Australia/2005

[edit]

Retrieved from “https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Australia/2005&oldid=804653”

Home Remedy For Loosing Weight

Home remedy for loosing weight

by

Devjeet

Home remedies are nothing but something that can cure you simply with the things and natural food items available in our kitchen closet. Home remedies are a kind of first aid therapy to the body. Something that we all can try at home and get good results. We can just forget the doctor for a while and believe in the words of our old grannies who have transferred us the simple knowledge of making safe treatment for some simple ailments sitting within the premises of our home at anytime of the day and don t need to bother the doctor for simple problems like cold, cough, gastric pain.

Home remedy for loosing weight and fighting obesity

– Drinking hot water most of the time

– Taking Ajwain or souf after every heavy meal

– Taking raw ginger five minutes before meal with water.

– Taking Aloe vera empty stomach along with honey.

YouTube Preview Image

– Avoiding too much of sugar and prefer to take jaggery .

Home remedies for little wounds and pain in the joints, Earache.

– Apply turmeric in mustard oil on wounds for healing

– Best home remedy for swelling is applying til oil boiled with ajwain, garlic, onion and little hing.

– Even for joint pains same oil can be used.

– For earache the best home remedy is to boil little garlic and onion in mustard oil and add little turmeric in that. The pain is gone within few seconds.

– For blocked nose put Almond oil in the nostrils or Cow Desi Ghee in both nostrils.

Home remedy to have normal delivery and to avoid C-section

– Pregnant female should perform butterfly exercise regularly.

– She should wear comfortable clothes

– She should drink milk regularly

– In last 2 months she should start with little mixture of dry coconut ,mashed almonds and cashew nuts and dates with little ghee in milk every night. This helps in easy delivery.

– To avoid stretch marks on abdomen one should apply coconut oil or desi ghee regularly.

– Drink kesar in milk to have good complexion of the baby.

– Boil satavari roots in milk to have healthy baby.

Read about

Home Remedies

, also read about

Natural Remedies

and

Natural Products

.

Article Source:

ArticleRich.com

Steve Kubby, co-author of California Proposition 215, grows dangerously ill in US custody

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Steve Kubby who was facing extradition from Canada, returned to California, was arrested, and is now in custody in Placer County, California Jail, pending a hearing today. He is a medical cannabis patient who relies on the drug to regulate the symptoms of malignant phenochromocytoma, a cancer of the adrenal gland which can cause the level of adrenaline in his system to fluctuate out of control. If left unregulated, this can result in sudden, fatal heart attack, stroke, pneumonia, and a variety of other conditions.

Kubby was arrested on arrival at San Francisco International Airport Thursday night on behalf of the Placer County Sheriff’s Department, having exhausted his extradition appeals in Canada. He was taken to San Mateo County Jail, pending transport to Placer County Jail. While at San Mateo County Jail, he was reportedly denied access to medication and sufficient bedding. On arrival at Placer County Jail, his blood pressure was dangerously high, and so was given Marinol, a THC synthetic.

Communication with Kubby is highly restricted. According to his wife, Michele, Kubby has been placed in solitary confinement, denied access several times to sufficient bedding to keep him warm, and denied access to the cannabis which, according to several experts on his universally fatal condition, has been solely responsible for keeping him alive for decades. The Marinol he is being given partially mitigates his symptoms, but does not completely control them. He now grows dangerously ill.

In particular, he relates how he was ordered by prison medical staff to take beta-blockers for his blood-pressure. Due to the episodic nature of the adrenaline spikes causing the high blood-pressure, according to all of his doctors, the beta-blockers would likely kill him once the spikes dropped. In an interview by phone with journalist Pat McCartney over the weekend, Kubby reported that, for refusing the beta-blockers, he was coerced into signing a waiver absolving the prison of liability, and has since been refused all care, including even Tylenol for pain management.

Activists concerned with medical marijuana, human rights and prison reform will hold a rally at noon today in front of the Placer County Superior Courthouse, where Steve Kubby is scheduled to be arraigned on violation of probation charges.

Kubby was a co-author of California’s Compassionate Use Act of 1996, also known as Proposition 215. He fled to Canada in 2001 to escape the possibility of incarceration for an extended period without access to cannabis, a possibility which, in both his and expert medical opinion, would certainly prove fatal.

Retrieved from “https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Kubby,_co-author_of_California_Proposition_215,_grows_dangerously_ill_in_US_custody&oldid=2514265”

Felipe Massa wins 2008 Belgian Grand Prix, Hamilton first to cross the finish line

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Ferrari driver Felipe Massa won the FIA Formula One 2008 ING Belgian Grand Prix at Spa-Francorchamps Circuit, Spa, Belgium.

McLaren Mercedes driver Lewis Hamilton lead the race from pole for a few laps before he spun backwards and allowed Kimi Räikkönen‘s Ferrari to pass him. Kimi maintain the lead throughout the race until the rain fell onto the track on the final laps. The series of errors was finalized by Räikkönen, who spun off the track. This led Hamilton to a chequered flag, but then, after the race, he was penalized by 25 seconds for the incident with Räikkönen. Hamilton moved to third in the final standings.

McLaren filed a formal complaint with the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA) Court of Appeal on Tuesday.

“We hereby confirm we have lodged notice of appeal,” McLaren’s CEO Martin Whitmarsh, told the BBC.

Nick Heidfeld thus took second place for BMW Sauber ahead of Hamilton.

Fernando Alonso came in fourth for Renault while his teammate Nelson Piquet Jr. spun off into the wall on the fourteenth lap, ending his race.

Both Sebastians, Vettel and Bourdais, did well for Toro Rosso finishing fifth and seventh from the tenth and ninth places on the starting grid respectfully. They were split by Robert Kubica (BMW), who finished sixth.

Mark Webber closed out the top eight for Red Bull-Renault.

Ferrari now leads the Championship with 12 points ahead of McLaren. Still, Lewis Hamilton retains the lead for McLaren in the drivers standings with 76 points, 2 points ahead of Felipe Massa.

Retrieved from “https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Felipe_Massa_wins_2008_Belgian_Grand_Prix,_Hamilton_first_to_cross_the_finish_line&oldid=2478838”

Holding On With Lou Gehrig S Optimism: Making Life More Manageable For Als Patients

Holding on with Lou Gehrig s Optimism: Making Life More Manageable for ALS Patients

by

Cynthia Bennett

Lou Gehrig s spirit couldn t be doused even when dealing with a devastating disease like ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis). This debilitating and fatal disease hit Lou Gehrig after years of sterling performance and a string of record-breaking in the field of American baseball along the way sustaining several injuries and traumas to various parts of the body including the head and back. Sadly, Lou Gehrig s career ended with an abrupt decline in performance as the symptoms of ALS began manifesting as he clumsily fumbled with the baseball and slipped while running bases movements that have become second nature to him for so many years. The worsening of these symptoms was what prompted Lou Gehrig s wife Eleanor to seek medical attention to explain her husband s unexplained loss of strength and motor functioning. It was after a battery of tests that she learned about her husband s grim prognosis of the possibility of paralysis and consequently death within a period of three years.

YouTube Preview Image

ALS eventually became known as Lou Gehrig s disease. Even with his predicament, Gehrig remained steadfast and strong, sans any depression or pessimism, declaring during his retirement his intention to hold on as long as possible and to accept the inevitable when it comes, hoping for the best. Gehrig continued to live a productive life after retirement despite his worsening condition, even taking on the post of New York City Parole Commissioner only months after being diagnosed with ALS. As his motor neuron disease started claiming his body with paralysis setting in, his wife continued to assist him in performing whatever he needs to do until the time when it was entirely impossible for him to physically continue working. Soon after, Gehrig succumbed to the disease and passed away nearly two years after his ALS diagnosis.

Lou Gehrig s disease is difficult to deal with while normal motor functions deteriorate, mental functions remain the same, leaving the mind to be fully aware of what is happening right through the end. While others would think of this as a grueling ordeal, Gehrig remained optimistic through his ailment and used his mental faculties for as long as he could rather than to simply wallow in his physical disability. Life with ALS need not be as depressing nor should it be as short as Lou Gehrig s other patients with Lou Gehrig s disease are actually able to preserve their muscle function longer and some are able to outlive their life expectancy at diagnosis. While Lou Gehrig s physical condition might not be enough to sustain him, his mental functions were enough to let him enjoy the time he had left to live, maximizing whatever opportunities available to him both in his personal life and in his professional life.

One or two patients out of 100,000 people are diagnosed with Lou Gehrig s disease every year. Most of these people are prescribed with medication and recommended for physical and occupational therapies to manage the symptoms of ALS. These treatments have been found to help prolong the lives of people with ALS and delay the progression of the debilitating effects of the disease. ALS advocacy groups and organizations like the Often Awesome Army have cropped up over the years aiming to give the best possible care for people with ALS and to help further studies into the disease and its possible cures. In the absence of any real cure to prevent death in the years after an ALS diagnosis, what matters most is that the ALS patient is able to live his final years with the best quality possible to quote Lou Gehrig in his retirement speech I might have been given a bad break, but I ve got an awful lot to live for. For more information visit us www.army.oftenawesome.org

Cynthia Bennett works with ALS patients to help with as many of the difficulties of life with ALS as possible.

Article Source:

ArticleRich.com

British computer scientist’s new “nullity” idea provokes reaction from mathematicians

Monday, December 11, 2006

On December 7, BBC News reported a story about Dr James Anderson, a teacher in the Computer Science department at the University of Reading in the United Kingdom. In the report it was stated that Anderson had “solved a very important problem” that was 1200 years old, the problem of division by zero. According to the BBC, Anderson had created a new number, that he had named “nullity”, that lay outside of the real number line. Anderson terms this number a “transreal number”, and denotes it with the Greek letter ? {\displaystyle \Phi } . He had taught this number to pupils at Highdown School, in Emmer Green, Reading.

The BBC report provoked many reactions from mathematicians and others.

In reaction to the story, Mark C. Chu-Carroll, a computer scientist and researcher, posted a web log entry describing Anderson as an “idiot math teacher”, and describing the BBC’s story as “absolutely infuriating” and a story that “does an excellent job of demonstrating what total innumerate idiots reporters are”. Chu-Carroll stated that there was, in fact, no actual problem to be solved in the first place. “There is no number that meaningfully expresses the concept of what it means to divide by zero.”, he wrote, stating that all that Anderson had done was “assign a name to the concept of ‘not a number'”, something which was “not new” in that the IEEE floating-point standard, which describes how computers represent floating-point numbers, had included a concept of “not a number”, termed “NaN“, since 1985. Chu-Carroll further continued:

“Basically, he’s defined a non-solution to a non-problem. And by teaching it to his students, he’s doing them a great disservice. They’re going to leave his class believing that he’s a great genius who’s solved a supposed fundamental problem of math, and believing in this silly nullity thing as a valid mathematical concept.
“It’s not like there isn’t already enough stuff in basic math for kids to learn; there’s no excuse for taking advantage of a passive audience to shove this nonsense down their throats as an exercise in self-aggrandizement.
“To make matters worse, this idiot is a computer science professor! No one who’s studied CS should be able to get away with believing that re-inventing the concept of NaN is something noteworthy or profound; and no one who’s studied CS should think that defining meaningless values can somehow magically make invalid computations produce meaningful results. I’m ashamed for my field.”

There have been a wide range of other reactions from other people to the BBC news story. Comments range from the humorous and the ironic, such as the B1FF-style observation that “DIVIDION[sic] BY ZERO IS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE MY CALCULATOR SAYS SO AND IT IS THE TRUTH” and the Chuck Norris Fact that “Only Chuck Norris can divide by zero.” (to which another reader replied “Chuck Norris just looks at zero, and it divides itself.”); through vigourous defences of Dr Anderson, with several people quoting the lyrics to Ira Gershwin‘s song “They All Laughed (At Christopher Columbus)”; to detailed mathematical discussions of Anderson’s proposed axioms of transfinite numbers.

Several readers have commented that they consider this to have damaged the reputation of the Computer Science department, and even the reputation of the University of Reading as a whole. “By publishing his childish nonsense the BBC actively harms the reputation of Reading University.” wrote one reader. “Looking forward to seeing Reading University maths application plummit.” wrote another. “Ignore all research papers from the University of Reading.” wrote a third. “I’m not sure why you refer to Reading as a ‘university’. This is a place the BBC reports as closing down its physics department because it’s too hard. Lecturers at Reading should stick to folk dancing and knitting, leaving academic subjects to grown ups.” wrote a fourth. Steve Kramarsky lamented that Dr Anderson is not from the “University of ‘Rithmetic“.

Several readers criticised the journalists at the BBC who ran the story for not apparently contacting any mathematicians about Dr Anderson’s idea. “Journalists are meant to check facts, not just accept whatever they are told by a self-interested third party and publish it without question.” wrote one reader on the BBC’s web site. However, on Slashdot another reader countered “The report is from Berkshire local news. Berkshire! Do you really expect a local news team to have a maths specialist? Finding a newsworthy story in Berkshire probably isn’t that easy, so local journalists have to cover any piece of fluff that comes up. Your attitude to the journalist should be sympathy, not scorn.”

Ben Goldacre, author of the Bad Science column in The Guardian, wrote on his web log that “what is odd is a reporter, editor, producer, newsroom, team, cameraman, soundman, TV channel, web editor, web copy writer, and so on, all thinking it’s a good idea to cover a brilliant new scientific breakthrough whilst clearly knowing nothing about the context. Maths isn’t that hard, you could even make a call to a mathematician about it.”, continuing that “it’s all very well for the BBC to think they’re being balanced and clever getting Dr Anderson back in to answer queries about his theory on Tuesday, but that rather skips the issue, and shines the spotlight quite unfairly on him (he looks like a very alright bloke to me).”.

From reading comments on his own web log as well as elsewhere, Goldacre concluded that he thought that “a lot of people might feel it’s reporter Ben Moore, and the rest of his doubtless extensive team, the people who drove the story, who we’d want to see answering the questions from the mathematicians.”.

Andrej Bauer, a professional mathematician from Slovenia writing on the Bad Science web log, stated that “whoever reported on this failed to call a university professor to check whether it was really new. Any university professor would have told this reporter that there are many ways of dealing with division by zero, and that Mr. Anderson’s was just one of known ones.”

Ollie Williams, one of the BBC Radio Berkshire reporters who wrote the BBC story, initially stated that “It seems odd to me that his theory would get as far as television if it’s so easily blown out of the water by visitors to our site, so there must be something more to it.” and directly responded to criticisms of BBC journalism on several points on his web log.

He pointed out that people should remember that his target audience was local people in Berkshire with no mathematical knowledge, and that he was “not writing for a global audience of mathematicians”. “Some people have had a go at Dr Anderson for using simplified terminology too,” he continued, “but he knows we’re playing to a mainstream audience, and at the time we filmed him, he was showing his theory to a class of schoolchildren. Those circumstances were never going to breed an in-depth half-hour scientific discussion, and none of our regular readers would want that.”.

On the matter of fact checking, he replied that “if you only want us to report scientific news once it’s appeared, peer-reviewed, in a recognised journal, it’s going to be very dry, and it probably won’t be news.”, adding that “It’s not for the BBC to become a journal of mathematics — that’s the job of journals of mathematics. It’s for the BBC to provide lively science reporting that engages and involves people. And if you look at the original page, you’ll find a list as long as your arm of engaged and involved people.”.

Williams pointed out that “We did not present Dr Anderson’s theory as gospel, although with hindsight it could have been made clearer that this is very much a theory and by no means universally accepted. But we certainly weren’t shouting a mathematical revolution from the rooftops. Dr Anderson has, in one or two places, been chastised for coming to the media with his theory instead of his peers — a sure sign of a quack, boffin and/or crank according to one blogger. Actually, one of our reporters happened to meet him during a demonstration against the closure of the university’s physics department a couple of weeks ago, got chatting, and discovered Dr Anderson reckoned he was onto something. He certainly didn’t break the door down looking for media coverage.”.

Some commentators, at the BBC web page and at Slashdot, have attempted serious mathematical descriptions of what Anderson has done, and subjected it to analysis. One description was that Anderson has taken the field of real numbers and given it complete closure so that all six of the common arithmetic operators were surjective functions, resulting in “an object which is barely a commutative ring (with operators with tons of funky corner cases)” and no actual gain “in terms of new theorems or strong relation statements from the extra axioms he has to tack on”.

Jamie Sawyer, a mathematics undergraduate at the University of Warwick writing in the Warwick Maths Society discussion forum, describes what Anderson has done as deciding that R ? { ? ? , + ? } {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} \cup \lbrace -\infty ,+\infty \rbrace } , the so-called extended real number line, is “not good enough […] because of the wonderful issue of what 0 0 {\displaystyle {\frac {0}{0}}} is equal to” and therefore creating a number system R ? { ? ? , ? , + ? } {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} \cup \lbrace -\infty ,\Phi ,+\infty \rbrace } .

Andrej Bauer stated that Anderson’s axioms of transreal arithmetic “are far from being original. First, you can adjoin + ? {\displaystyle +\infty } and ? ? {\displaystyle -\infty } to obtain something called the extended real line. Then you can adjoin a bottom element to represent an undefined value. This is all standard and quite old. In fact, it is well known in domain theory, which deals with how to represent things we compute with, that adjoining just bottom to the reals is not a good idea. It is better to adjoin many so-called partial elements, which denote approximations to reals. Bottom is then just the trivial approximation which means something like ‘any real’ or ‘undefined real’.”

Commentators have pointed out that in the field of mathematical analysis, 0 0 {\displaystyle {\frac {0}{0}}} (which Anderson has defined axiomatically to be ? {\displaystyle \Phi } ) is the limit of several functions, each of which tends to a different value at its limit:

  • lim x ? 0 x 0 {\displaystyle \lim _{x\to 0}{\frac {x}{0}}} has two different limits, depending from whether x {\displaystyle x} approaches zero from a positive or from a negative direction.
  • lim x ? 0 0 x {\displaystyle \lim _{x\to 0}{\frac {0}{x}}} also has two different limits. (This is the argument that commentators gave. In fact, 0 x {\displaystyle {\frac {0}{x}}} has the value 0 {\displaystyle 0} for all x ? 0 {\displaystyle x\neq 0} , and thus only one limit. It is simply discontinuous for x = 0 {\displaystyle x=0} . However, that limit is different to the two limits for lim x ? 0 x 0 {\displaystyle \lim _{x\to 0}{\frac {x}{0}}} , supporting the commentators’ main point that the values of the various limits are all different.)
  • Whilst sin ? 0 = 0 {\displaystyle \sin 0=0} , the limit lim x ? 0 sin ? x x {\displaystyle \lim _{x\to 0}{\frac {\sin x}{x}}} can be shown to be 1, by expanding the sine function as an infinite Taylor series, dividing the series by x {\displaystyle x} , and then taking the limit of the result, which is 1.
  • Whilst 1 ? cos ? 0 = 0 {\displaystyle 1-\cos 0=0} , the limit lim x ? 0 1 ? cos ? x x {\displaystyle \lim _{x\to 0}{\frac {1-\cos x}{x}}} can be shown to be 0, by expanding the cosine function as an infinite Taylor series, dividing the series subtracted from 1 by x {\displaystyle x} , and then taking the limit of the result, which is 0.

Commentators have also noted l’Hôpital’s rule.

It has been pointed out that Anderson’s set of transreal numbers is not, unlike the set of real numbers, a mathematical field. Simon Tatham, author of PuTTY, stated that Anderson’s system “doesn’t even think about the field axioms: addition is no longer invertible, multiplication isn’t invertible on nullity or infinity (or zero, but that’s expected!). So if you’re working in the transreals or transrationals, you can’t do simple algebraic transformations such as cancelling x {\displaystyle x} and ? x {\displaystyle -x} when both occur in the same expression, because that transformation becomes invalid if x {\displaystyle x} is nullity or infinity. So even the simplest exercises of ordinary algebra spew off a constant stream of ‘unless x is nullity’ special cases which you have to deal with separately — in much the same way that the occasional division spews off an ‘unless x is zero’ special case, only much more often.”

Tatham stated that “It’s telling that this monstrosity has been dreamed up by a computer scientist: persistent error indicators and universal absorbing states can often be good computer science, but he’s stepped way outside his field of competence if he thinks that that also makes them good maths.”, continuing that Anderson has “also totally missed the point when he tries to compute things like 0 0 {\displaystyle 0^{0}} using his arithmetic. The reason why things like that are generally considered to be ill-defined is not because of a lack of facile ‘proofs’ showing them to have one value or another; it’s because of a surfeit of such ‘proofs’ all of which disagree! Adding another one does not (as he appears to believe) solve any problem at all.” (In other words: 0 0 {\displaystyle 0^{0}} is what is known in mathematical analysis as an indeterminate form.)

To many observers, it appears that Anderson has done nothing more than re-invent the idea of “NaN“, a special value that computers have been using in floating-point calculations to represent undefined results for over two decades. In the various international standards for computing, including the IEEE floating-point standard and IBM’s standard for decimal arithmetic, a division of any non-zero number by zero results in one of two special infinity values, “+Inf” or “-Inf”, the sign of the infinity determined by the signs of the two operands (Negative zero exists in floating-point representations.); and a division of zero by zero results in NaN.

Anderson himself denies that he has re-invented NaN, and in fact claims that there are problems with NaN that are not shared by nullity. According to Anderson, “mathematical arithmetic is sociologically invalid” and IEEE floating-point arithmetic, with NaN, is also faulty. In one of his papers on a “perspex machine” dealing with “The Axioms of Transreal Arithmetic” (Jamie Sawyer writes that he has “worries about something which appears to be named after a plastic” — “Perspex” being a trade name for polymethyl methacrylate in the U.K..) Anderson writes:

We cannot accept an arithmetic in which a number is not equal to itself (NaN != NaN), or in which there are three kinds of numbers: plain numbers, silent numbers, and signalling numbers; because, on writing such a number down, in daily discourse, we can not always distinguish which kind of number it is and, even if we adopt some notational convention to make the distinction clear, we cannot know how the signalling numbers are to be used in the absence of having the whole program and computer that computed them available. So whilst IEEE floating-point arithmetic is an improvement on real arithmetic, in so far as it is total, not partial, both arithmetics are invalid models of arithmetic.

In fact, the standard convention for distinguishing the two types of NaNs when writing them down can be seen in ISO/IEC 10967, another international standard for how computers deal with numbers, which uses “qNaN” for non-signalling (“quiet”) NaNs and “sNaN” for signalling NaNs. Anderson continues:

[NaN’s] semantics are not defined, except by a long list of special cases in the IEEE standard.

“In other words,” writes Scott Lamb, a BSc. in Computer Science from the University of Idaho, “they are defined, but he doesn’t like the definition.”.

The main difference between nullity and NaN, according to both Anderson and commentators, is that nullity compares equal to nullity, whereas NaN does not compare equal to NaN. Commentators have pointed out that in very short order this difference leads to contradictory results. They stated that it requires only a few lines of proof, for example, to demonstrate that in Anderson’s system of “transreal arithmetic” both 1 = 2 {\displaystyle 1=2} and 1 ? 2 {\displaystyle 1\neq 2} , after which, in one commentator’s words, one can “prove anything that you like”. In aiming to provide a complete system of arithmetic, by adding extra axioms defining the results of the division of zero by zero and of the consequent operations on that result, half as many again as the number of axioms of real-number arithmetic, Anderson has produced a self-contradictory system of arithmetic, in accordance with Gödel’s incompleteness theorems.

One reader-submitted comment appended to the BBC news article read “Step 1. Create solution 2. Create problem 3. PROFIT!”, an allusion to the business plan employed by the underpants gnomes of the comedy television series South Park. In fact, Anderson does plan to profit from nullity, having registered on the 27th of July, 2006 a private limited company named Transreal Computing Ltd, whose mission statement is “to develop hardware and software to bring you fast and safe computation that does not fail on division by zero” and to “promote education and training in transreal computing”. The company is currently “in the research and development phase prior to trading in hardware and software”.

In a presentation given to potential investors in his company at the ANGLE plc showcase on the 28th of November, 2006, held at the University of Reading, Anderson stated his aims for the company as being:

To investors, Anderson makes the following promises:

  • “I will help you develop a curriculum for transreal arithmetic if you want me to.”
  • “I will help you unify QED and gravitation if you want me to.”
  • “I will build a transreal supercomputer.”

He asks potential investors:

  • “How much would you pay to know that the engine in your ship, car, aeroplane, or heart pacemaker won’t just stop dead?”
  • “How much would you pay to know that your Government’s computer controlled military hardware won’t just stop or misfire?”

The current models of computer arithmetic are, in fact, already designed to allow programmers to write programs that will continue in the event of a division by zero. The IEEE’s Frequently Asked Questions document for the floating-point standard gives this reply to the question “Why doesn’t division by zero (or overflow, or underflow) stop the program or trigger an error?”:

“The [IEEE] 754 model encourages robust programs. It is intended not only for numerical analysts but also for spreadsheet users, database systems, or even coffee pots. The propagation rules for NaNs and infinities allow inconsequential exceptions to vanish. Similarly, gradual underflow maintains error properties over a precision’s range.
“When exceptional situations need attention, they can be examined immediately via traps or at a convenient time via status flags. Traps can be used to stop a program, but unrecoverable situations are extremely rare. Simply stopping a program is not an option for embedded systems or network agents. More often, traps log diagnostic information or substitute valid results.”

Simon Tatham stated that there is a basic problem with Anderson’s ideas, and thus with the idea of building a transreal supercomputer: “It’s a category error. The Anderson transrationals and transreals are theoretical algebraic structures, capable of representing arbitrarily big and arbitrarily precise numbers. So the question of their error-propagation semantics is totally meaningless: you don’t use them for down-and-dirty error-prone real computation, you use them for proving theorems. If you want to use this sort of thing in a computer, you have to think up some concrete representation of Anderson transfoos in bits and bytes, which will (if only by the limits of available memory) be unable to encompass the entire range of the structure. And the point at which you make this transition from theoretical abstract algebra to concrete bits and bytes is precisely where you should also be putting in error handling, because it’s where errors start to become possible. We define our theoretical algebraic structures to obey lots of axioms (like the field axioms, and total ordering) which make it possible to reason about them efficiently in the proving of theorems. We define our practical number representations in a computer to make it easy to detect errors. The Anderson transfoos are a consequence of fundamentally confusing the one with the other, and that by itself ought to be sufficient reason to hurl them aside with great force.”

Geomerics, a start-up company specializing in simulation software for physics and lighting and funded by ANGLE plc, had been asked to look into Anderson’s work by an unnamed client. Rich Wareham, a Senior Research and Development Engineer at Geomerics and a MEng. from the University of Cambridge, stated that Anderson’s system “might be a more interesting set of axioms for dealing with arithmetic exceptions but it isn’t the first attempt at just defining away the problem. Indeed it doesn’t fundamentally change anything. The reason computer programs crash when they divide by zero is not that the hardware can produce no result, merely that the programmer has not dealt with NaNs as they propagate through. Not dealing with nullities will similarly lead to program crashes.”

“Do the Anderson transrational semantics give any advantage over the IEEE ones?”, Wareham asked, answering “Well one assumes they have been thought out to be useful in themselves rather than to just propagate errors but I’m not sure that seeing a nullity pop out of your code would lead you to do anything other than what would happen if a NaN or Inf popped out, namely signal an error.”.

Retrieved from “https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=British_computer_scientist%27s_new_%22nullity%22_idea_provokes_reaction_from_mathematicians&oldid=1985381”

Dr. Joseph Merlino on sexuality, insanity, Freud, fetishes and apathy

Friday, October 5, 2007

You may not know Joseph Merlino, but he knows about you and what makes you function. He knows what turns you on and he knows whether it is a problem for you. Merlino, who is the psychiatry adviser to the New York Daily News, is one of the more accomplished psychiatrists in his field and he is the Senior Editor of the forthcoming book, Freud at 150: 21st Century Essays on a Man of Genius. The battle over interpreting Freud’s legacy still rages, a testament to the father of psychoanalysis and his continuing impact today.

On the eve of the book’s publication, Wikinews reporter David Shankbone went to the Upper East Side of Manhattan to discuss the past and future of Freud and psychoanalysis with Dr. Merlino, one of the preeminent modern psychoanalysts. Shankbone took the opportunity to ask about what insanity is, discuss aberrant urges, reflect upon sadomasochism (“I’m not considered an expert in that field,” laughed Dr. Merlino), and the hegemony of heterosexuality.

Dr. Merlino posits that absent structural, biochemical or physiological defects, insanity and pathology are relative and in flux with the changing culture of which you are a part. So it is possible to be sane and insane all in one day if, for instance, you are gay and fly from the United Kingdom to Saudi Arabia.

Retrieved from “https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Joseph_Merlino_on_sexuality,_insanity,_Freud,_fetishes_and_apathy&oldid=2004061”

500 201 Best Certification To Acquire Deploying Cisco Service Provider Mobile Backhaul Solutions}

Submitted by: Toby Henry

Technology has become an essential part of our life. Be it a corporate sector or working on the house, we all need technology. IT certifications are important tools that help you get involved with technology more easily and to make IT as your career. IT certifications are considered as milestone to link you with technology. Getting an IT certification isnt an easy job, but once you have cleared your exam and have got a certification then you can easily land with a good job in the field of IT.

Why Choose Cisco Certification?

When it comes to acquiring professional IT certification and working in a reputable organization, Cisco certifications are considered as the number one choice of IT professionals. These certifications are especially designed for professional so that they can acquire full knowledge of IT and can apply to various aspects of technology. Choosing Cisco certification will help you to get hold of various aspects and different categories and tools of IT. The 500-201, Deploying Cisco Service Provider Mobile Backhaul Solutions exam will help you to become a professional and to understand the dynamics of IT field.

YouTube Preview Image

About the exam

The 500-201, Deploying Cisco Service Provider Mobile Backhaul Solutions exam is one of the highly recognized exams especially designed for the professional. Employees who take this exam and cleared it are recognized and have higher chances of growth too. The exam is very comprehensive and covers different areas like networking, dealing with various applications, providing solution to clients and various other tools that will provide you greater insights about various techniques and tools. The exam questions are multiple choice questions and one can easily score well if he has prepared previously.

The exam question tests candidates analytical, technical skills require them to bring new innovative solutions for the clients as well. The exam test has limited time in which candidates have to complete the test in order to clear the exam.

Get Yourself Trained

It is highly recommended for the individuals and professionals to get training for the 500-201, Deploying Cisco Service Provider Mobile Backhaul Solutions exam. Since the exam test evaluates candidates on several grounds, so its best option that you prepare yourself before taking the exam. Training can be taken at the local IT institutions that offer the preparation for your particular course or else you can take online preparation classes and study, material to practice for the exam. Make sure when you go to local IT institutions for training; choose the ones that are credible are reputable too, so that you can have the proper study guide and preparation material. Once you get yourself prepare it is easier for you to understand the exam concepts.

Technology has become an essential part of our life. Be it a corporate sector or working on the house, we all need technology. IT certifications are important tools that help you get involved with technology more easily and to make IT as your career. IT certifications are considered as milestone to link you with technology. Getting an IT certification isnt an easy job, but once you have cleared your exam and have got a certification then you can easily land with a good job in the field of IT.

About the Author: CertifyGuide offer every possible and workable solutions and related study materials for

certifyguide.com/exam/500-201/

Sample Questions and

certifyguide.com/exam/500-202/

Practice Exam.

Source:

isnare.com

Permanent Link:

isnare.com/?aid=1915670&ca=Education}

Colorado College Tigers win 41st annual Great Lakes Invitational tournament

Friday, December 30, 2005

The Colorado College Tigers beat the Spartans of Michigan State University in men’s ice hockey on Friday, for the title of champions of the 41st annual Great Lakes Invitational ice hockey tournament at Joe Louis Arena in Detroit.

The Tigers, the team chosen to be invited into the tournament and appearing for the first time since 1965 in the tournament, led with a 5-0 lead during the second period, after which Michigan State switched goalies. The Spartans put freshmen Jeff Lerg into net, replacing Dominic Vicari, who was earlier given a penalty for his contact with a member of Colorado’s team in front of the net. Michigan State junior Tyler Howells scored two goals during the second period, and Colorado student Brett Sterling made the Tiger’s final goal for the night.

Colorado College took first place in the invitational, and Michigan State ended in second place, after their previous win over Michigan Tech at a score of 3-2. The Tigers previously beat the University of Michigan on Thursday, at a score of 6-1.

Meanwhile, the University of Michigan beat GLI co-sponsor Michigan Tech University with a score of 5-3 for a third place finish in the invitational earlier in the day.

With 2 minutes remaining in the third period, the University of Michigan went one up over Michigan Tech, breaking the 3-3 tie. Michigan Tech pulled their goalie with one minute remaining to gain a man advantage, but the strategy failed and allowed the University of Michigan to get another goal resulting in the final 5-3 score.

The game secured the third place position in the invitational for University of Michigan, and fourth place for Michigan Tech.

This article features first-hand journalism by Wikinews members. See the collaboration page for more details.
This article features first-hand journalism by Wikinews members. See the collaboration page for more details.

The final standings in the tournament are:

  1. Colorado College
  2. Michigan State University
  3. University of Michigan
  4. Michigan Tech
Retrieved from “https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Colorado_College_Tigers_win_41st_annual_Great_Lakes_Invitational_tournament&oldid=4576126”

Disney buys Pixar

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

The Walt Disney Company has finalized a US$7.4 billion deal to acquire its long-time partner Pixar in an all stock buy-out. The deal will make Steve Jobs, current Pixar and Apple CEO, Disney’s largest shareholder with about 7% (valued at over $3.5 billion) and a member of the board of directors.

The merger was speculated all day Tuesday on the stock market and the announcement came just after trading closed for the day. Terms of the merger include Pixar’s John Lasseter becoming Disney’s new chief creative officer in charge of animation at the combined Disney-Pixar Animation Studios, as well as principal creative advisor at Walt Disney Imagineering, the unit of the company responsible for research and development of Disney theme parks worldwide.

Jobs purchased what became Pixar for $10 million in 1986 from George Lucas’s computer animation division at Lucasfilm. Toy Story, its first feature film, came a decade later, and began a long string of animation hits, including Finding Nemo. Such successes proved to be increasingly elusive for Disney to manage on its own. The partnership between the two studios had become shaky in recent years, as former Disney head Michael Eisner clashed with Jobs over the renewal terms of their agreement. In 2003, prior to his dismissal from Disney, Eisner infuriated Pixar’s creative team by predicting Finding Nemo would be a failure. Steve Jobs broke off negotiations in January 2004, having told one executive previously, “I don’t see how the relationship can continue as long as Eisner is there.”

Retrieved from “https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Disney_buys_Pixar&oldid=4500846”