First of all, they're not that powerful. I'm sick of science fiction doing things like restarting the Earth's core or restarting the Sun with nukes. Both objects output far, far more energy than any nuclear device we could build. For that matter, it's not like a nuclear bomb will irradiate all life forever, people live just fine in Hiroshima right now.
Secondly, most anyone who doubts nukes should have been dropped in WWII is an idiot. America had pretty much razed every industrial city in Japan to the ground with bombs by the war's close. They were saving Hiroshima and Nagasaki almost expressly to demonstrate their new toys. Even ignoring the potential Japanese deaths in the event of a ground invasion, can anyone give a rationale for the American government to spend more American lives in some futile war? Probably the most sound argument against the decision is that it had let the cat out of the bag so to speak, and led to an arms race. But in all likelihood, that would have happened anyways, just a matter of when.
Thirdly, why do people think it's more preferential to have coal plants pump sulfur directly into the air over nuclear waste being buried under some mountain in Nevada? It's not like you're ever going to visit the site or anything. Besides that, the nuclear waste isn't unmanageable, it could be used to generate power in breeder reactors, the only problem is that the aforementioned reactors outputs weapons-grade material and is banned by treaties. I don't know if there's a solution to that clause, maybe if the nuclear party bought other people's waste or something.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Don't get me wrong
I'm not saying Israel is right or anything.
But is Hamas stupid or something? Every time they provoke a fight they get owned. And not in a "oh that was a close one, good game" kind of way. More like the first round is over with the scoreboard standing at ~1200 to 13 and Hamas is hoping for a comeback during the second kind of way.
Hamas is like that guy who won't stop throwing rocks at Israel, but every time he does so, Israel comes to his house and proceeds shoots him and his extended family with a shotgun.
Then, whilst bleeding on the ground, proclaims victory over the infidels!
Like, do they hope Israel just runs out of bullets eventually or something?
But is Hamas stupid or something? Every time they provoke a fight they get owned. And not in a "oh that was a close one, good game" kind of way. More like the first round is over with the scoreboard standing at ~1200 to 13 and Hamas is hoping for a comeback during the second kind of way.
Hamas is like that guy who won't stop throwing rocks at Israel, but every time he does so, Israel comes to his house and proceeds shoots him and his extended family with a shotgun.
Then, whilst bleeding on the ground, proclaims victory over the infidels!
Like, do they hope Israel just runs out of bullets eventually or something?
Saturday, January 17, 2009
F-22s are quite something
I just discovered that they have a phased array system (AN/APG-77). And F/A-35s are going to be using the AN/APG-81, a derivative of the same system.
Not only that, the aforementioned radars are both active phased arrays. Those planes are going to be capable of some missile slinging madness. Or at least some missile acquisition madness, they really don't have that many munitions to sling on their own.
But what's cool is that with all its avionics, an F-22 can act as a miniature AWACS bird and designate targets for friendlies.
For comparison, the F-15 doesn't have a phased array at all and none of the current Aegis ships (even the ballistic intercept capable ones) have an active phased array system.
The DDG-1000 will have an active system, but they're quite something else. And not in a good way.
Not only that, the aforementioned radars are both active phased arrays. Those planes are going to be capable of some missile slinging madness. Or at least some missile acquisition madness, they really don't have that many munitions to sling on their own.
But what's cool is that with all its avionics, an F-22 can act as a miniature AWACS bird and designate targets for friendlies.
For comparison, the F-15 doesn't have a phased array at all and none of the current Aegis ships (even the ballistic intercept capable ones) have an active phased array system.
The DDG-1000 will have an active system, but they're quite something else. And not in a good way.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Palm Pre is pretty beautiful
Bear in mind that I was completely ambivalent (and I still am) towards the the iPhone. This on the other hand, is quite the sexy. Plus everything uses like mouse gestures, I love mouse gestures.
More here.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Two guns? Who does he think he is? Master Chief?
So I've been playing Armored Core.
This game is ridiculous, but not because your mech decimates entire fleets at a time, I take that for granted. It's because I swear you need like 4 thumbs to play it properly or you need to be a newtype. Either or.
This game is ridiculous, but not because your mech decimates entire fleets at a time, I take that for granted. It's because I swear you need like 4 thumbs to play it properly or you need to be a newtype. Either or.
Friday, January 09, 2009
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Thursday, January 01, 2009
ITT: PS3 not as unaffordable as previously thought
Apparently, the PS3's cell processor is extremely well suited to performing certain operations. At least enough to warrant building a cluster as pictured. I'd tell you more, but there was too much math so I quit.
Managed and acquired by Arjen Lenstra's Laboratory for Cryptologic Algorithms (LACAL) with funding from EPFL's Domaine IT and a matching funds grant from the Fonds National Suisse de la Recherche Scientifique, in collaboration between LACAL, the Laboratoire d'ingénierie numérique (LIN) and the Centre de Recherches en Physique des Plasmas (CRPP).
Managed and acquired by Arjen Lenstra's Laboratory for Cryptologic Algorithms (LACAL) with funding from EPFL's Domaine IT and a matching funds grant from the Fonds National Suisse de la Recherche Scientifique, in collaboration between LACAL, the Laboratoire d'ingénierie numérique (LIN) and the Centre de Recherches en Physique des Plasmas (CRPP).
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Sunday, December 21, 2008
HD Tetris
Link.
I think the applet size is dependent on monitor resolution, I'm not sure. Here's what it looks like on my screen: linked for big.
I think the applet size is dependent on monitor resolution, I'm not sure. Here's what it looks like on my screen: linked for big.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Math ∩ Reality
CS.
I don't think I've ever had such an intense argument about Big O.
Specifically whether an algorithm that is performed polynomial time constitutes being efficient.
I take my opposition's argument to be as such, it is considered technically feasible to solve any problem of NP class complexity (see Cobham's Thesis), therefore it could be considered a threshold for defining efficiency. In other words, it's a necessary condition.
My position is that Big O is simply a tool for analysis. Since there's so much context involved, an algorithm can't be considered efficient just because it computes in polynomial time. That is, not sufficient and not even a necessary condition. I'm not going to strawman here, so let's assume whatever program in question isn't racking up unnecessary cycles with a do{ }while(i<99999) or something equally asinine like that.
Case 1: If an algorithm has worst case O(k^n), but the chances of the worst case are 1 in a thousand, it may still be practical to take it over something with with a fixed O(n^2) time. Plus, in real life you can often choose to avoid worst case scenarios. For instance, a set may be sorted initially with a Quicksort implementation, but additional elements are added by Insertion.
Case 2: Coefficients are omitted from Big O, that's understandable from a mathematical stand point. From optimizing the algorithm (not with respect to hardware, just to itself), you might shave off a fraction of the computational time, but if you switch processors from a 386 to a Yorkfield cluster, the time is going to be reduced by magnitudes. That is what the coefficient represents. But you can't ignore coefficients in real life. Say your hardware performs a certain operation much faster than others and you're getting bottlenecked, it might be worthwhile to organize small chunks of your input even with an exponential time function because you're going to gain back that time in the end. In similar fashion, say you're bottle necked by memory and not processing power, it might make sense to write something that takes O(k^n) computing power and O(n log n) memory as opposed to something that takes O(n^2) of both.
As a minor point, my opponent argues that in an infinite set, polynomial time will always trump exponential time and for small sets efficiency doesn't matter anyways. But see, efficiency isn't relevant for small sets because the coefficient is 10 to the power of such a large magnitude (unless you're using a Celeron LOLOL) that it dwarfs everything else. If the coefficient makes that big of an impact, then it stands to say there may still be a large set less than infinity that computes faster with a routine in exponential time than one in polynomial time, depending on how it takes advantage of the hardware.
And realistically speaking, if your set is large enough to seriously look at Big O and your best case is O(n^3), you're probably in trouble anyways. Not to say you're not just as screwed with O(k^n), but now I'm back at the shot in the head vs shot in the chest analogy (see: last post).
For the record, the debate was ended by, "you see, I don't care about real life".
1. I know both Insertion sort and Quicksort are polynomial time operations. What I'm saying is, the latter averages O(n log n) while the former averages O(n^2), yet the former remains more efficient in some cases.
2. I also know Big O usually only refers to worst case, but lets not miss the forest for the trees shall we?
3. That is not to say computational analysis is useless. That's like saying what's the point of ideal gas law if gases aren't ideal? Well, if you're looking at nitrogen at 1 atm, 20°C you can guess that it's going to be a fairly accurate model. Ramp it up 400atm though, and it might be a good idea to break out the compressibility charts. ;)
4. I just wanted to put that chem analogy there. The fact is, the majority of the time polynomial time is preferable to exponential time in every way and Big O holds. But that's not what I'm arguing against.
I don't think I've ever had such an intense argument about Big O.
Specifically whether an algorithm that is performed polynomial time constitutes being efficient.
I take my opposition's argument to be as such, it is considered technically feasible to solve any problem of NP class complexity (see Cobham's Thesis), therefore it could be considered a threshold for defining efficiency. In other words, it's a necessary condition.
My position is that Big O is simply a tool for analysis. Since there's so much context involved, an algorithm can't be considered efficient just because it computes in polynomial time. That is, not sufficient and not even a necessary condition. I'm not going to strawman here, so let's assume whatever program in question isn't racking up unnecessary cycles with a do{ }while(i<99999) or something equally asinine like that.
Case 1: If an algorithm has worst case O(k^n), but the chances of the worst case are 1 in a thousand, it may still be practical to take it over something with with a fixed O(n^2) time. Plus, in real life you can often choose to avoid worst case scenarios. For instance, a set may be sorted initially with a Quicksort implementation, but additional elements are added by Insertion.
Case 2: Coefficients are omitted from Big O, that's understandable from a mathematical stand point. From optimizing the algorithm (not with respect to hardware, just to itself), you might shave off a fraction of the computational time, but if you switch processors from a 386 to a Yorkfield cluster, the time is going to be reduced by magnitudes. That is what the coefficient represents. But you can't ignore coefficients in real life. Say your hardware performs a certain operation much faster than others and you're getting bottlenecked, it might be worthwhile to organize small chunks of your input even with an exponential time function because you're going to gain back that time in the end. In similar fashion, say you're bottle necked by memory and not processing power, it might make sense to write something that takes O(k^n) computing power and O(n log n) memory as opposed to something that takes O(n^2) of both.
As a minor point, my opponent argues that in an infinite set, polynomial time will always trump exponential time and for small sets efficiency doesn't matter anyways. But see, efficiency isn't relevant for small sets because the coefficient is 10 to the power of such a large magnitude (unless you're using a Celeron LOLOL) that it dwarfs everything else. If the coefficient makes that big of an impact, then it stands to say there may still be a large set less than infinity that computes faster with a routine in exponential time than one in polynomial time, depending on how it takes advantage of the hardware.
And realistically speaking, if your set is large enough to seriously look at Big O and your best case is O(n^3), you're probably in trouble anyways. Not to say you're not just as screwed with O(k^n), but now I'm back at the shot in the head vs shot in the chest analogy (see: last post).
For the record, the debate was ended by, "you see, I don't care about real life".
1. I know both Insertion sort and Quicksort are polynomial time operations. What I'm saying is, the latter averages O(n log n) while the former averages O(n^2), yet the former remains more efficient in some cases.
2. I also know Big O usually only refers to worst case, but lets not miss the forest for the trees shall we?
3. That is not to say computational analysis is useless. That's like saying what's the point of ideal gas law if gases aren't ideal? Well, if you're looking at nitrogen at 1 atm, 20°C you can guess that it's going to be a fairly accurate model. Ramp it up 400atm though, and it might be a good idea to break out the compressibility charts. ;)
4. I just wanted to put that chem analogy there. The fact is, the majority of the time polynomial time is preferable to exponential time in every way and Big O holds. But that's not what I'm arguing against.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
The road to all healing begins
...with just accepting that dy/dx is a fraction.
I know I've jeered my physics prof in the past for doing such a thing, but I'm seeing the benefits of his approach. For instance, now it doesn't take any special manipulations to find error, just multiply both sides by dx (or ∂x, depending)!
No more stupid math arguments with my roommate at 1 in morning! It's like I've fully declared my intention to ignore all proper conventions in favour of shortcuts and he gets the smug satisfaction that I'm not doing real math.
Instead I have stupid arguments about American automakers at 1 in the morning. Which ended with an analogy relating GM and Ford to a man getting shot in the head and a man getting shot in the chest, respectively.
Semantics.
They're both screwed.
As an addendum, my roommate is like a puritan when it comes to math. As in accepting nothing other than set theory to be "real" math. That's like saying Ruby isn't real programming because I'm not personally ferrying bits around like a deliveryman.
I know I've jeered my physics prof in the past for doing such a thing, but I'm seeing the benefits of his approach. For instance, now it doesn't take any special manipulations to find error, just multiply both sides by dx (or ∂x, depending)!
No more stupid math arguments with my roommate at 1 in morning! It's like I've fully declared my intention to ignore all proper conventions in favour of shortcuts and he gets the smug satisfaction that I'm not doing real math.
Instead I have stupid arguments about American automakers at 1 in the morning. Which ended with an analogy relating GM and Ford to a man getting shot in the head and a man getting shot in the chest, respectively.
Semantics.
They're both screwed.
As an addendum, my roommate is like a puritan when it comes to math. As in accepting nothing other than set theory to be "real" math. That's like saying Ruby isn't real programming because I'm not personally ferrying bits around like a deliveryman.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
You might have noticed the sidebar --->
It's a list of webcomics followed by a list of feeds I subscribed to. Of course it's not very up to date, my feeds get changed up, some got removed, a lot more got added.
I felt the need to link my latest subscription, mainly due to his sage financial advice. Expressed in the form of Haikus.
Buying a new car?
Smells nice, but I hope you like
Depreciation.
I felt the need to link my latest subscription, mainly due to his sage financial advice. Expressed in the form of Haikus.
Buying a new car?
Smells nice, but I hope you like
Depreciation.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
I hate poli-sci students like I hate philosophy students
In that they take a single class, come out knowing nothing and think they found the meaning of life. Mind you, I'm talking about the people who decide to take it as an elective, I certainly hope those majoring in it would be better off than this.
For fucks sake, how can you take a course like that and be transformed from libertarian to anarchist? As retarded as libertarianism is, at least they have the sense to realize the importance of property rights, I can't contemplate how anyone would think Thunderdome is good for humanity. Except maybe xxHaRDCoRExx punk rockers who were actually raised in suburban homes and had too much free time to think up bad ideas.
Fuck.
For fucks sake, how can you take a course like that and be transformed from libertarian to anarchist? As retarded as libertarianism is, at least they have the sense to realize the importance of property rights, I can't contemplate how anyone would think Thunderdome is good for humanity. Except maybe xxHaRDCoRExx punk rockers who were actually raised in suburban homes and had too much free time to think up bad ideas.
Fuck.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
On math and Key
If I were to plot my feelings of despair and sadness versus time as I watch Clannad, the plot would only span R² whereby it is sad everywhere and the level of despair resembles Dirichlet's function.
I talk like this in real life too.
I talk like this in real life too.
Friday, October 31, 2008
I don't think I'd be cut out for Linux
...because apparently I epically fail at building from source.
On the other hand, now I have Xcode on my computer, so I can make Unix apps.
Or rather theoretically I could if I knew how to.
Right now it's just taking up massive amounts of space.
On the other hand, now I have Xcode on my computer, so I can make Unix apps.
Or rather theoretically I could if I knew how to.
Right now it's just taking up massive amounts of space.
BOY WINE SURE IS PRACTICAL
BY WHICH I MEAN IT TAKES 30% OF MY PROCESSING POWER TO RUN MSPAINT.EXE
BY WHICH I MEAN IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY RUN HALF THE WINDOWS APPS I HAVE
BY WHICH I MEAN EMULATING THE ENTIRETY OF WINDOWS WITH PARALLELS TAKES UP LESS PROCESSING POWER
BY WHICH I MEAN FUCK YOU WINE
BY WHICH I MEAN IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY RUN HALF THE WINDOWS APPS I HAVE
BY WHICH I MEAN EMULATING THE ENTIRETY OF WINDOWS WITH PARALLELS TAKES UP LESS PROCESSING POWER
BY WHICH I MEAN FUCK YOU WINE
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Saturday, October 04, 2008
This really is the best way to start a conversation:
crobert [{}]:
what the fuck; if you have nonunique decimal expansion then the tree isnt bijective with the set of all reals
Alternatively, this is the reason I'm not in the Pure Math Club.
what the fuck; if you have nonunique decimal expansion then the tree isnt bijective with the set of all reals
Alternatively, this is the reason I'm not in the Pure Math Club.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)