Why would the cops say the woman attacked the man if they only got there in time to see the man attacking the woman?
Have to agree with the other guy who replied to you - when I took it, pure CS was sort of an applied math degree with a bit of engineeringish stuff like operating systems theory and digital design mixed in. From what I hear, it's now hard to find that, and most CS programs have turned into software engineering, at best.
Maybe women just don't want to slam energy drinks and sit in front of a screen in a cubicle seventy hours a week. I've always suspected they were smarter than men.
So women stopped studying computer science because they didn't have to anymore? That certainly sounds like a crime against humanity.
Kindle's have bookmarks. They're easy to use and work very well. I use them exactly as you've just described.
That's not the suspicious part. This is:
"But instead, the performance was largely similar, except when it came to the timing of events in the story."
So they measured a whole bunch of things. What would you like to bet they didn't correct for multiple comparisons?
Of course a program can do things that it is not explicitly programmed to do, at least in the sense you're implicitly using "explicitly programmed to do." Any learning algorithm, from simple regression on up, changes it's output based on the training data it's presented with.
If you want to use that phrase in the most general way possible, then your brain can't do anything it's not explicitly (by genetics) programmed to do either.
Nobody knows how to program "general intelligence." Virtually everybody has given up on the idea of doing so and has turned to the idea that you don't have to.
You'll have to wait a few years until they integrate radar and track the bullet's flight. The first one might miss, but the one behind that will hit exactly. By then they'll have dropped the pretense of a human pulling the trigger too.
I recognize your username I think I've been able to answer one of your questions before. They're interesting, and you've got a great way of asking for clarification if you don't like the answer you get. Reminds me of the nineties on Slashdot.
You're being pedantic (yes, in your other post too). NASA is a US government agency. Individual researchers in that agency are US government employees. As far as I can tell, this study was funded by internal NASA funds.
Somebody convinced someone in a responsible position within NASA, with the power to allocate funds and probably assign personnel, that this was something worth looking into. Normal people understand that when you say "NASA did this" or "IBM did this" or "Microsoft did this" that you don't mean that every individual associated with one of those entities was involved, but that someone was, and that there was some kind of institutional involvement. Funding certainly qualifies.
I imagine they'll get around to that, provided everything goes well, but they'd probably like to do some more ground testing before they invest millions putting up a satellite.
Your "major reason" is BS you made up. Have you heard of relativity?
If you're going to use P = F*v then the v has to come from the thruster, not from however you got the train up to mach 10 in the first place. Congrats though, you managed to dazzle the mods with some "math."
So you're arguing that NASA shouldn't test a potential new propulsion technique based on some shady logic founded on a description in a pop science magazine? Very rigorous of you.
Which NASA is working towards gathering. What's the problem?
Somebody convinced NASA that it was worth spending some money checking this out, so they build a small scale version and tested it. Results were positive, with some compromises in the experiment. The next step is to do a more rigorous experiment. If that's positive you invest a little more. Eventually, if everything goes well, you launch a test satellite. There's your extraordinary evidence.
Many crazy ideas are not worth testing. This one isn't nearly as crazy as the media likes to make it sound. The leading theoretical explanations don't involve any violations of conservation of momentum.
All (known) forces are between two charge carriers: electric charge for electromagnetism, mass for gravity, colour for the strong force, etc. You can use electromagnetic interactions to accelerate mass out the back of your rocket and because of that force symmetry the result is that your rocket accelerates in the opposite direction. You can drop a rock and it will accelerate towards the Earth, but the Earth also accelerates towards the rock. The symmetry means that momentum is conserved. Essentially, in order to change your momentum, you need something to push (or pull) on, thereby changing it's momentum, conserving total momentum.
For a reactionless drive you want to be able to change your momentum without pushing or pulling on anything. That idea has all sorts of problems. One of the proposed mechanisms for the EM drive is that it isn't actually reactionless at all: the asymmetric design of the drive canister causes the microwaves to push asymmetrically on the sea of virtual particles that are always popping up and annihilating. So the drive actually would have an exhaust, it would just be virtual particles that were encountered along the way instead of fuel you brought along.
I was surprised. He's usually pretty good. But this article is crap. Maybe someone hacked his blog.
The results, as he described them OR as actually reported in the paper, are weak support for the EM/Cannae drive. You can't conclude that it actually works from those results because there were some compromises in the experiment, like not running everything in a vacuum. But you also can't conclude it doesn't work.
This is a far better article.