俄海军最新型22350级护卫舰真身亮相_高清图集_新浪网
键翻阅图片
显示更多文字
您可通过新浪首页顶部 “”， 查看所有收藏过的文章。---&|&------------------------------------------------gifts on behalf of
have helped pay for 19.27 hours of reddit server time.
daily reddit gold goal77%reddit gold gives you extra features and helps keep our servers running. We believe the more reddit can be user-supported, the freer we will be to make reddit the best it can be.Buy gold for yourself to gain access to  and . A month of gold pays for  231.26 minutes of reddit server time!Give gold to thank exemplary people and encourage them to post more.Yesterday's reddit gold goal98%sorted by: newInformation security is a life skill, even if you aren't involved in stuff as important as the military or intelligence community, because the world is infinitely more connected than it was when that phrase was coined in the early 20th century.
If something like this had happened before the internet, these guys would have probably just shit-talked the judge at the local bar, and it would have never escaped the local community. The problem is that, nowadays, people treat Facebook like the local bar: they'll spout off whatever half-baked ideas thoughts have without realizing that their words can come back to haunt them. People will make a dumb joke, thinking only their friends will hear it, and the next thing they know . Or someone leaks your , and you get fired for disagreeing with corporate policy. Or in the case of these guys, the judge gets wind of the black-and-white text and reams them a new one.
People are too quick to wear their views and opinions on their sleeve on the internet, without realizing that there are potentially consequences to what you write.
And this is why Communism will never work
What makes you think the current political establishment is going to fix this? The Republicans don't want to, and the Democrats barely have their shit together.
Why the fuck would a kid bring a pager to school anyway?
373839 ()It's shocking that nobody has included Pauls Notes!
This is literally the best collection of notes for Calc I, II, and III, as well as differential equations. Good examples too. I use it as a reference all the time, when I need to solve a differential equation by hand.
Tacking onto this, it's pretty much unheard-of in undergrad for you to be in a field that's so niche that the textbook you're using is the only source of information. 99/100 times, you'll be able to find the information you seek on the internet, or in another book. This is especially useful if you don't like the way your book explains it, or just want to hear a differently-worded explanation.
It's also how you'll end up doing things in the real world, once you're done taking classes and have to learn some things on your own, so it's a very useful skill to develop!
I always thought Calc 3 was a lot easier than Calc 2. It's basically just Calc 1, except in 3D and with an introduction to vectors and such. At this stage, unless your prof is bad at teaching, you aren't going to see anything needing the crazy integration tricks you learned in Calc 2. The natural progression after taking Calc 3 is usually differential equations or linear algebra, since Calc 3 gives such good jumping-off points to them.
Physics 2 is like Physics 1, except a bit harder and with more math. Having Calc 3 either during or prior to Physics 2 is fairly useful, since you end up doing a lot of the sorts of math that you learn in Calc 3. Where Physics 1 focused on heat transfer and kinematics, Physics 2 tends to focus on electromagnetism.
012Poetry ()loading...Because the US would prefer to have a stable country in the Middle East who lets us keep bases there, even if that country destabilizes some of its weaker, already unstable neighbors. Bonus points if there are rebels whose interests are aligned with ours or if the countries being further destabilized aren't our friends.
It's a fair bit of 21st-century realpolitik, really.
Reciprocal space is a fourier transform on real space. Also, because if you take a fourier transform on something you've fourier transformed, you get back the original thing you transformed in the first place. So, if you do a fourier transform on reciprocal space you get back the original lattice.
They do this because any quantity within a large crystal can be notated as a periodic function. That is, if the cells are all infinitely repeating, and the things inside the cells (electron density, atoms, etc) are in the same position in all cells, then everything in the cell repeats periodically.
Whenever you have periodicity, oftentimes the go-to method for analyzing it is to do a fourier transform. Without going into the rigor of it, it gives you the recipe of basic periodic functions that fully describes the bigger periodic function you fed in. You can think of the peaks you see (and their sizes) in the XRD spectrum as the number of times that particular &ingredient& shows up. NMR (and any other fourier-transformed method) works the same way. So, by translating into reciprocal space, you can think of it as getting a &recipe& for the periodic elements that make up that particular crystal structure.
Sort of. In reality, what you're doing is you're taking x-rays, running them into the crystal, and then looking at the way in which the crystal diffracts the x-rays. So really, you're indirectly looking at the crystal.
If you're looking for more rigor,
that really tries to dig into XRD and the math behind it.
Edit: A word
The Collatz Conjecture is the most famous one. Famously, it was described by Erdos as a problem for which &mathematics is not ready for.& So, it goes something like this:
Pick a number
If the number is even, divide that number by 2.
If the number is odd, multiply by 3 and add 1.
Repeat Steps 2-3 with the number you just calculated, forever.
So, if we picked 5, we would see the following:
5 x 3 + 1 = 16
16 / 2 = 8
1 x 3 + 1 = 4
And so on for infinity.
So far, every single number that anyone in history has checked has always eventually gone to that 1-4-2-1-4-2-1-4-2-1-... cycle. The problem is to either find a number that doesn't go to this cycle, or to prove that every number will eventually go to this cycle.
There's even a prize of $500 offered by Erdos (which would probably be paid by his estate) for anyone who could solve this problem.
If you heavily constrain the system, you can get an analytical solution (usually Particle Innabox is the first one students see), or if you have an extremely simple system like hydrogen or a highly ionized atom (read: only one nucleus and one electron).
But we've known about those for years and they're all fairly trivial compared to what theoretical chemists are looking for. Ultimately, what we want to calculate is where the electrons are in a system, because that gives us a lot of information about the system (whether it's a small molecule, a big molecule, a chunk of metal, etc) and its properties.
You don't directly solve the schrodinger equation for any system of practical interest. Instead, one of the more popular methods is to use a set of methods lumped under &Density-Functional Theory,& which is more or less trying to solve for a representation of the electron density rather than individual electrons. There's also a few other, older methods out there like Hartree-Fock where the assumption is that there is some single wavefunction that can represent all electrons in a system, but as a result the method can't account for electron-electron interactions. There's also newer methods out there called Post-Hartree-Fock where they try to take into account some electron-electron interactions (called electron correlation). I'm not as familiar with them as I am with DFT, but I know they tend to be more expensive to run, but also tend to be more accurate than DFT.
If you're interested in DFT,
a really good book to get started on it. It's intended more as an introduction for newcomers, and those who want a working knowledge of it, but it also has a bunch of book and paper recommendations in it, as well as a bunch of analogies to describe how it all works.
<div class="score dislikes" title="<div class="score unvoted" title="<div class="score likes" title=" ()loading...This is actually a really hard problem that we've been trying to tackle .
Legally going after someone for violating a TOS is a lot different than illegally and fraudulently accessing someone's bank account.
If you provide an account that either gets shut down or change bank accounts, we trace what you had previously and remove funds from the source
Quit your bullshit, that's not how bank accounts work. eBay has access to your paypal account because they're the same company and that's about it. They (and any other company) are not allowed to remove money from the bank account unless the seller specifically authorizes it. If the seller does not authorize it, and eBay pretends that authorization has been made, that is fraud and they will get their assholes reamed in court.
You don't work at eBay, and you clearly don't know how the law works.
Know when to show your hand and when to hide it is just as important of a skill in poker as it is in academia. As much as science loves to be about openness and sharing, that dogma only applies after you've published. Before you've published, science is sadly very cutthroat with a lot of scummy tactics people will employ to get somewhere first.
It's a good idea to know where you're going in your research, and to know how you're going to phrase it to colleagues who ask where you're going. Especially in computational fields, being scooped in research is a problem, so you aren't wrong to feel a bit protective over your ideas until they're published. A common strategy is to think about something relatively vague you plan to do in the long-term, and use that as the answer to &Where do you see your work heading next?& question. You're not lying to them: you plan to get there eventually. But at the same time, you're not giving away hints about where the next &low-hanging fruit& is.
If you're planning to leave soon, it might be better to just keep that idea away from your research group/PI, if you're afraid of them stealing it. I've heard of people getting burned in the past by being too trusting of their group to respect their IP after they're gone. If you don't plan to do any sort of research in that area in the near future, however, it might be better to bring it up with your PI and see if you can't negotiate authorship on a few papers that will inevitably come out on it if you divulge your plans.
In that case, yes of course. I don't see your point.
His point is that you dared to disagree with him on the internet, so he's twisting his and your words around in an attempt to not look dumb
I posted there were many studies for the first
Oh okay, well then I have a bunch of studies that say there's a small teacup in orbit around the sun
Since you're fucking inept, here you go.
You're the one pretending to be knowledgeable-enough in that document that you can draw conclusions about intelligence here, not me.
This is about your brain, not your intelligence.
No, you're changing your goalposts. Your original post said &Sadly only one party contains a populace with critical thinking skills.& Go look for the words &critical thinking& in the document you linked. You won't find it there, because they don't draw that conclusion. Show me your doctorate in neuroscience, and maybe I'll believe your interpretation over theirs.
It's okay to admit that you went to google to support your feelings on the matter, and just clicked the first linked that confirmed your own bias.
That article says nothing about intelligence, says nothing about IQ, and does not mention (or even attempt to quantify) cognitive ability.
&People who vote for my party are more intelligent& -- literally everyone
of '17 is the
of '13 in terms of both cringe, quality, and a willingness to completely ignore outside viewpoints
fuck those guys and fuck minorities but yay rich people
According to both parties, that's the slogan of the other party
helpapps & tools&3Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our  and . & 2017 reddit inc. All rights reserved.REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.佣兵, 积分 553, 距离下一级还需 197 积分
精华0帖子威望0 点积分553 点注册时间最后登录
那艘旗舰也非常像基洛夫呢
骑士, 积分 2339, 距离下一级还需 661 积分
精华0帖子威望0 点积分2339 点注册时间最后登录
下面是引用jobrick于 17:33发表的:
那艘旗舰也非常像基洛夫呢 不是像，根本就是！
Powered by
扫描二维码
下载 A9VG 客户端（iOS, Android）
