For a real gas it depends on more than the temperature STUDENT: Are there any other constraints similar to that .
而对实际气体,这是不对的,它的内能不仅仅依赖于温度,学生:有其他,类似的约束吗?
But it's not quite true, because typically what they actually do that, is they say it's adjusted for risk.
但是这是不对的,因为它们实际上就是存在这种情况,它们会根据风险进行调整。
I don't want somebody opening up a clamshell with some hot food in it. It's not right. It's not right.
我不希望任何人打开一罐蛤壳,里面装着热的食物,这不对。
Now,it's very tempting at this point to say,look,of course Nothing could be easier ? Just imagine being in heaven forever,right?
现在我很想说,当然了,这没什么难的,只要想象永远在天堂就行了对不对?
.. What the Norwegian Government is doing wrong is-- it's a little bit controversial, my pointing this out to them.
挪威政府做的不对的地方就在于-,这引起了一些争议,我把他们的处境告诉了他们。
He says it's a good idea for people to save for their retirement during their earning years but it's wrong.
他说,让人们在能挣钱的年头为退休而攒钱,社保的初衷是好的,但这样做不对。
Yes. I'm glad you actually asked me about that because, as I said it, I realized it wasn't quite right.
很好,非常高兴你能问我这个问题,因为我之前说过这话,但我认识到这话是不对的
So it's this interesting scenario where it's probably hit or miss, certainly early on and as one of the clips they are indicated, these are the kinds of things where computers ideally have to learn overtime.
因此,这是一个有意思的事情,因为它有可能是投其所好或者不对其胃口,当然继续,正如其中一个短片所示,这些东西需要计算机,花一些时间去学习。
As Gadamer says, this is the characteristic idea of the Enlightenment: its prejudice against prejudice, that we can be objective, Okay, fine. But prejudice is bad, we know prejudice is bad.
如伽达默尔所说,这是启蒙运动时期的标志性观点:,对偏见有偏见,我们应该客观,好,但是偏见是不对的,我们知道偏见是不对的。
No, the discussion sections are Tuesday afternoon from 1:00-2:00, and Tuesday night from 8:00-10:00, and the website has got all the details on when and where. Yes?
不对,讨论的时间是在每周二的下午,一点到两点,和周二晚上,八点到十点,网上有时间地点的详细信息,你说
It has the potential under peace time conditons to be what former Minister of the Interior, of the Economy, excuese me, said that a self-supporting dignifies poor country.
在和平的环境下,还是有潜力,成为前内务大臣,不对,是经济部长,所说的,自给自足能让一个穷国家有尊严。
Well, what Thersites had done that was wrong, of course the poet and Odysseus didn't like his policy suggestion, but he had no right to speak at all.
诚然,书中认为忒尔西忒斯的做法是不对的,显然诗人和奥德修斯不喜欢他的政策建议,但他却根本连发言的权利都没有
Okay. So here's a waltz by Richard Strauss not to be confused-- no, excuse me, by Johann Strauss not to be confused with Richard Strauss whom we heard last time.
这是理查·施特劳斯的一首圆舞曲,别搞错了,不对,不好意思,是约翰·斯特劳斯,别和理查·斯特劳斯的搞混了,我们上次听过他的作品
Now there's something very wrong about this diagram, in that it's showing these functions as sort of centralized in the core, and of course that's not how your body is organized.
这张图上有些东西是不对的,图上显示这些功能都围绕着一个核心,当然,这绝不是人体的组织形式
Focusing on one nutrient is a losing proposition, according to some people, but there are others who say that, nope some nutrients prevail over others and are highly important compared to other things that you might be concerned with.
对一些人而言,只关注一种营养的多寡,就像是一宗亏本买卖,是一叶障目的,但还有其他人说,不对,某些营养比其他营养更关键,而且相比其他,营养更应成为需重点考虑的部分
Now formally I could have had this pointing off to another object containing 4, but that just seemed excessive, right?
当然我可以正式的把它指向,另外一个含有4的对象,但这有点多余对不对?
If it were just a little bit different I could say, all right, I have a different approximation. But when it's this different, something is wrong. Right?
但是如果仅仅有点差异的话,我可以认为没什么大问题,我得到了一个不太一样的估算,但这确实有差异,出问题了对不对?
So the first thing we'll do is, we'll print the element, in this case it will be a list right? Because it's a list with two lists in it.
因此这儿我们要做的第一件事,就是要显示元素,在这儿元素就是数组了对不对?,因为这个数组包含了两个数组。
OK. Now, having said that, and I've actually got a subtlety I'm going to come back to in a second, there ought to be a better way to do this. OK?
我们已经明白了一些,一会儿要讲的微妙之处,应该有更好的方法对不对?,应该有更好的思路的?
Now, part of the appeal of not making any qualitative distinctions about the worth of people's preferences, part of the appeal is that it is nonjudgmental and egalitarian.
不对人们选择的价值,进行定性区分,其魅力就在于,它是无偏见的,平等主义的。
But for any procedural things, like, you know, this problem set was not graded properly, and so on, there's no point e-mailing me because I'm going to send it to Mara anyway.
但是任何程序上的问题,比如,这次的作业判得不对 等等,这些情况给我发邮件是没有用的,因为我还是会直接转发给玛拉
Where you've got a couple of wishes and you aren't careful about how exactly you state the wish And so you get what you want ? but it ends up being a nightmare,right?
给你几个可以实现的愿望,但是不小心没说对愿望,你得到了自己想要的,却发现那是个噩梦对不对?
Well, if that's right, then should we say that the pervasiveness of death, ubiquitousness of death-- the thing that I was earlier suggesting was oppressive-- wouldn't it really be nice to have a death-free time or a death-free location or death-free activities?
如果是这样的话,那我们是不是应该说死亡的普遍性,死亡的无处不在性-,这些我之前所说的特征是不对的-,如果有死亡免疫时间或者死亡免疫地点,或者死亡免疫活动岂不是很好吗?
I'm gonna keep as part of each stock, it's history of prices, which we can initialize, well, I've initialized it as empty, but that's probably the wrong thing, right?
我会把股票的历史价格,作为每只股票的一部分,我们可以先对它的历史价格进行赋值,好了,我先给它赋了空值,但是这样做可能不对,是吗?
On the other hand, if the value I'm looking for here- sorry, the value I'm looking for is smaller than the value I see here, I just need to look here. All right?
如果我的目标数比这个值要小呢?,我就在这边找就对了,对不对?,做完了这一步,我可以在下一步做相同的操作,假设我选中了这一分支?
The last thing I want to point out to you is, I started out with this list. I haven't added anything to the list, right? I mean I've got a different kind of looping mechanism.
我们从这个列表开始,我没往这个列表上加任何东西对不对?,我的意思是我学会了一种不同种类的,循环机制,我想我得说。
And the problem is, that we want to build this abstract data type, but we'd like to basically know what kind of object is it, and what functions actually belong to it, how do we use them?
然后我对它们运行了这个方法,就是这一小段代码这个方法,这有意义么?,当然没有了,对不对?,因为你知道,当你把两个极坐标,表示的点进行相加运算的时候?
So what would I want to do? I'd like to somehow walk down each of the digits one at a time and add them up. Ah, that's a looping mechanism, right? I need to have some way of walking through them.
去取这个数的,每个数字然后把他们加起来,啊,这是个循环机制对不对?,我得找到一个遍历它们的方法,一种简单的方法可能。
So if we look at what we've got here, we've got something rather peculiar, right? What's peculiar about what this computer is now printing for us?
那么如果我们看看,现在我们得到的,结果的话,结果相当奇怪,对不对?计算机现在显示的结果?
Let's search to see though now if a million is in this list, or 10 million, whichever way I did this it must be a million, right?
不管我选哪个,数都挺大的对不对?,用嘴基本的方法,噢,花的时间有点长,好,而用二分法呢?
应用推荐