3 , for sufficiently large values of 1", or in other words, piddle around with enough small pieces and rounding errors become a significant portion of the end results.dayarath wrote:
WTF
how does this even work?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … Tarski.png
my face: WAT
I hear one can go to "pound me in the ass prison" for such things
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Not just 1 + 1 is 3, it states that you can create an infinite amount of copies from a single ball shaped object by changing.. NOTHING... which is utterly ridiculous.rdx-fx wrote:
Sounds like "1+1=3 , for sufficiently large values of 1", or in other words, piddle around with enough small pieces and rounding errors become a significant portion of the end results.dayarath wrote:
WTF
how does this even work?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … Tarski.pngmy face: WATThe Banach–Tarski paradox is a theorem in set theoretic geometry which states that a solid ball in 3-dimensional space can be split into a finite number of non-overlapping pieces, which can then be put back together in a different way to yield two identical copies of the original ball. The reassembly process involves only moving the pieces around and rotating them, without changing their shape.
I hear one can go to "pound me in the ass prison" for such things
inane little opines
This isn't a rounding error. This is a precise theorem.rdx-fx wrote:
Sounds like "1+1=3 , for sufficiently large values of 1", or in other words, piddle around with enough small pieces and rounding errors become a significant portion of the end results.dayarath wrote:
WTF
how does this even work?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … Tarski.pngmy face: WATThe Banach–Tarski paradox is a theorem in set theoretic geometry which states that a solid ball in 3-dimensional space can be split into a finite number of non-overlapping pieces, which can then be put back together in a different way to yield two identical copies of the original ball. The reassembly process involves only moving the pieces around and rotating them, without changing their shape.
I hear one can go to "pound me in the ass prison" for such things
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
dayarath wrote:
WTF
how does this even work?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … Tarski.pngmy face: WATThe Banach–Tarski paradox is a theorem in set theoretic geometry which states that a solid ball in 3-dimensional space can be split into a finite number of non-overlapping pieces, which can then be put back together in a different way to yield two identical copies of the original ball. The reassembly process involves only moving the pieces around and rotating them, without changing their shape.
rdx-fx wrote:
Sounds like "1+1=3 , for sufficiently large values of 1", or in other words, piddle around with enough small pieces and rounding errors become a significant portion of the end results.
I hear one can go to "pound me in the ass prison" for such things
I know it's a 'precise' theorem.Spark wrote:
This isn't a rounding error. This is a precise theorem.
I still think they're masturbating with reference frames and sodomizing definitions to get to such a silly theorem.
Mathematically interesting, perhaps. Possible in reality, no.
I think they've more likely discovered a fundamental flaw in their corner of mathematics.
Last edited by rdx-fx (2010-10-31 12:56:31)
If you are in California there is a good chance of seeing this outside tonight.
http://www.livestream.com/spaceflightnow
http://spaceflightnow.com/delta/d350/status.html
http://www.livestream.com/spaceflightnow
http://spaceflightnow.com/delta/d350/status.html
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Well, it shows that the axiom of choice maybe isn't such an obvious axiom after all. You look at it and you think that is one of those "duh of course" things though.rdx-fx wrote:
dayarath wrote:
WTF
how does this even work?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … Tarski.pngmy face: WATThe Banach–Tarski paradox is a theorem in set theoretic geometry which states that a solid ball in 3-dimensional space can be split into a finite number of non-overlapping pieces, which can then be put back together in a different way to yield two identical copies of the original ball. The reassembly process involves only moving the pieces around and rotating them, without changing their shape.rdx-fx wrote:
Sounds like "1+1=3 , for sufficiently large values of 1", or in other words, piddle around with enough small pieces and rounding errors become a significant portion of the end results.
I hear one can go to "pound me in the ass prison" for such thingsI know it's a 'precise' theorem.Spark wrote:
This isn't a rounding error. This is a precise theorem.
I still think they're masturbating with reference frames and sodomizing definitions to get to such a silly theorem.
Mathematically interesting, perhaps. Possible in reality, no.
I think they've more likely discovered a fundamental flaw in their corner of mathematics.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Five close-approach images of Hartley 2 by Deep Impact
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badas … hartley-2/
These images are in order of approach (left to right, top to bottom), as EPOXI flew by.
JPL's Ustream channel is replaying the news conference.
http://www.ustream.tv/nasajpl2
These aren't high resolution photos.. but they should be releasing those soon. Apparently this is a common shape among comets.
Comet 19P/Borrelly, target of Deep Space 1
Itokawa
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badas … hartley-2/
These images are in order of approach (left to right, top to bottom), as EPOXI flew by.
JPL's Ustream channel is replaying the news conference.
http://www.ustream.tv/nasajpl2
These aren't high resolution photos.. but they should be releasing those soon. Apparently this is a common shape among comets.
Comet 19P/Borrelly, target of Deep Space 1
Itokawa
Xbone Stormsurgezz
rdx-fx wrote:
dayarath wrote:
WTF
how does this even work?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … Tarski.pngmy face: WATThe Banach–Tarski paradox is a theorem in set theoretic geometry which states that a solid ball in 3-dimensional space can be split into a finite number of non-overlapping pieces, which can then be put back together in a different way to yield two identical copies of the original ball. The reassembly process involves only moving the pieces around and rotating them, without changing their shape.rdx-fx wrote:
Sounds like "1+1=3 , for sufficiently large values of 1", or in other words, piddle around with enough small pieces and rounding errors become a significant portion of the end results.
I hear one can go to "pound me in the ass prison" for such thingsI know it's a 'precise' theorem.Spark wrote:
This isn't a rounding error. This is a precise theorem.
I still think they're masturbating with reference frames and sodomizing definitions to get to such a silly theorem.
Mathematically interesting, perhaps. Possible in reality, no.
I think they've more likely discovered a fundamental flaw in their corner of mathematics.
Reminds me of when I was first trying to wrap my head around .999~ = 1. Everything you learned in third grade (?) decimals was wrong!Spark wrote:
This isn't a rounding error. This is a precise theorem.rdx-fx wrote:
Sounds like "1+1=3 , for sufficiently large values of 1", or in other words, piddle around with enough small pieces and rounding errors become a significant portion of the end results.dayarath wrote:
WTF
how does this even work?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … Tarski.png
my face: WAT
I hear one can go to "pound me in the ass prison" for such things
Never try to argue with maths. You always lose.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Spark wrote:
Never try to argue with maths. You always lose.
I lol'd, wheres this from? I could use another xkcdAussieReaper wrote:
http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/8613/19554700.gifSpark wrote:
Never try to argue with maths. You always lose.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
Robert Zubrin has some interesting ideas about Mars exploration and monetizing the space industry.
Some key points he made.
I encourage you to watch. I'm kind of on the fence with this one, but I think the topic is interesting.
Some key points he made.
- We are much closer to sending humans to Mars then we were to sending humans to the moon in 1961. (@6:10)
- Mars is not a "one-way Mission" as suggested by Mary Roach (@7:10)
- The Radiation dose is less than the dose that Astronaughts have received on numerous missions to the ISS (@8:00)
- The Space Race did more to illustrate the way of the future (freedom) then (cold)war. More effective then our deployment to Vietnam. (@10:10)
- A mission to mars would send a message to youth. The return would be millions of scientist, inventors, doctors, and technological entrepreneurs. (@10:45)
- Both Bush and Obama are faux visionaries. They have both stated goals that begin only after they have left office. Kennedy said we start working on it today. (@11:10)
- People outperform rovers 1000 to 1. (@16:25)
- Funding via a Transorbital railroad. (@19:45)
I encourage you to watch. I'm kind of on the fence with this one, but I think the topic is interesting.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
It looks like fun, and might be worthwhile as a global effort.
In the meantime on earth we need to put resources into fusion power and stopping the population expanding.
In the meantime on earth we need to put resources into fusion power and stopping the population expanding.
Fuck Israel
i expressed similar sentiments in the 'Last Shuttle Flight' thread over in EE.
time to put down the material-greed race, shift-down a few gears on this global capitalism thing, and focus on a real endeavour
time to put down the material-greed race, shift-down a few gears on this global capitalism thing, and focus on a real endeavour
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
the numbers of g@lts out there are so huge there's no hope of ever doing anything like that, man. first we had to advance our civilization to a point when we'd find a way of making our resources infinite to defeat the whole idiotic idea of becoming "successful" by assembling piles of stuff and sitting on top - unfortunately, it didn't happen before the whole idea of capitalism turned on itself, and all other ideologies practically went under. today research money get spent on development of new and improved iphones and maybachs when they should really go towards developing new and replenishable souces of energy and stuff like that. these days no idea, no matter how progressive, gets invested in unless you can impress the bloody investors first - and those are simply incapable of looking at anything even semi-longterm, for obvious reasons.Uzique wrote:
i expressed similar sentiments in the 'Last Shuttle Flight' thread over in EE.
time to put down the material-greed race, shift-down a few gears on this global capitalism thing, and focus on a real endeavour
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
yeah, i very much share the same view. everyone is caught up in a ratrace that has an inevitable conclusion of failure.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
I prefer the status quo. Life is pretty good and all of my needs and wants can be achieved already.Shahter wrote:
today research money get spent on development of new and improved iphones and maybachs when they should really go towards developing new and replenishable souces of energy and stuff like that.
Moving away from the current system to shoot for sort of 'progress' that I'll never live to see doesn't interest me.
at some point people need to stop having this stupid attitude or nothing will ever get achieved. These things have to start somewhere.Macbeth wrote:
I prefer the status quo. Life is pretty good and all of my needs and wants can be achieved already.Shahter wrote:
today research money get spent on development of new and improved iphones and maybachs when they should really go towards developing new and replenishable souces of energy and stuff like that.
Moving away from the current system to shoot for sort of 'progress' that I'll never live to see doesn't interest me.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
space race was just an ego contest anywaypresidentsheep wrote:
at some point people need to stop having this stupid attitude or nothing will ever get achieved. These things have to start somewhere.Macbeth wrote:
I prefer the status quo. Life is pretty good and all of my needs and wants can be achieved already.Shahter wrote:
today research money get spent on development of new and improved iphones and maybachs when they should really go towards developing new and replenishable souces of energy and stuff like that.
Moving away from the current system to shoot for sort of 'progress' that I'll never live to see doesn't interest me.
