/sci/ - Science & Math

>>1298262
/b/ is doing one of it's troll rolls right now. Also, it's summer. Only two more months left. We can make it.

For anyone interested, here's a list of emerging technologies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_emerging_technologies

Some interesting stuff in there.

>>1298040
That's because you don't know about this:

https://lasers.llnl.gov/

>>1298042
Whatever you say Mr. Metaphysics.

- Ubiquitous engineered tissue and organs made from your own genome and stem cells grown in the lab.
- Various technologies that can extend the human life span significantly but not yet indefinitely (maybe an extra 50 to 100 years on top of our current lifespans). It will however be enough to allow those to live long enough for the technologies to be perfected for indefinite life spans.
- Wide-spread use of laser inertial fusion energy reactors.

>>1297146
All of 4chan, probably some IRC channels, and other sites now obviously.

Real men read papers on arxiv.org, and other science journals.

>>1297094
It still might be possible to resend the HTTP post event using the same cookie... the fact that the Button is disabled in the UI doesn't mean that the back-end code isn't vulnerable to repeat submissions.

I'm too lazy to try it though.

Well, North Korea is rising by like 30 points per second, so it won't be long before it's first place.

>>1296724
I don't know about you, but I'm proud to be a machine.

>>1296896
If you know that much, than you know the relationship between the normal and binomial distributions. Remember, we're not tossing it the coin once, we're tossing it <span class="math">n[/spoiler] times. The resulting distribution of values is a close enough approximation for a bounded normal distribution where the mean = 2^(N-1) and variance = 2^(2 * [N - 2]).

I actually should have used the bounded normal distribution density function, though, thanks for pointing that out.

>>1296842
<span class="math">P(x) = \frac{1}{sqrt(2 * \pi * \sigma^2)} exp(-\frac{(x - \mu)^2}{2 * \sigma^2})[/spoiler]

forgot the tags

>>1296708
guassian randomness is invariant under discrete convolution, so yes

>>1296763
P(x) = (1 / sqrt(2 * \pi * \sigma^2)) exp(-(x - \mu)^2 / (2 * \sigma^2))

It's still a gaussian or normal distribution.

>>1296632
If you had a computer which could deal with actual real numbers, than yes, the cardinality of the real numbers is greater than the cardinality of the whole numbers, and therefore you are infinitely more likely to get a non-whole number.

However, computers can't deal with the real numbers, they instead use a discrete floating-point notation to approximate the real numbers.

So if you had a true random number generator that could generate 64-bit floating points values between 1 and 10, then the likelihood of getting a whole number is not infinitely overshadowed by fractions. Knowing the number of bits used for the mantissa, exponent, and sign, it would be possible to precisely determine the probability. But I'm too lazy.

Human psychology isn't as rigorous as the core physical sciences, but it is still a science.

Rather, I'd say that the people afflicted with orthorexia nervosa, such as my aunt, are retarded.

>How would one show that...

By evaluating the integral using the fundamental theorem of calculus. Can you not integrate?

>>1296499
That would be using "materialism" in a looser sense to encompass the same things as physicalism.

The OP, if assumed to be a troll, was well aware that modern materialism has evolved into physicalism but instead was trying to conjure up the old image of what materialism stood for and associate that with current science so as to discredit it.

Perhaps I'm being too defensive, but as they say, better safe than sorry.

>>1296494
>Nigger unaware that associating strict materialism with the viewpoint of modern science poisons its validity.

>>1296437
Not in the strict sense. Materialism is the belief that only matter exists. Physicalism is the viewpoint that nothing exists outside of the physical attributes that make up the universe--so it accounts for matter, energy in its different forms, space-time, fundamental forces, and other degrees of freedom.

Indeed, no one takes materialists seriously anymore.

Physicalism still holds true though.

>>1296318
I saved it from a thread in /v/ a while back. That's all I know.

>>1296278
Only if you live in Illinois.

I hold an MSc in CS, but I'm getting pretty tired of developing software. Been doing it for a while. Recently, I've been thinking about going back and getting a degree in Materials Engineering and moving into nanotechnology, tissue-engineering and biomaterials engineers. It seems like a very exciting field right now and should remain so for the next couple of decades. Software development is dead for me, I've lost my passion.

>implying that genomics isn't being advanced by scientists all over the world
>also implying that genomics was only previously being advanced in the US

But at least the Chinese won't be forced into being politically correct about the outcomes of their research like western scientists are.