Or they just automate it. If the automation is effective, that sucks. If the automation is ineffective, that sucks, too.
I think it's because (snowflakes being quite small) all sides experience nearly identical conditions of temperature, humidity, whatever-else-affects-crystal-growth at nearly identical times.
Battlegrounds in World of Warcraft were kind of awesome back before they (quite correctly, I guess) put all sorts of restrictions on what kinds of things could be scripted. I used to *own* the level-19 battlegrounds with a warlock and an addon I wrote to keep track of enemy targets and optimally distribute my various curses and afflictions. I just ran around mashing the spacebar like crazy, because among the few restrictions was that every action had to be tied to a hardware event.
I also earned 10,000 gold in the auction house with another addon of mine that helped me find and relist underpriced stuff. At that time, 10K gold was an eye-wateringly large sum. It's probably pocket change now...I've been out five years.
Man, I really did feel like a wizard with arcane and hidden knowledge. It was great. I've often wished for a game where programming was the way you do magic, but only that once have I gotten it. I guess a key part of the experience was that hardly anyone else could do it, or knew how I was doing it, which is how magic is often imagined to be.
I have a brilliant design for electronics that stop functioning when exposed to extreme heat. I call them "electronics". I'm willing to license my technology, which is applicable to other resources too, like clothing, houses, and enemy combatants.
First of all, this post is aimed not at the engineer from the article, but at some of the posters to this story and others like it. What is it about physics in particular that attracts so many uneducated crackpots? It seems to be the sweet spot for cranks on the XKCD spectrum--they don't go all the way over to math, and try to promote their pet tensor analysis theory ("this is how we really should compute the induced map on the cotangent bundle!"), and even less often are we treated to their "revolutionary" theories of hydrocarbon structure or ribosomal protein synthesis.
Nope, they gravitate straight to physics. Is it that concepts are (relatively) familiar, like light, gravity, time, particles, etc? Is it Star Trek? Must drive physicists nuts.
...I should gain a couple hundred pounds?
So? Summary says they're "getting better at saying 'no'". Let me exaggerate the numbers a bit to make the point clearer: If 10 people ask me today and I say "no" to 5 of them, and then tomorrow 1000 people ask me, and I say "no" to 990 of them, then okay, I've said "yes" twice as many times today as I did yesterday. But I've most definitely gotten better at saying "no".
Oh, shit, the irony...
"Public Exclusively Library For Digital Media Proposed"
Seriously, it seems like not a day goes by without some [b]glaring[/b] editorial failure, be it spelling, grammar, or an [b]obviously[/b] botched copy/paste. I'm sure that I speak for many when I say that although I read Slashdot for the comments, the atrocious, lazy editing is still offensive.
Get your shit together.
I've heard or read a number of exchanges in which an interviewer asks a Pharm rep why their company has gotten out of the vaccine business. The reply is generally of the form "Because vaccines aren't profitable". The interviewer asks for further details. The rep explains that a vaccine cures the patient, or prevents them from even getting sick. This means that you sell them nothing, or maybe a few doses of a medicine, and then you make no more money from them. The profitable drugs/treatments are those that maintains the patient as a patient, requiring ongoing treatment for the rest of their lives.
[Citation Needed], indeed. Can you point to a real live Pharm rep who actually says this? I mean, we all know that's essentially how it works, but I might invest in torch and pitchfork stocks if someone official is actually on record...
When you are directly quoting someone's writing it is usually considered a professional courtesy not to change the spelling to suit your own preferences.
He did not say "not a single one was in favor of it", he said "not a single one was in favour of it.
Was he dictating letter-by-letter? One doesn't change spellings when quoting written material, but accepted practice when transcribing spoken material is to use the spelling appropriate to the audience, not the speaker.
I'm assuming this is a joke
Yes. Yes, it is.
Pushing a heavy ship up on the ice to crush it and thus break it may be efficient, but is hardly the only way to break ice, and probably not the most efficient all things considered.
A nuclear-powered ship should have raw power and heat in abundance. I'm thinking that super-hot steam under extreme pressure would cause any thickness of ice to crack, and cracked ice is extremely brittle and easy to crack even more, so a combination of super-hot steam and raw ramming force would crack the ice just as efficiently without the need for the ship to go on top of the ice and crush it. Would make it possible to use a more seaworthy hull shape and thus improve the conditions for the crew.
Man, those Ruskies are dumb! They spend a billion dollars building a giant icebreaking ship, and none of them made the connection that nuclear generators make heat, and heat melts ice. Hah!
PS: Love your sig.
If you're a mathematician who sees math articles in WP which are missing intuitive explanations that could feasibly be added, then by all means be bold and add them! Just, please, if it's an important one like "manifold", read the talk page first to see if there's already a consensus about the technical level. There's a lot of thought and effort put into striking the right balance that may not be apparent from just reading the articles.
Good question. Why don't you devote twenty years or so to becoming competent to judge, then spend all your time reading every crackpot's theory on trisecting angles or why pi isn't really transcendental, and let us know what you find out?