Why don't we nuke Rita?

Mad Dog wrote:

That's not an accurate analysis. But, yes, I did call you a clown****er.
Please note that I did NOT call you a mother****er, a cocksucker, a felcher, a
butt****er or even a wimp. But I did call you a clown****er and if I were in a
more agreeable mood at this point in time, I might even give you a conditional
apology. Alas, I'm not, so I won't.

That's OK. I'm on board with my university's diversity
initiatives, so I'm not offended by clown****ers. In fact,
I express solidarity with them against know-nothing
anti-clown****ing bigotry.

rbr - It's like work, if you keep the cubical warriors
and leave out the paycheck.

What, they don't pay you too? You think I do this for fun? You must not have
filled out the forms correctly.

Damn, these days, I'm lucky if I can keep getting paid
for actual work.

h squared wrote:
Mad Dog wrote:

But, yes, I did call you a clown****er.

to be fair, he did kind of start it first by calling you a clown, but,
as you have discovered, it's hard to stay annoyed with ben. he must have
been a terror as a small child, i'm guessing.

I haven't matured at all, either.

In article .com,
" wrote:

h squared wrote:
Mad Dog wrote:

But, yes, I did call you a clown****er.

to be fair, he did kind of start it first by calling you a clown, but,
as you have discovered, it's hard to stay annoyed with ben. he must have
been a terror as a small child, i'm guessing.

I haven't matured at all, either.

Thank the deity of your choice for that.

--
tanx,
Howard

Butter is love.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Mad Dog wrote:
Kurgan Gringioni says...

In chaotic systems, as you well know, small perturbations may yield
large changes, ie. "the Butterfly Effect".

Prove the butterfly effect, buttfly.



Dumbass -

It's proven.

In nonlinear systems, small perturbations may yield large scale
fluctuations.

That's why they use expensive wind tunnels for testing the aerodynamics
of objects as mundane as automobiles instead of modeling the airflow on
the computer.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

wrote:
h squared wrote:

Mad Dog wrote:


But, yes, I did call you a clown****er.

to be fair, he did kind of start it first by calling you a clown, but,
as you have discovered, it's hard to stay annoyed with ben. he must have
been a terror as a small child, i'm guessing.


I haven't matured at all, either.

lol, stop it! or i'll have to embarrass you in front of your rbr friends
by telling them something like you're just as adorable now, too.

heather, running away to work where they don't trust me with a computer
(i'm serious)

Kurgan Gringioni says...

It's proven.

In nonlinear systems, small perturbations may yield large scale
fluctuations.

You don't get it. Take a real system, like Katrina, and prove that a butterfly
wing flap would have trashed Cuba or some other spot. In other words, show how
you can set up a simulation yourself that proves the butterfly effect on a data
set from a real system. There's plenty of data out there from Katrina, so go
knock yourself out. Then get a family of butterflies set up in the Atlantic and
start diverting hurricaines. You'll be a frickin' hero instead of just a
loudmouth newsgroup spraybag.

Mad Dog wrote:
Kurgan Gringioni says...


It's proven.


In nonlinear systems, small perturbations may yield large scale
fluctuations.


You don't get it. Take a real system, like Katrina, and prove that a butterfly
wing flap would have trashed Cuba or some other spot. In other words, show how
you can set up a simulation yourself that proves the butterfly effect on a data
set from a real system. There's plenty of data out there from Katrina, so go
knock yourself out. Then get a family of butterflies set up in the Atlantic and
start diverting hurricaines. You'll be a frickin' hero instead of just a
loudmouth newsgroup spraybag.


You're looking for a simple, mechanistic, "train the butterflies to fly
like this" solution. It's not that simple. Small perturbations yield
large fluctuations. So any tiny little mistake screws the whole
solution. Tell you what, go rent "Jurassic Park" and pay attention to
what the Jeff Goldblum character has to say and watch what happens
because of what they failed to take into account. Yeah it's shallow
Hollywood crap but, on the plus side, you don't even have to know
algebra. I'm thinking that's a good thing.

Mad Dog wrote:
Kurgan Gringioni says...

It's proven.

In nonlinear systems, small perturbations may yield large scale
fluctuations.

You don't get it. Take a real system, like Katrina, and prove that a butterfly
wing flap would have trashed Cuba or some other spot. In other words, show how
you can set up a simulation yourself that proves the butterfly effect on a data
set from a real system. There's plenty of data out there from Katrina, so go
knock yourself out. Then get a family of butterflies set up in the Atlantic and
start diverting hurricaines. You'll be a frickin' hero instead of just a
loudmouth newsgroup spraybag.



Dumbass -

If computers can do that, then why don't they use computers to model
airflow over cars and automobiles rather than windtunnels?

The answer is: even today's fastest supercomputers aren't fast enough.
It's *because* of the "Butterfly Effect". Small scale perturbations can
and will lead to large scale fluctuations. In order to get the
resolution high enough for an accurate modeling of the airflow, the
simulations would take years to complete even with the fastest
supercomputers. So instead of using them, aerospace and automobile
fabricators resort to prototyping 1:1 models and putting them in the
tunnel. Expensive, but necessary.

BTW, I may be a loudmouth newsgroup spraybag, but I was also part of a
group that did a feasibility study on making a machine that was
specifically dedicated to doing those fluids simulations. The concept
was modeled on two one-off specialty computers designed to solve
specific problems: that of simulating the behavior of stellar globular
clusters and that of breaking RSA encryption. The concept was the same
for both machines: in order to do those simulations, they do massive
amounts of repetive calculations of the same task, over and over.
Rather than bottleneck them through a single processor, the specific
design would part out the calculations to a mass of cheap chips
designed to make only one type of calculation. The result is massive
parallel processing and the reason it worked on the globular cluster
and RSA encryption simulations is the vast majority of those
simulations are dedicated to doing a single calculation (80% for
globular clusters, a simple gravitational attraction calculation
between two bodies, and 99% for RSA encryption, factoring).

That massive parallel processing in those breadbox-size desktops were
as fast or faster than the fastest supercomputers, but they could only
solve that one problem.

Our group concluded that such a machine would be infeasible for the
fluids problem. It was impossible to design a simple cheap chip that
would handle the cascading Fourier transforms. The Fouriers were just
too complex compared to the factoring or the gravitational attraction
calculations made in the aformentioned one-off specialty machines. I'm
sure there have been many other groups studying that method that have
come to the same conclusion because if someone were ever able to make a
cheap, superfast fluids dedicated computer, they'd rake in the cash.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

It's proven.

In nonlinear systems, small perturbations may yield large scale
fluctuations.

dumbass,

that's a big generalization. it's not true for every nonlinear system
or every perturbation to a chaotic system.

"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote in message


BTW, I may be a loudmouth newsgroup spraybag, but I was also part of a
group that did a feasibility study on making a machine that was
specifically dedicated to doing those fluids simulations. The concept
was modeled on two one-off specialty computers designed to solve
specific problems: that of simulating the behavior of stellar globular
clusters and that of breaking RSA encryption. The concept was the same
for both machines: in order to do those simulations, they do massive
amounts of repetive calculations of the same task, over and over.
Rather than bottleneck them through a single processor, the specific
design would part out the calculations to a mass of cheap chips
designed to make only one type of calculation. The result is massive
parallel processing and the reason it worked on the globular cluster
and RSA encryption simulations is the vast majority of those
simulations are dedicated to doing a single calculation (80% for
globular clusters, a simple gravitational attraction calculation
between two bodies, and 99% for RSA encryption, factoring).

That massive parallel processing in those breadbox-size desktops were
as fast or faster than the fastest supercomputers, but they could only
solve that one problem.

Our group concluded that such a machine would be infeasible for the
fluids problem. It was impossible to design a simple cheap chip that
would handle the cascading Fourier transforms. The Fouriers were just
too complex compared to the factoring or the gravitational attraction
calculations made in the aformentioned one-off specialty machines. I'm
sure there have been many other groups studying that method that have
come to the same conclusion because if someone were ever able to make a
cheap, superfast fluids dedicated computer, they'd rake in the cash.



Smartass